Evolution is the religion of fools.

[Codo]

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

 

Daniel Denett wrote a book about your question, entitled "Darwin's dangerous idea". He observes that many people, even some biologists, have problems with the theory of natural selection and somehow seem to wish that the theory wasn't true.

 

 

If that's the level of public understanding of evolution, it hardly matters if people "believe" it or not. I can understand if someone says "I have no clue what the theory says and what the evidence is, so I have no opinion about it." That's how I feel about string theory, for example. What I cannot understand is that so many people, who have no clue about evolution and natural selection, still claim to have strong opinions about it.

1. For most people Evolution is simple a believe or a not-believe. Neither you nor me had ever proofed this by own experience. And if you cannot proofe it, believe is all you have.

 

This is not true for physics in the sense of Newtons physics. You can check by yourself that apples allways fall down and that you hit someone harder if your fist is quicker. Your own experience tell you that this must be true.

 

2. Scientist nowadays are quite sure that we have quarks, multiple universes and other stuff. You can believe this, nearly nobody of us is able to check it personally. Some decades ago the same scientists told you that an atom is the smallest -non-dividable- unit. They had been sure about this too. But they erred. These things happen. The scientists give their best try to explain the world. And sometimes their knowledge is too small, so they err.

 

Of course I won´t claim that this is true for the science "evolution", but it may explain why some people don´t believe in sciences as long as they cannot proofe it by own experience.

 

3. If you believe that the Bible is true in a sense that each word and each sentence is true, you cannot believe that mankind lives for more then (about 7.700?) years.

Of course this is silly too, but true believers won´t argue about this.

 

4. In my experience the people with the strongest claims are often the with the smallest knowledge. In any field, not just evolution.

 

It is much easier to have a strong opinion as long as no facts shadow your view. :)

[helene_t]

2. Scientist nowadays are quite sure that we have quarks, multiple universes and other stuff. You can believe this, nearly nobody of us is able to check it personally. Some decades ago the same scientists told you that an atom is the smallest -non-dividable- unit. They had been sure about this too. But they erred.

It's really very long time ago that scientist considered atoms to be non-devidable. But before the first experiments with nuclear fision, it was a reasonable theory. Even today, for most purposes atoms can be considered elementary units. This is even more true for protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

Of course if someone had said something like "It is completely impossible, even in a thought experiment, to subdivide protons into smaller units. If that were ever to happen, our whole theory of atoms, nuclei and particles would break down", then in retrospect we should say they were wrong. But otherwise I would not say that the discovery of quarks proved that the theory of elementary particles was erroneous, any more than the theory of relativity rendered Newton's mechanics erroneous.

 

There are a few examples of established scientific theories that later turned out to be wrong, and here I mean completely wrong, not just a little inaccurate or incomplete. The flogiston theory, for example. That was a theory that had to be trashed completely, unlike Newtonian mechanics which still serves as a good approximation for most purposes.

 

Of course there are many non-established scientific ideas that become media hypes for a couple of years for then to be unmasked as erroneous. All the stories of the kind "food X protects you against disease Y", for example. It is possible that such storries erode the public's trust in science.

 

The U.S. public's disbelief in evolution is a special case, though. How many people have strong disbelief in plate tectonics, the Maxwell equations, or the periodic table of the elements?

[hrothgar]

1. For most people Evolution is simple a believe or a not-believe. Neither you nor me had ever proofed this by own experience. And if you cannot proof it, believe is all you have.

 

This is not true for physics in the sense of Newtons physics. You can check by yourself that apples allways fall down and that you hit someone harder if your fist is quicker. Your own experience tell you that this must be true.

First and foremost, its possible to observe the impact of mutation and natural selection each and every day. If you don't believe me, wander down to a large hospital and talk to the Doctors about drug resistant bacteria strains.

 

If you want a more practical example, I suggest that you take a good look at so-called "genetic" or "evolutionary" algorithms with specific reference to their use in product design. These aren't pie in the sky ivory tower techniques. People make real money using evolutionary approaches to solve very complex product design problems.

 

There is a good introductory treatment available at

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

 

(The MathWorks sells a "Genetic Algorithms and Direct Search" Toolbox. Its a cute little product)

[helene_t]

First and foremost, its possible to observe the impact of mutation and natural selection each and every day.  If you don't believe me, wander down to a large hospital and talk to the Doctors about drug resistant bacteria strains.

Also, Darwin (and several others before him, although Darwin articulated the idea more clearly than others did) got the idea of evolution by looking at similarities between living species, such as the notorious Galapagos finks. Today, the World's biodiversity is much more accessible than it was then, thanks to musea, zoos and National Geographics Channel. One can even see fossils in musea. And the news are full of reports about contemporary evolution, such as how the earth worms in Chernobyl have evolved since the disaster, how fish respond to fishery etc.

 

But I agree that you cannot see evolution happening in nature with your own eyes.

[hotShot]

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on. So this theory is not politically correct. It can be easily abused by racists to prove their superiority and to justify the killing of inferiour beings. It is easier to fight the evolution theory than to deal with it's abuse.

 

While scientist have no problem to see themselves as "homo sapiens sapiens" (the wise human being) some may fear that their relationship to apes is to close to be accepted. To them evolution theory is a personal threat.

[han]

One can even see fossils in musea.

This reminds me of one of the funnier ideas in the hitch hikers guide, where they bury dinosaur skeleton's under the earth to see how the humans would react.

[han]

I see that there is a plurality vote for "never, they are hopeless". While I agree that it is hard to imagine 95% of all US citizens to embrace evolution theory in today's world, expecting this not ever to change is quite a pessimistic view.

 

Maybe realistic too, but I don't want to believe it. ;)

[hrothgar]

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on. So this theory is not politically correct. It can be easily abused by racists to prove their superiority and to justify the killing of inferiour beings. It is easier to fight the evolution theory than to deal with it's abuse.

 

While scientist have no problem to see themselves as "homo sapiens sapiens" (the wise human being) some may fear that their relationship to apes is to close to be accepted. To them evolution theory is a personal threat.

I don't see legions of uber PC students from the nations leading liberal arts colleges demonstrating against the the horror that is the theory of evolution (I went to Wesleyan as an undergrad. We coined the expression "Politically Correct")

 

I do a very strong correlation between religious fervour and refusal to accept that evolution is true.

[cherdano]

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on. So this theory is not politically correct. It can be easily abused by racists to prove their superiority and to justify the killing of inferiour beings. It is easier to fight the evolution theory than to deal with it's abuse.

This theory isn't politically incorrect, it is just an observation what happens in the evolution of species, it doesn't say anything about what is right and what is wrong. If someone abuses the theory of evolution to justify killings he may just as well point out that lions kill animals to eat them (which would have the added advantage that noone would deny it).

 

And not it is not easier to fight the theory than to deal with it's abuse. If you fight the theory for moral reasons you make a fool out of yourself because you attack a well-established theories based on a reasoning that isn't related at all to whether the theory is true or no. If you fight it's abuse then you fight a completely illogical analogy so at least you can hope that you have everyone with a rational brain will agree with you.

[Al_U_Card]

Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, this is cruel and it says that inferior races die out, while superior races live on.

But, ultimately, it is nature that determines what "fit" is and just what survives. We have a lot to learn and a long way to go but it is all just a grain of sand on the beach to the planet and it's existance. When we learn respect for our elders and betters (ie the planet) then we will be fit to survive.

[Winstonm]

It will take many more years of evolution before 95% or more in the U.S. accept that it is valid.

[Al_U_Card]

The level of education in the US is DECLINING as is their interest in things technical and scientific. THis suits the purposes of the powers that be so.......not much long term hope possible there.....

[helene_t]

Evolution will be (even) less obvious to future generations who have less contact with wildlife than we have today. Once my mother took a group of urban children to a farm, where they learned to slaughter and unfeather chickens. When the chicken was unfeathered, unheaded and unfooted, one of the boys said "now it starts looking like a chicken".

 

Next step is children reasoning "Second Life was created so I suppose the rest of the Universe was, too".

[matmat]

Evolution will be (even) less obvious to future generations who have less contact with wildlife than we have today. Once my mother took a group of urban children to a farm, where they learned to slaughter and unfather chickens. When the chicken was unfeathered, unheaded and unfooted, one of the boys said "now it starts looking like a chicken".

 

Next step is children reasoning "Second Life was created so I suppose the rest of the Universe was, too".

also, barring some sort of catastrophic event, the evolution of the human race, i believe, has substantially slowed, if not stopped.

[helene_t]

also, barring some sort of catastrophic event, the evolution of the human race, i believe, has substantially slowed, if not stopped.

Not sure about that. The evolutionary pressure on the human genome is in many way different from what it used to be:

1) Disease resistance is less relevant as the physicians can cure you

2) Bad sperm/egg quality is less relevant as the physicians can help you

3) Homosexuality is more severe since the social pressure to become straight is less strong. Lesbians will get pregnant but a two-mother family can't afford twice as many children as a straight family can.

4) High inteligence is not advantous for women as the children of dump women will survive. Dump women are less likely to pursue a professional carriere

5) Tallness, brightness, good social skills and good look are advanteous for males since it makes them sexually attractive, and the costs of those features does not prevent them from surviving.

6) Easy-lifestyle-seeking people may chose not to have children. Opting for children requires either a perveted interpretation of Darwinism (what is good for my genes is good for me), religious faith (go forth and multiply) or a fondness for children. OTOH neglected children will still survive so maybe love for children will be less of an advantage.

7) A natural tendency to rape is no advantage since the victim will just have an abortus and rapist are not sexually attractive, especially while in prison.

 

Hence I think that future humans will be:

1) Less healthy

2) Less fertile (except if sperm banks become popular)

3) Less homosexual

4) Women will be dumper

5) Men will be taller, smarter, more socially skilled and better looking.

6) More religious

7) Less prone to commit rape

 

In particular, future bridge events will be more male-dominated, the bridge will be better, and the commercial exploiters will emphasize the sex appeal of the contestants. The pregnancy rates of bridge cheer leaders will surge. Among young women from areas with male shortage (because the males are in Iraq, in prison or killed in gang conflicts), it will become a hype to go to a junior bridge camp to get pregnant.

[jtfanclub]

Hence I think that future humans will be:

1) Less healthy

2) Less fertile (except if sperm banks become popular)

3) Less homosexual

4) Women will be dumper

5) Men will be taller, smarter, more socially skilled and better looking.

6) More religious

7) Less prone to commit rape

Hmmm..I would have said...

 

1) Fertile much much later in life. Being able to have healthy kids at 50 is a huge advantage in today's society.

 

2) Able to survive for long periods in isolation.

 

3) Low metabolism with increased metabolic efficiency- able to eat less, and less nutritious food, for far longer than our ancestors. Able to "shrug off" poisons, drugs, and addictions over a period of days. When you eat vending machine food and take sleeping pills, your kidneys are your best friends.

 

4) True multitasking, maybe even pure parallelism. The ability to play a video game, talk on the phone, and think about your homework simultaneously. Did you know in the middle ages, not only did people's lips move when they read, but it was thought to be impossible to learn how to read without moving your lips? The ability to multitask has been improving for at least a millenium.

 

Interesting how some of these things show. I would argue that ADHD and Depression are not in fact "disorders", they are being selected by the requirements of our environment. Depressives tend to handle isolation far better than ordinary people, and have far lower metabolisms. ADHD is a rather wild form of being able to super-multitask.

 

Unfortunately, my fear is that we'll all eventually evolve into autistics, living in a cubicle by day, and a one bedroom apartment at night, unable to tell if the person next to you is happy or sad without an emoticon.

 

Oh, and I think homosexuality in males is expressed in crowded areas, a natural biological reaction to people having too many kids. I think therefore it will increase, not decrease.

[helene_t]

Interesting points, JTF. Yes, the ability for older women to have children is surely an advantage, and much more so than it used to be.

 

BTW, there have been some reports on the young generation's thumbs adapting to typing SMS's, but that is clearly not a genetic thing. As for girls entering puperty at younger age it is less clear, but I suppose that is not a genetic thing either.

 

Another example: disease genes are weaded out in cultures that favour cousin-cousin mariages (a popular misunderstanding is that the reverse is the case).

[Codo]

Hence I think that future humans will be:

1) Less healthy

2)Less fertile (except if sperm banks become popular)

3) Less homosexual

5) Men will be taller, smarter, more socially skilled and better looking.

6) More religious

7) Less prone to commit rape

 

In particular, future bridge events will be more male-dominated, the bridge will be better, and the commercial exploiters will emphasize the sex appeal of the contestants. The pregnancy rates of bridge cheer leaders will surge.

Okay I´m male and so I checked 1,2,3,5,6,7 and the latest sentence:

 

Everything is true. Weill everything besides one of course.

The future is mine....

:D

[barmar]

Yes, I know that they're missing other points, but I find that making that point helps them get over the fact that their grandfather was a human.

But their great-great-great-...-grandfather, with enough greats (somewhere in the 10's or 100's of thousands), was not. Go a few million generations further and you have ancestors that were small mammals hiding from the dinosaurs.

 

We're all descended from a bacterium that lived a billion or so years ago.

 

What's difficult to do is point to a specific point where a non-human gave birth to a human. Evolution is very gradual, and closely-related species do not generally have hard dividing lines between them. The only reason we have no closely-related sister species is that they have all gone extinct.

 

A good book on this topic is The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins.

[Fluffy]

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

Same fear as accepting the Bible, when people believe in something they don't understand, they tend to lose their will to religious leaders, or famous scientists. Believing without asking yourself any questions is dangerous.

 

I kind of see something like this with bridge, people claim that (put your favourite expert name here) said something. And they belive it just because he/she said so. Well, humans are wrong kinda often, and blindly following will force you to repeat mistakes.

[Fluffy]

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes, it is usually referred to as "Theory of Gravity". Fluffy you should stop this non-sense, I can accept if you believe there must have been a creator at some point, and that the world we live in isn't just some random outcome of the laws of physics, but claiming that evolution is a controversial or not completely accepted theory among biologists is just wrong. Not pretty much wrong or mostly wrong but just 100% wrong.

I believe in 'god' for several reasons, but I won't claim anything else is not possible, Truman's show (wich I had though about before seeing the movie, and I am not the only one), matrix, ultra advanced extraterrestrials designing the world and using us as pets. And of course evolution are all posible, and many more I guess.

 

I have a small problem with plain evolution, my survival instinct won't let me believe in it (meaning I'd rather suicide if it was true than exist for nothing).

 

 

All in all, I just say its a Theory because I hate people not to even think it is not the only posibility.

[matmat]

I have a small problem with plain evolution,

what is "plain evolution"

[Winstonm]

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

Same fear as accepting the Bible, when people believe in something they don't understand, they tend to lose their will to religious leaders, or famous scientists. Believing without asking yourself any questions is dangerous.

 

I kind of see something like this with bridge, people claim that (put your favourite expert name here) said something. And they belive it just because he/she said so. Well, humans are wrong kinda often, and blindly following will force you to repeat mistakes.

I think there is something to this argument; however, I am more of the mind that acceptance of evolution is based more on the science than the scien-t-i-s-t. Anyone who has taken a biology course should have no trouble accepting the science, no matter who wrote the book.

 

Which brings another question: can you believe something yet at the same time be open to questioning its validity?

[helene_t]

What causes the fear of accepting evolution?

Same fear as accepting the Bible, when people believe in something they don't understand, they tend to lose their will to religious leaders, or famous scientists. Believing without asking yourself any questions is dangerous.

 

I kind of see something like this with bridge, people claim that (put your favourite expert name here) said something. And they belive it just because he/she said so. Well, humans are wrong kinda often, and blindly following will force you to repeat mistakes.

True, but most biology teachers encourage students to ask questions, I suppose. I've yet to read in a biology textbook "you better believe uncritically in everything this book says or you'll go to hell".

 

Since skepticism is a necesary part of scientific thinking, one could say that "believing" ins science is paradoxical. Yet evolution is one of the least controversial ideas. As for the theory of gravity, for some reason you don't hear those preachers as Madison Campus saying that heavy stuff just falls to the ground because God wants it to (or even: "heavy stuff doesn't fall to the ground, it was always on the ground because God put it there", or "there is no heavy stuff on the ground, it's an illusion God created to test our faith"), yet that would be completele analogous to what they say about evolution. And I'm not exagerating at all.

 

can you believe something yet at the same time be open to questioning its validity?

Not sure how strong the word "believe" is. Also, my degree of "openness" depends on context. At a philosophical drinking party I may be open to questioning anything. In my daily work routine I work within a strict theoretical framework without spending time on musing about the status of the different paradigms, theories, facts, hypotheses (whats-in-a-name) my work is based on.

[Fluffy]

I'd say you beleive in something when you base your acts upon it.