I wouldn’t feel any need to correct your cousin’s beliefs or even to “believe in” evolution myself. I do accept that evolution is how we got here but to say I “believe in” it the way I might believe in God seems distorted. Also I’m not sure what the difference is between Intelligent Design and claiming that God set everything up so it would run itself.
Intelligent Design doesn’t require the designer to be God. Like maybe just a consultant that God outsourced the work to.
But intelligent design evolved from creationism, as we know through the discovery of the most famous transitional form of them all, Cdesign Proponentsists.
Examination of various draft versions of [the pseudoscientific “textbook”] Of Pandas and People from 1987 showed that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard , all references to “creationism” were replaced with alternate terms… Examination of various draft versions of Of Pandas and People from 1987 showed that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard , all references to “creationism” were replaced with alternate terms… In one particular draft dated to after the Edwards decision, an editor had apparently copied and pasted “design proponents” over the word “creationists”. However in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, “cdesign proponentsists”…This typo has been mocked by some as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design, notably ironic considering creationists don’t accept transitional forms.
Of course, intelligent design requires intelligent design, which biologists can assure you doesn’t apply. Stephen Jay Gould taught us this in “Hens’ Teeth and Horses’ Toes.”
wiki- However according to the Pew Research Center, 62 percent of adults in the United States accept human evolution while 34 percent of adults believe that humans have always existed in their present form. The poll involved over 35,000 adults in the United States. However acceptance of evolution varies per state.
Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time , according to data from a new Pew Research Center study. This includes one-third of all Americans (33%) who say that humans evolved due to processes like natural selection with no involvement by God or a higher power, along with 48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans have always existed in their present form. (See the full report for a deeper look at the ways question wording and format can affect survey results on evolution.)
Interesting – that’s three different figures. Has the situation actually been improving since 2005? Or did they ask the questions differently? (I’m too tired right now to go read all the links. Will try to do that eventually.)
Both, mostly improving but note the 81% includes 48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. Now, that is sorta the Catholic view, where God either directs human evolution or set it in motion.
As long as people will accept facts, it’s fine with me if they believe there’s a god allowing the facts.
(Not, of course, that they care whether it’s fine with me or not.)
But it’s really interesting that it’s improving. Maybe things are going better than we think.
The thread title puts me in mind of a country song.
My cousin dont beleive in evolution
He knows that God created us instead
So if you think that humans came from nothing
You’re Satanic, ignorant or Red
This thread title perpetuates one of the most important misunderstandings at the core of evolution denialism: the phrase “believe in” has absolutely no place in discussion of evolution. The only meaningful way to talk about it is to use the word understand in place of the phrase believe in. The same goes for other forms of scientific denialism like vaccinations and climate change.
Unfortunately, politics is the art of the possible, and there is a significant part of our society that, in fact, does not “believe in” various things that are true. You’re right in the sense of biological science, but you’re not right in the sense of sociological science.
True, but possibly begging the question, since the kind of person who “doesn’t believe in evolution” probably doesn’t believe the perspective you’re advocating here.
Ursula K. LeGuin wrote a good essay on this: “Belief In Belief.”
This seems a little like forfeiting the argument before it even starts. The word believe has literally zero relevance in any discussion of evolution. If you allow it based on sociological considerations, you’re not having a valid debate.
It’s like when someone uses religion to say they “disagree” with homosexuality, and we’re told that we should be tolerant of, even respect, those beliefs.
No we shouldn’t. We should point out that religion–or sociology–is not relevant to such a discussion. It may be relevant to a different discussion, but not to this one.
Sure it does. Look evolution itself is a fact, true, so “believe” has no place there. But what is the mechanism of Evolution? Several theories there, and there appears to be more than one mechanism. You could “believe” in pure Darwinism or several other competing theories. Is evolution slow or can it happen in jumps?
The way I always put this, usually in response to someone who says they “disagree with” homosexuality, is “You don’t GET to disagree. That’s like saying you disagree with North. Or sand.”
But yes I’ve posited the same idea: religious people assume science is based on faith because that’s the only system they know as a model for understanding. This is also why, in my experience, they’re so difficult to talk to about it: they look only at conclusions, are uninterested in, even unaware of, the existence of the process that produced the conclusion.
Sorry I thought I was clear about which one I was talking about.
Oh yeah. My favorite proof of un-intelligent design is: cecotropes.
Rabbits, guinea pigs, and a few other species produce cecotropes. It’s a semi-digested lump that they poop out, which they must then re-consume in order to get the nutrition they need from their food. What intelligent designer would come up with a system like that?
You know that. I know that. But the creationist who disagrees with North and with sand doesn’t know that. There are millions of very real people who do not believe in evolution. You cannot “define them away,” any more than they can “define” away evolution by a puerile appeal to the laws of thermodynamics.
Yes, in a free country, they do “get to disagree.” And, worse, they vote for school boards on this basis.
No. It’s a fundamental failure of comprehension, reinforced by thinking such as you describe. If we wouldn’t suffer someone to “believe” they can walk through walls or fly unaided, but instead take such a belief as evidence that something in them is awry, if not downright broken, we should have exactly the same reaction to a belief that scientific fact is subject to opinion.
Much like a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, a modern society grounded in science cannot tolerate superstition without called my it out and defining it as such.
If your only argument is that someone has the “constitutional” right to such a belief, then I’ll check out of the discussion rather than engage with such disingenuousness.
You’ve taken the flawed step of mischaracterizing what I said. People have a basic philosophical right not to believe in things. I don’t believe in the Holy Trinity. In past times, that would get me killed. Creationist “evidence” is bad evidence, but it is sufficiently convincing to carry real weight in the minds of millions of people. They honestly believe that evolution is “like a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747.” You know they’re wrong. I know they’re wrong. But neither of us has any hope of convincing them that they’re wrong, any more, apparently, than you and I have any hope of a meeting of minds.