I don't believe in evolution.
That's not because I'm a fundamentalist Christian who believes that the Bible is the literal Word of God and therefore must be true in all particulars. If you do believe that, fair enough. I don't.
I don't believe in evolution because evolution is not the kind of thing you should have to believe in. I *accept* evolution.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld series has a group of wizards who don't believe in the gods -- they know the gods exist, in the same way that they know tables exist, but they don't see any need to go around saying "Oh great table, without whom we are as naught!" This is a good way to illustrate the nature of faith, of belief. Having faith in God is not the same as acknowledging that tables exist. People have often told me that "Evolution can't be proven, in the end it's taken on faith." Fair enough: but there is a very real distinction between having faith in Creation and in having faith in evolution, and anyone who can't see that is suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is.
Let's address that first. What is science?
Science is a method that we have derived to try and figure out the truth about our world. It is based on certain assumptions. First of all, we assume that what we can perceive actually exists. We assume that our memories are real and not illusions. But the biggest assumption is the idea that anything that can be seen to happen by different people irrespective of who or where they are is part of the nature of the universe. It doesn't matter who drops the ball, it will always fall to Earth.
Science is about asking and answering questions. We have three tools for answering questions: experiment, mathematics and logic. Each of these generate their own assumptions. We assume that it is possible to represent the world through mathematics, and that if we get the maths correct then anything that follows from the maths must also follow in the real world. We assume that an experiment can tell us a general rule about the universe, as long as we isolate it from any complicating factors, and we assume that there is an underlying logic to the universe.
None of these assumptions are unreasonable. But they are assumptions. Together, they form a framework which scientists follow to find the answers to their questions, a framework known as the Scientific Method. Only something which follows the scientific method is part of science. All accepted scientific theories were discovered using this method. Any theory which is de-bunked is de-bunked through this method. That's how it works.
Evolution, like the theory of the Big Bang, has survived many decades of rigorous scientific testing. Where experimental evidence exists, it supports the theory. Anecdotal evidence, such as the ability to breed dogs from wolves, also supports the idea. The theory was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (ie other experts had the chance to question the idea). Over the decades, the theory has withstood many attempts to disprove it (because that's what scientists do -- they try to de-bunk established theories, either to test them under as many conditions as possible or to replace them with something fundamentally more true). These attempts used the scientific method and were also published in peer-reviewed journals. Evolution survived as a theory.
There is NO scientific controversy about the theory of evolution.
Lately, I've heard much about the so-called "intelligent design" theory. If you wish to believe it, go ahead. Knock yourself out. But it is not science, and it is not a rival to evolution.
The reason that ID is not science is that it contains an unnecessary, non-logical and unprovable complication: that there exists some sort of divine being who is exempt to the theory itself and who has consciously taken part in the development of life on Earth.
I can't say that there is no such divine being. There may well be. I can say that the theory of evolution is complete and scientific without such an assumption, and therefore the assumption is entirely unnecessary.
ID has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It has not been subject to rigorous testing over the course of many decades. It is entirely unprovable using any of science's three tools. Therefore ID is firmly in the realm of faith, not science.
I do not believe in evolution. I have no real preference as to whether evolution holds true or not. I *accept* evolution, because so far, it's the best scientific explanation of life on Earth, in the same way that so far the Big Bang theory is the best scientific explanation of the existence of the universe.
Some of science is taken on faith. But if you attack it on the grounds of that faith then you attack all of science: gravity, astronomy, electronics, biology. You're attacking the very base on which science has been built, and woe betide you if you're trying to stand on that base while you attack it. I've seen that done -- people using the many-worlds hypothesis from quantum mechanics to try to destroy the foundations on which the Big Bang theory is built.
Evolution and intelligent design are not comparable. Even chalk and cheese have more in common. ID is nothing more than a mock-up of science. I will not attack religion, and I will not attack someone for having faith. But I will defend my ideas when I find people trying to replace the foundations of science with cheap and tacky imitations.
God may have had a hand in evolution. But don't pretend there's any scientific reason to believe it. It's faith: nothing more, and nothing less.
About science, and why the "Intelligent Design" theory isn't scientific.
Add a comment
Comments
1 - 18 of 18
-
Yikes! You had me worried there for a second when I read the title...
Fortunately, I quickly discovered your meaning and subsequently breathed a huge sigh of relief. 
I agree completely with this column. I find myself frustrated by those who don't get it. There is a poet on this site called Glacian, who writes on similar topics, although his discussions are much more...warrior-like...I suppose. You will see what I mean, should you puruse his page.
Great write!
Lorena -
I don't think anyone would deny that evolution happens. The broad range of dogs that exist, like the one on this page, are a testament to that. But the "Theory of Evolution" does deal with a lot more than that. When people say, "I believe in evolution" they aren't saying, I believe that you can make a bigger tomato, or a bigger head of lettuce, they're saying they believe that humans were once something else, going back to a single cell. Which is different, isn't it.
-
Yeah, OK. It's taken me a while to get round to this, Lo, but I've fixed that now. I know that evolution has been round for less than 200 years, but on the other hand, many of the precepts are much older than Darwin himself: breeding dogs from wolves, for example. If it's one melon and one and a half melons, is it one century and one and a half centuries?
By centuries I meant to imply both of these things: that technically 'centuries' is correct and also that evolution was being tested before we knew what evolution was. It came across as clumsy, though, and so I've changed it. -
"Over the centuries, the theory has withstood many attempts to disprove it."
Statements like this don't help the validity of this column. Even Darwin's book 'Origin of Species' is less than 150 years old. And that was well before the theory of evolution became popular. To try to say that is "over the centuries" is a stretch in my opinion. To present this topic in an objective, non-biased way, which I think may be your goal, you would do well to question the veracity of such statements.
Peace,
Lo
-
"You did attack someone's beliefs with your comment. You called them "cheap and tacky imitations". If you are not attacking, then do not use incinderary words. I do not consider my beliefs cheap and tacky. I have taken what is offered and chosen what makes the most sense. Yes, man is intelligent enough to do the things mentioned in the post by Meester Happy, but to what does he attribute that intelligence? According to evolution, he is decended from monkeys. According to my beliefs, we were created intelligent, with the abilities to do everything he has mentioned, and more, much, much more."
The basic laws of Thermodynamics make generation or creation of intelligent beings from dust not only implausible, but impossible. The standard rebuttal is "only God can do the impossible". . . No, only a moron could believe the impossible. Intelligent? Language gives us the guise of intelligence. Maybe researching the acquisition of language skills among apes would be a good place to start. Or studying the timeline of written language.
Very well thought out Jobob, although I would be much quicker to attack the religious for their beliefs, HELL, there is nothing more common than a nutcase attacking a perfectly sane atheist. -
Tell you what, you think the way you do, and I will believe what I do. But religious faith is not jumping off a cliff thinking you can fly. That is stupid and only a moron would believe that. Religious faith is that there is a greater being. I am glad to see that early Biblical writings are not totally thrown out. Most evolutionists do tend to discount them as a matter of course simply because of their origins.
-
Thank you, Rous.
You have a way of thinking that I cannot agree with, although I can accept that you think that way. To me, it takes one sort of belief to have faith in the idea that a plane will carry you. That belief is based on seeing many planes in the air, perhaps taking a journey on a plane, hearing others talk about them or watching them on TV. Religious faith is the sort of faith you need to genuinely believe that if you step off a cliff you will fly. It's not based on any previous experience, there's no real logical reason to believe it, but I'm sure at least one or two people in the history of humanity have died for it. Acceptance is about two steps below faith, because it can be easily re-assessed based on the evidence. Like when people become scared of flying after great air disasters.
In saying that, I have great admiration for people who hold that sort of faith. To you it seems logical, self-evident, almost. To me, it's a leap in the dark. To you, the existence of mankind logically means there must be a watchmaker, so to speak. To me, there's no connection.
My stance is that religion and science are different. Your stance appears to be that Creation is true, that God exists. That's wonderful, but the one does not preclude the other, and I don't really understand why you felt the need to try and place yourself in some sort of opposition to me.
I called Intelligent Design, as a theory, a cheap and tacky imitation of science. That's what I think it is: something which is not science but which tries to look like science. If ID wishes to be treated as science then it is not a belief, it is a reasonable explanation for a set of events, and therefore I am not attacking a belief. If ID *is* a belief, then it isn't science, because nobody should have to believe in a scientific theory. Science doesn't care who believes in it. Einstein didn't accept Quantum theory, but quantum theory still became science. (Yeah, belief is an issue when a theory is very new and hasn't undergone much in the way of testing, as quantum mechanics was in Einstein's time. By the time it enters the mainstream it's been thoroughly tested and accepted by the scientific community in general.)
I don't believe in evolution. If evolution is disproved then that's wonderful, but I'll only accept it if it's disproved scientifically. I believe, insofar as it's possible, in science: I believe that experiment, maths and logic can build a valid picture of the universe, at least as valid as any other method. I also believe that people think differently, that you are a conscious being rather than a random text-generating program, and that I am no better and no worse than any other living person. See what odd things I can accept?!
"I think you protest too much."
Well, what sort of chance does that leave anyone? I'm trying for emphasis and it's taken to mean I'm in denial of something? Is there any way you *would* believe that there is, in my mind, a firm and valid distinction between acceptance of a theory and real faith in its truth?
How much is too much, anyway? Four times in a 1,000-word column is too much, but one is too little and it goes unnoticed? If I wrote another thousand words but didn't include that phrase again, would it still be too much?
"Until recent times, science was based on the Bible. So, many of the starting points used today for science came from the very beginnings you deny."
Who's denying them, sorry? That conversation must have happened when I wasn't looking. Religion was one of the first ways people tried to investigate the world around them. Science came later. I've actually made that point in a previous column. -
Even non-belief is a faith, of sorts. If you follow a certain doctrine, be it belief in God or acceptance of science, then you are placing faith in one or the other. I do not have to believe in God, I just accept that it is the only logical way things could have happened. I have a wristwatch. Do you think it just suddenly materialized on my arm one day? No, someone made it. I can look around at what man has managed to create and know that there is intelligence behind it. I can do the same in the world and know the same thing.
I understand you do not "believe" in evolution. But, everyone has a belief system in something. Your column leads one to think that evolution is your system, even though you choose to downplay it.
You did attack someone's beliefs with your comment. You called them "cheap and tacky imitations". If you are not attacking, then do not use incinderary words. I do not consider my beliefs cheap and tacky. I have taken what is offered and chosen what makes the most sense. Yes, man is intelligent enough to do the things mentioned in the post by Meester Happy, but to what does he attribute that intelligence? According to evolution, he is decended from monkeys. According to my beliefs, we were created intelligent, with the abilities to do everything he has mentioned, and more, much, much more.
And, I do not think I was berating you. You chose a stand, I was questioning it and making my stand. Religion is manmade, so any system you choose to believe in would be considered a religion. I eschew religion in favour of faith. How can you accept something without faith? I know that airplanes can fly. I have seen it. But, I have faith that they will stay in the air when I am on them. Else I would not fly. Acceptance and faith go hand in hand, no matter what your beliefs.
I never said science was bad. It has done many wonderful things for us. And, the sciences have proven many of the Biblical writings true. Until recent times, science was based on the Bible. So, many of the starting points used today for science came from the very beginnings you deny.
As for your protestations that "I don't believe in evolution", I think you protest too much. -
I didn't say i'd murder them,A Part of Africa is unable to sustain life on the scale now expected, it's not obscene to move people, it's been happening for centuries, why should it suddenly stop now just because we have all suddenly become politically correct, why waste huge resources on a yoyoing problem, as for your comment on the southern states of the US i can't see the connection.
Edited on Jul 08, 9:39 because ''. -
Thanks for your comment, Rous.
Science is not my god. That was what I was saying. I do not believe science unconditionally. I evaluate and judge everything in science according to my experience and training. One should not subject God to that sort of treatment, don't you agree?
"If science is your god, then why can scientists not create life from nothing?"
Well, there's a question. First, it's not proven that God ever created life from nothing -- in fact the Bible claims that Adam was created from dust (not nothing), and Eve was created from Adam's rib (also not nothing). Second, many people have turned to science for fertility treatment, and become parents long after nature and prayer failed them. Third, there is a difference between *scientists* being unable to do something and *science* being unable to do something. Science is very good at stable nuclear fusion -- you see it in the stars very often. Scientists can't reproduce it (yet). According to evolution, science (being the way the universe works) *did* create life from nothing, or at least from nothing living. Perhaps that's because God took a hand. Perhaps not. Speculation on that basis will get us nowhere because it can't be proven one way or another.
I've not heard the "you should believe in my god because the instigators came up with this really nasty idea of what might happen if you don't, and your theory doesn't have eternal agony as a punishment" argument for a while now. Thank you for reminding me that it exists.
Do you find attacking ID to be synonymous with attacking your religion? If so I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. I do not, you'll notice, attack the idea of creation. I simply attack the idea that it may be shoe-horned into science.
I don't "decry the existence of God", neither do I "set myself up as a god". To be honest, I'm not really sure what a 'god' is in this context...
As to "You are welcome to your religion of evolution." May I quote myself at this point? In my column I state: "I don't believe in evolution because evolution is not the kind of thing you should have to believe in. I *accept* evolution." Which means that evolution is not a religion.
*sigh* I've written a column entitled "I don't believe in evolution" in which the phrase "I don't believe in evolution" appears no less than four times. In it, I describe in great detail the difference, in my view, between a religion and a scientific theory, and why believing in the former is different to accepting the latter. And I get a comment like this berating me for choosing science as a religion. Is this poor communication on my part, or are you deliberately putting words in my mouth in the hope that shooting me down for something I didn't say will allow bad science to prevail in public opinion? I'd honestly like to know. -
"If science is your god, then why can scientists not create life from nothing?"
Not too long ago we didn't have vaccines for measles, mumps, etc. Did it mean that we can't/won't ever be able to do it or did it mean that we weren't scientifically far enough yet? -
Yes, this is interesting. I, however have a problem with your "theory". If science is your god, then why can scientists not create life from nothing? So far, they can clone existing life, but not from scratch. What are the odds that so many varied forms of life could just happen into existence? And what of the Creation theory that has been proven scientifically? Everything we have, including the intelligence to come up with these scientific conclusions, came from somewhere. I choose to believe in God simply because looking around at the world shows me that there is nothing spontaneous about it. Everything is perfectly balanced. Well, it was; then God decided to create man. We are the only imperfection in the world. We are the reason it is in the shape it is. We are why there are vast tracts of the world that are nigh uninhabitable.
And as for not attacking any religion, "I will not attack religion, and I will not attack someone for having faith. But I will defend my ideas when I find people trying to replace the foundations of science with cheap and tacky imitations."
What is this? I personally find it loathesome that man, in his own arrogance, decries the existence of God, and then sets himself up as a god. I would rather believe that man was created from dust by the Creator, than the theory that he crawled out of the muck and transformed into what we have today. Are there really people who believe that? You are welcome to your religion of evolution. I will stick with my faith in God. We will find out eventually. If yours is true, then no harm, no foul. We will not know, as life ends with death. If I am correct, then I will not know because it will not matter to me where I will be, and you will not be able to tell me, from where you will be. But, you will have eternity to contemplate it.
*shakes head that people actually believe this stuff*
-
"To even discuss the matter is like saying 'I believe/don't believe in being'"
Well, when you ignore a loud argument which is fallacious in nature you give the upper hand to the loudest voice rather than the facts.
I do agree that the comments on Africa are rather tasteless: the desert can support life. I've been there. -
Hmmm.
-
Don't you think "parts of Africa are such a waste of space...trying to sustain life in those areas is just a big waste of money, either shift them out or let them die" is just a teeny little bit obscene? How would you react to "most of the Southern states of the USA are a waste of space....let them die". ?????
-
I'm not quite certain what you're saying. It's not a question of "(not)believing in Evolution". To even discuss the matter is like saying "I believe/don't believe" in being". I find the previous commentator's comments about Africa tasteless.
-
when I first started to read this I though , oh, oh a nutter, (well you might still be) I nearly stopped reading but I though it's got to be better than the 'I love God' brigade.
You get close to the realms of 'Matrix' stuff if you start trying to find divine beings and frankly if 'it' existed it's a cruel bastard. Now if you take life as being Evolution based, tinged with mans' greed then you get a much more acceptable explanaition of why we are who we are. It also explains why parts of Africa are such a waste of space and that trying to sustain life in those areas is just a big waste of money, either shift them out or let them die, but trying to cultivate a desert is just a dead loss... anyway that kind of 'talk' on isn't politically correct so i shall hush up...
Thanks for the interesting read.
Barb -
A well written piece you hold your argument together well and have elaborated on your views to explain yourself in a clear matter. Beliefs aside this is a well thought out well structured piece and all the best with this. Stella.
Adding your comment:
1 - 18 of 18
