# How can we help people who irrationally reject the theory of evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 27, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804 "2012-01-27T01:59:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/61 "2012-01-28T16:55:51Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > While the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is very blurred and fluid, there is a difference. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, there isn’t. Those aren’t scientific terms, they are religious ones. **Darwin’s Finch** has corrected this assertion many times. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12454246](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12454246) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9446482](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9446482) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5803899](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5803899) ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/62 "2012-01-28T17:06:39Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > That sentence simply does not say what you think it says. It says that people who misuse antibiotics seldom or never do so because they reject the theory of evolution. If you see something else in it, you put it there. People who reject the theory of evolution are generally dumbasses. People who misuse antibiotics are generally dumbasses. I’m sure many dumbasses belong to both groups–but there’s probably no cause & effect relationship between those beliefs. In fact, the concept of “cause & effect” is also beyond the ken of most dumbasses… [From Texas](http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_science_evolution), where Evolution _is_ on the public school curriculum. Not Creationism or Intelligent Design–no matter what Governor Idiot said. To me, the Shovel/Head treatment for teachers flouting the curriculum seems fitting. But ensuring there are enough PE sections that the coaches can be relieved from teaching other subjects sounds more humane. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/63 "2012-02-05T23:29:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Biologists are virtually never creationists; but that doesn’t mean the people who make funding decisions aren’t. And creationism (and religion in general) distorts medicine and so forth both by funding decisions, and by fear; people are afraid of a backlash from the believers, so they avoid speaking of evolution or anything else that offends the believers. I think you are going too far with religion. It seems to me that you are using creationism as a tool to attack religion in general by inserting the phrase “(and religion in general)” in your statement. I think you are forgetting that there are many religions out there, and not all religions are concerned with the origins of life. Furthermore, in the 21st century, creationism in the form of Intelligent Design is supported by certain individuals who reject the theory of evolution and start to look forward to some alternate explanation for the origin of the universe or the origin of mankind, to be specific. It is hard to define exactly who these individuals are. One can not simply say “religious fanatics” or “Fundamentalist Christians”. People who reject the theory of evolution, as the article in the first post states, are the students themselves. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > **Darwin’s Finch** has corrected this assertion many times. > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12454246](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12454246) > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9446482](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9446482) > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5803899](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5803899) Ha-ha. I was right all along. 😛 > [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > People who reject the theory of evolution are generally dumbasses. People who misuse antibiotics are generally dumbasses. I’m sure many dumbasses belong to both groups–but there’s probably no cause & effect relationship between those beliefs. In fact, the concept of “cause & effect” is also beyond the ken of most dumbasses… > > [From Texas](http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_science_evolution), where Evolution _is_ on the public school curriculum. Not Creationism or Intelligent Design–no matter what Governor Idiot said. > > To me, the Shovel/Head treatment for teachers flouting the curriculum seems fitting. But ensuring there are enough PE sections that the coaches can be relieved from teaching other subjects sounds more humane. No, people who reject the theory of evolution are not dumbasses. They just do not understand the material intuitively. They know the facts. They see the facts. They just don’t accept the facts, because the facts just don’t “feel” right. To give an example, a math professor can demonstrate an example that involves the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A student may see the fact and see through the logic, but won’t accept it as true until he does it himself or know _qualitatively_ how the function is supposed to work and the function’s relationships of the variables. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/64 "2012-02-05T23:47:17Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Ha-ha. I was right all along. 😛 Since this was your statement… > [@](#): > > Microevolution is about the change of alleles in a population over time leads to the change in a characteristic of the population over time. Descent with modification. Macroevolution is about extrapolating this idea to greater lengths of time. …no, you weren’t. Ha-ha. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/65 "2012-02-06T00:08:11Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Since this was your statement… > > …no, you weren’t. Ha-ha. :rolleyes: Same idea, though. Ha-ha. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/66 "2012-02-06T01:09:15Z")
^ No, it’s just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/67 "2012-02-06T23:51:11Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > ^ No, it’s just wrong. Just so you know, I also said this (check the above posts _on this page_, if you don’t believe me): [QUOTE=SDMBKL] The overuse of antibiotics in healthcare and pesticides in the environment may require some knowledge and intuition on Chemistry and Biology. Both cases involve resistant organisms due to artifactual selection, and humans must be informed about them. Artifactual selection is a part of evolution, which is the bigger picture. Evolution is a very big topic. It covers gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, artificial selection (human selection), artifactual selection, and sexual selection. Evolution can be branched into two topics, microevolution and macroevolution. The terms are scientific terms, not religious terms, but some people misuse those terms in the phrase, “I believe in microevolution but reject macroevolution,” even though there is no definite line between the two terms. One is only the extension of another. [/QUOTE] I think you should be more specific when you say “wrong”. I have taken introductory Biology courses at Uni before, plus doing some reading on Wikipedia on those two subjects; I know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution just fine. What I mean is, macroevolution and microevolution are all part of evolution. Accepting one but not another is a fallacy, because they both help describe evolution. Don’t take my words literally. When I said macroevolution as the “extension of this concept”, I mean to say that macroevolution describes the changes of a population over greater periods of time, sometimes branching into a new species. Some people define macroevolution as changes above the species, while microevolution as changes at the species level. Clearly, the words of macroevolution and microevolution can be used loosely, and people are not as nit-picky as you are when it comes to describing evolution. They are both evolution. If you want to say that I am completely “wrong”, then please be specific on where you perceive that I was “wrong”; otherwise, I will assume that you mean to say that I am in no way correct about this issue, and I know nothing about Biology. As far as I can tell, it seems that you imply this. In Chemistry, I once had a professor who didn’t know an arcane IUPAC rule on chemical nomenclature. Does that mean we should discredit that professor entirely? Of course not! It just means that we wouldn’t be tested on it. 😃 My point is, I do understand there is a time and place when specific distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is needed, but in a general description about those two terms, just call them ‘evolution’ or define it simplest way possible. \* \*Note: The simplest way is not always the best way. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/68 "2012-02-07T02:29:34Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > I think you should be more specific when you say “wrong”. > [@](#): > > Microevolution is about the change of alleles in a population over time leads to the change in a characteristic of the population over time. No, that’s just evolution. > [@](#): > > Macroevolution is about extrapolating this idea to greater lengths of time. Macroevolution isn’t about “extrapolating” an “idea” and it’s still just evolution since we don’t know if macroevolution has taken place regardless if any amount of time has been lengthened. Of course as you are probably aware, I wouldn’t have bothered bringing this up if you hadn’t mocked someone else for being wrong when you yourself got it wrong. > [@](#): > > In Chemistry, I once had a professor who didn’t know an arcane IUPAC rule on chemical nomenclature. Does that mean we should discredit that professor entirely? Not seeing your point. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/69 "2012-02-07T03:00:03Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > No, that’s just evolution. > Macroevolution isn’t about “extrapolating” an “idea” and it’s still just evolution since we don’t know if macroevolution has taken place regardless if any amount of time has been lengthened. > > Of course as you are probably aware, I wouldn’t have bothered bringing this up if you hadn’t mocked someone else for being wrong when you yourself got it wrong. > Not seeing your point. Technically speaking, a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection. Natural selection is a part of evolution. So, you’ve got “wrong” too. However, I would use the term “incorrect”, to be specific. I do not think “wrong” is the right terminology. “Inaccurate” or “imprecise” would be better terminology. “Wrong” can have many connotations, including the possibility of one being morally or ethically wrong. This is not an ethical or moral debate, so I refrain using the term, “wrong”. I may have made a mistake of describing macroevolution and microevolution inaccurately or imprecisely, but that does NOT mean I do not understand the concepts. I will tell you the reason why I mocked Der Trihs. The reason why I mocked Der Trihs was that I resented his or her annoying anti-religion sentiments. So, I mocked him or her to show him or her a lesson or two. Now, you come along and actually help me, because the sources that you provide actually say explicitly that Der Trihs’ statement that microevolution and macroevolution is irreligious is incorrect. OK, maybe I shouldn’t have made up my own incorrect definitions of microevolution and macroevolution, and I admit that. However, I think Der Trihs’ claim that microevolution and macroevolution and their relationship to religion stems from the his or her very consistent anti-religion sentiments, and I think that those anti-religion sentiments are disturbing, unsupported, and irrational. I am very wary of hatred as a form of rational behavior, no matter what the object of hatred is. Ethically speaking, I may have been wrong, since perhaps, I should respect Der Trihs’ anti-religion sentiments, no matter how irrational they can be. Giving people respect and kindness is considered good ethical behavior. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/70 "2012-02-07T03:08:15Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Technically speaking, a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection. So, you’ve got “wrong” too. Wrong. That’s evolution. It doesn’t have to occur via natural selection. Genetic drift is one among other ways it can occur. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/71 "2012-02-07T03:11:23Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Wrong. That’s evolution. It doesn’t have to occur via natural selection. Genetic drift is one among other ways it can occur. Wrong. You have forgotten gene flow. Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are the mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/72 "2012-02-07T03:33:36Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > Wrong. You have forgotten gene flow. I wasn’t wrong and I didn’t forget anything. I said genetic drift is one “among other ways.” > [@](#): > > Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are the mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time. I’m not following you. We just had the following conversation: > [@SDMBKL](#): > > Technically speaking, a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection. So, you’ve got “wrong” too. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Wrong. That’s evolution. It doesn’t have to occur via natural selection. Genetic drift is one among other ways it can occur. > [@SDMBKL](#): > > Wrong. You have forgotten gene flow. > > Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are the mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time. You say that I was wrong, and that a a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection, not evolution. When I state that that’s wrong, it is evolution and not natural selection, you state I’m wrong, yet then go on to say I forgot something just because I didn’t include everything. How can you say I forgot gene flow when you just got done saying that “a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection and I was wrong to sat it was evolution?” BTW, there are other mechanisms also. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/73 "2012-02-07T03:49:12Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I wasn’t wrong and I didn’t forget anything. I said genetic drift is one “among other ways.” > > I’m not following you. We just had the following conversation: > > You say that I was wrong, and that a a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection, not evolution. When I state that that’s wrong, it is evolution and not natural selection, you state I’m wrong, yet then go on to say I forgot something just because I didn’t include everything. > > How can you say I forgot gene flow when you just got done saying that “a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection and I was wrong to sat it was evolution?” > > BTW, there are other mechanisms also. All right. Just tell me one thing. Is the following article published by Nature accurate in terms of its conception that natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift are the mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time? In your opinion, should it be corrected to reflect “other” mechanisms that cause changes in allele frequencies over time, and what exactly are those “other” mechanisms in your words? If there are truly “other” mechanisms besides genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection, then should the Nature article be discredited as false in your opinion or “wrong” in your words? [http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/natural-selection-genetic-drift-and-gene-flow-15186648](http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/natural-selection-genetic-drift-and-gene-flow-15186648) ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/74 "2012-02-07T03:53:34Z")
> [@SDMBKL](#): > > All right. Just tell me one thing. All right? I asked you a question in my last post. Care to answer it? ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/75 "2012-02-07T03:59:06Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > All right? I asked you a question in my last post. Care to answer it? The answer is that we are all imprecise, and we should acknowledge our own imprecisions. Imprecisions in facts do not necessarily give one the right to irrationally and negatively target religion, as someone like Der Trihs so willfully does. Someone like Der Trihs should quit attacking religions by using creationism and religious fanaticism as reasons for one’s own agenda and sentiments. Now, you answer mine. ---
**Author:** ![keeganst94](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@keeganst94](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/keeganst94)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/76 "2012-02-07T04:06:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by SDMBKL > Technically speaking, a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection. No, no it wouldn’t. Evolution is > [@](#): > > [a] change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. : a change in the frequency of alleles over generations is therefore evolution. This evolution has occurred through natural selection. In other words, natural selection is the process, but evolution is the result. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/77 "2012-02-07T04:09:36Z")
^ You didn’t answer my question and this has nothing to do with **Der Trihs**. In case you didn’t notice, I didn’t bother entertaining your comments about **Der Trihs** in post #69 as IMHO isn’t the place for this. I’m getting the feeling you know I wasn’t wrong when I corrected your assertion that “a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection” and not evolution and that this has become more about your ego. That, and the fact that you’re answering a question without answering signals to me that I should be done here. Have a good one. ---
**Author:** ![SDMBKL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdmbkl/32/7297_2.png) [@SDMBKL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SDMBKL)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804/78 "2012-02-08T00:42:03Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > ^ You didn’t answer my question and this has nothing to do with **Der Trihs**. In case you didn’t notice, I didn’t bother entertaining your comments about **Der Trihs** in post #69 as IMHO isn’t the place for this. I’m getting the feeling you know I wasn’t wrong when I corrected your assertion that “a change in the frequency of alleles would be considered natural selection” and not evolution and that this has become more about your ego. That, and the fact that you’re answering a question without answering signals to me that I should be done here. Have a good one. I think you are concerned with your ego as well. Have a good one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-help-people-who-irrationally-reject-the-theory-of-evolution/610804.md?page=3)