Why do Americans not understand Evolution?

I used to live in a so-called Bible belt. Interesting that exactly in this part of our country Satanists are occurring as well. Poor education and backwardness result in both, particularly in southeastern states. This is where our most stupid politicians are coming from.

 

If you are saying that science can not prove things, in the manner that someone will always have a doubt, than granted. A reasonable doubt? Not possible. Science has again and again explained many things about how the human works. As I stated earlier, neither religion or evolution is a fact. Both have reasonable arguments and theories developed to prove they exist, but neither is even close to fulfilling the burden of proof neccesary in any debate.

You can argue with me all you want that evolution makes sense, but in a debate, no one is winning until they prove their side is right without a doubt. This resolution is obscene. You are telling me to believe in a theory. At most, like always, I'll stay open minded to a theory. Calling Americans stupid and ignorant for being skeptical though is a laugh. I'm simply defending my fellow christian's.

Alright, so we appear to have conceded three things.....

1. Evolution makes sense to you, but not some other people.

2. That evolution has not beyond a doubt.

3. That evolutionary theory still has some unanswered holes.

Now, you could argue that evolution is more likely than Christianity, but this is not the resolution. The premise I set is that I find it just for some Americans to be skeptical on evolution. You argued in defense of the OP, that I am not right for making a counter-rebuttal. Coming in the form of two ad-hominens, and a attack at my intelligence. I don't need to know a whole lot about evolution to prove my theory. Just know that the three things you conceded hold true, which is the base for my logical though. All that's left standing is for you to concede this point. Be warned, your resolution relies on proving it....

IS it reasonable, in even the slightest since, for an american to be skeptical of evolutionary theory?

I think we have established two default positions, although atheism still might be true. Agnosticism as the neutral position. People do not begin atheist, but agnostic, as they have not made a choice. We also have Christianity, which many argue is also a default position. This is because the biblical testaments, state that the holy spirit exists in all people. So, by that theory, we are to believe that all people believe in god at birth. They are taught by rational thought or societies influence to become Atheist or Agnostic.

The above sounds like a more suitable debate topic, if your interested. Thanks for approaching me for this one, as all I seek to do is point out a flaw, which made yours more than circular. I hope you can consider the above concessions, and come back to me on the answer to that question.

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of any gods. They're not on the same axis.

A baby has no belief in any gods is thus an atheist. A baby also has no knowledge of any gods and thus is agnostic.

 

Debatable. I, like many others, have applied it like this....

- Atheism is the negative position. It is of the institution that god does not exist.

- Agnosticism is of the neutral position. It is of the institution that people are born partial to both sides. God may, or may not exist. Like you said, they have not been exposed to either argument.

- Religion is the positive position. It is of the institution that people believe god does exist.

My use of the words positive and negative should not be taken as political bias. Now, lets examine the definition of agnosticism.....

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Following what comes after the semi colon, which is what led me to my belief.Now lets review atheism.....

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Yes, the definition are more than confusing, and I'm not saying that religious or atheistic people minds can never change, but neither is neutral or default. They are both taking a firm stance. Therefore, a baby is born agnostic. Here is an atheist to support my case....

http://www.rationalresponders.com/f..._squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9050

 

I'm sorry but you're using your own definition rather than how the words are applied in almost all cases.

 

Scientists make discoveries. Preachers are preaching. Scientists are searching for evidence. Theologians ask you to believe: believe and you will see... No evidence, no doubts, take it as a dogma. Scientific skepticism is a center point of scientific method. If you want to prove your theory, try to reject it by repeating observations, make experiments (=observations under controlled conditions). Scientists sometimes do it for generations. Some theories withstand, others are modified, improved or even rejected. Theory of evolution has a very solid foundation. Evolutionary thinking is applied to entire universe. Evolution of life is only a part of evolution of universe. Try to disprove it.

 

What a short response. That took me a while to formulate, so I;m somewhat upset. What about this quote used by the atheists OP....

If you are gonna claim that a baby is atheist, you would have to claim that a rock, or a bicycle, or any other inanimate object you can think of is also atheist.

I don't participate in religious debates, unless I can take part in a philisophical argument. Both sides stand based upon firm opinions. True or false? Agnostics have no formal opinion. True or false? A baby is born without an opinion. True or False? Which leads me to believe, beyond a doubt, that a baby is born agnostic.

 

No, it's a common misunderstanding that agnostics have no formal opinion. Agnosticism means that you don't have knowledge if any gods do or don't exist. Agnostics can still believe either way.

 

Is it? So Oxford College professors just made a common mistake when making the following definition....

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html If you believe in DNA in a courtroom, then without knowing it, you believe in evolution. Bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are constantly evolving to fight off the different medicines by a process of adaptation. Which is a form of change. When that change is necessary, the organism is evolving. There is no theory to evolution.

 

Because most Americans view themselves as Monotheists not Pantheists.

 

This is because they are backward. Who cares of evolution? Believers consider science as another form of preaching. They believe in power of prayers, supernatural, miracles, etc., but they all believe in insurance. When you have enough money, prayers work better for you. We live in a society of hypocrites. Even G. W. Bush told us he had God in his heart, when he started Iraq were on fake premises.

 

Seems they all do....
''And the longer I serve, especially in moments of trial or doubt, the more thankful I am of God’s guiding hand.''
President Obama

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-National-Prayer-Breakfast.html#ixzz32FoISkRa
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Evolution makes sense to me, but who among us would think everything has to make sense [as we understand it] for something to exist. Not me, that's for sure. I think most would agree.

If it did there would be no such word as singularity in science....

 

There is no 'god'. You came, like the rest of homo sapiens, from ape-like mammals. Of course you are free to believe whatever you want...

 

He is correct; the concept of 'proof' does not exist in the scientific vernacular. Just as many people mistake 'theory' when applied to the scientific method as a 'guess', you are mistaking proof for 'the best evidence we have to date'. Science is not static but progresses as our knowledge increases. This is why Einstein's relativity theory is known as such because, until something better or more compelling comes along, it is the best we feeble humans can come up with. So far...

 

This is correct. And yet, there are basic scientific facts, which were necessary to be discover and defended to convince skeptics. For example, the Earth is round and it is not the center of the universe. Trilobites did exist, and even human embryo has gills at a certain stage of development; every bone of frog has its equivalent in human skeleton; basic genetic structures found in any form of life remain in DNA of humans as well. This is knowledge obtained by generations of researchers who built that science we now have. Even GOP members use GPS, cell phones and drive cars, but they still do not accept climate change

 

The essence of science is the ability to be disproven. If something cannot be disproved, it is not science. Religion and science deal with two different aspects of human life. They shouldn't conflict. Science deals with the natural world and explaining it, religion with the supernatural spiritual world and explaining it. No real conflict or link unless you are doing them incorrectly.

In terms of science, it only stands until something that disproves it comes along. In the 1950s, science said the idea that the continents are moving, etc., was absurd. I have a geology textbook from the 1970s. It has no inkling of plate tectonics. Now, plate tectonics is the key theory in modern geology (has been since the 1980s). Why? Discoveries and evidence disproved the earlier idea. Yes, science can predict (and often does it well), but that is not proving anything absolutely.

IN terms of your argument, re: debates, you are talking formal debating, which is an artificial form of argument (as are most). In the scientific community, evolution is pretty much considered without a doubt. No reputable scientist really rejects the ideas. The fossil evidence is there. The arguments of biogeography are there. Yes, this could possibly change if some discovery that was counter to evolution was made. However, I very much doubt it.

I am Christian. There is nothing in Christianity that opposes evolution, and nothing in evolution that opposes Christianity.

Unless you have examined the evidence (which in my observation, most anti-evolutionists haven't), you are ignorant on the subject.

It makes sense to people who have actually studied it.

Depends on your definition of doubt.

I've never said that. Also, define unanswered holes. Do you mean incomplete knowledge?

Evolution is not contrary to Christianity. It is contrary to certain, IMHO, incorrect readings of the Bible (or specifically the book of Genesis), but it is not contrary to Christianity. As I said early on in this whole thread, I'm a theistic evolutionist. My general spiritual view is that God created the earth and everything in it, but He did it over a period of 4.5 billion years, and used the natural process of evolution to do it. At some point, He gave humans the ability to think spiritually, which is "making us in His image." This is the only view that reconciles the observations of the earth.

The thing is, unless you know what you are arguing against, it's futile. You don't know about the evidence, and probably don't know the actual modern theory of evolution.

Using a larger font doesn't make what you are saying profound.

The subject is that Americans are ignorant of evolutionary theory and is wondering why. I don't see the conflict between evolution and Christianity. It just doesn't exist in my view.

 

The "you don't understand it" argument is one of the oldest ToE conformists' tactics in the book.

People are unable to accept that all life is related and comes from a single universal common ancestor. That all life is related is a central idea to evolution. Without it, evolution is nothing more than what even Creationists agree to be a natural phenomenon, which is natural selection and gene transfer.

 

I have yet to find an anti-evolutionist who actually studied biology. The evidence is there. I don't understand how people argue against something that they really haven't studied. Also, evolutionary theory doesn't state that all life is related and comes from a single universal common ancestor. Make strawmen much?

 

In science, there are always frontiers. The more we know, the more we understand how small we are in the Universe... Singularity is the most exciting term, showing our weakness in everything, science or religion. Let us pray and enjoy life. Listening of good music helps.

 

I agree. "One ancestor" was probably a poorly differentiated organism, something like a biochemical cloud in water, very variable, a potential for diversification, which probably started from very early time of history of life. In the beginning, it was hard to distinguish even individual organisms, like biological singularity.

 

Great post, I cant help but think science will lead the way to a greater understanding of both faith and theory. What faith?,,who knows, what theory? I have no idea....

 

Insurance is forced on people here. That criticism is so ridiculous.