This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Pseudonym · 26-30, M
There are two main problems with that question.
Firstly, the term 'theory' is often misunderstood in the context of science. A 'theory' scientifically speaking, is a rigorously tested model, which accurately fits all observed data (within the limits of error). Not to be confused with a hypothesis, which is closer to the non-scientific definition of a theory.
Secondly, many skeptics of evolution think abiogenesis is a requirement of the theory. That is not the case. It is implied, when extrapolating our current understanding into the past, but is not required as part of evolutionary theory. That is to say evolution describes how through reproduction, small, random mutations in genetic code are responsible for the gradual divergence in the all living organisms. The random mutations which happen to provide the best advantages to those organisms, on average survive for longer and reproduce more, thus passing on that specific genetic code. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that life evolved from non-living matter. That is still an open question and is actively being researched. Evolution does not attempt to answer that question. Hence, the theory of evolution is actually compatible with many theistic beliefs.
There is insurmountable evidence to support evolution; it is almost undeniably certain that it is a process which all living creatures on Earth undergo. It is so far beyond reasonable doubt, it puts skeptics in the same category as those who think the world is flat, or that gravity is not a force. It is what science classes as 'proven'; a state where the uncertainty in a claim's accuracy is so small that it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
Personally, I think the greatest source of distrust for evolution is our own biased perception of time. We live for an average of 70-80 years in developed countries. And on evolutionary timescales, this is a tiny amount; in a single human lifetime one is unable to witness macroscopic evolution. In the same way we are unable to watch mountains forming. It is just such a gradual process, that we cannot see it with out own eyes. But if you were to live for 100,000 years, you would be able to witness the divergence of species due to evolution (assuming you could remember 100,000 years in the past).
Firstly, the term 'theory' is often misunderstood in the context of science. A 'theory' scientifically speaking, is a rigorously tested model, which accurately fits all observed data (within the limits of error). Not to be confused with a hypothesis, which is closer to the non-scientific definition of a theory.
Secondly, many skeptics of evolution think abiogenesis is a requirement of the theory. That is not the case. It is implied, when extrapolating our current understanding into the past, but is not required as part of evolutionary theory. That is to say evolution describes how through reproduction, small, random mutations in genetic code are responsible for the gradual divergence in the all living organisms. The random mutations which happen to provide the best advantages to those organisms, on average survive for longer and reproduce more, thus passing on that specific genetic code. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that life evolved from non-living matter. That is still an open question and is actively being researched. Evolution does not attempt to answer that question. Hence, the theory of evolution is actually compatible with many theistic beliefs.
There is insurmountable evidence to support evolution; it is almost undeniably certain that it is a process which all living creatures on Earth undergo. It is so far beyond reasonable doubt, it puts skeptics in the same category as those who think the world is flat, or that gravity is not a force. It is what science classes as 'proven'; a state where the uncertainty in a claim's accuracy is so small that it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
Personally, I think the greatest source of distrust for evolution is our own biased perception of time. We live for an average of 70-80 years in developed countries. And on evolutionary timescales, this is a tiny amount; in a single human lifetime one is unable to witness macroscopic evolution. In the same way we are unable to watch mountains forming. It is just such a gradual process, that we cannot see it with out own eyes. But if you were to live for 100,000 years, you would be able to witness the divergence of species due to evolution (assuming you could remember 100,000 years in the past).
SW-User
@Pseudonym Well said. What I am skeptical of is evolution's ability to explain the origin of consciousness. I find this problematic without metaphysical intrusion.