Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
How religion affects acceptance of theories
Published on August 13, 2005 By Draginol In Biology

It never ceases to amaze me how blinded some people are by their religion.  They seem to be completely unaware of how their religion has biased them taking a more open-minded approach to scientific research.

Let me give you a tale of two theories.

Evolution is a theory that stipulates a set of principles on how life on earth changes (evolves) over time.  It has a great deal of documented evidence to support it.  However, because evolution contradicts the bible, many religious people try to find ways to discount it. They close their minds to it.  In the bible, life as we know it did not evolve but was rather created directly by the hand of God. This is especially true of humans.  Most religious people either take the stories in Genesis to not be true in the literal sense but try to argue that it is true symbolically (though even that's a stretch).  But the point being, because evolution contradicts an existing deep held religious belief, some people have trouble accepting it.

But compared to the theory of gravity, evolution is rock hard fact.  We actually do not know how gravity works.  We have observed that gravity is related to mass. And we have made some formulas that describe how gravity is related to mass (F=MA for example).  But we still do not have a clue as to what causes gravity.  Why does mass create gravity? No idea (and things get sketchier about strong and weak forces too but we'll hold off that for another time).  But religious people don't challenge the theory of gravity even though it's on weaker ground.  But imagine if the bible had stated something vaguely that God's arms push down on all things to keep them in place on the world. That his infinite arms pushed objects towards bigger objects.

One can imagine the debates we'd be having if the bible spoke on gravity.  Instead of the accepted belief that gravity PULLS objects towards each other, we would instead have people arguing that no, God PUSHES people towards things based on their size or something. We'd have "Intelligent Gravitation" or something like that.  And because of that, we could potentially have real damage done to genuine scientific research because some people would insist on looking for data that supported that some mystical, super natural force was pushing people against objects rather than focusing on mass creating a pull effect (gravity) and trying to figure out why that is.

That's why things like intelligent design are so problematic. Because they're not based on any scientific evidence (no more than the belief that some unknown force is pushing all things towards other things based on their size) it can slow down scientific advancement and cloud education.

I much prefer to have my beliefs be based on the evidence rather than looking for evidence to support my pre-existing beliefs. But religion tends to be pretty dogmatic and blind people to looking at other possibilities.  It's not as if religion doesn't get its shot for explaining the universe.  Most Americans who believe in evolution (statistically) were raised in a Christian household.  That means most of them changed their views because the data supporting evolution was more compelling than the data supporting Creationism. 

Evolution wasn't taught in my high school.  I, like most people, started out believing in the bible's explanation on how humans got here.  It was only over time that I found that the bible's explanation was not plausible.  The earth was simply too old. There were too many extinct creatures. There was too much rather obvious local adaptation by animals to believe that some super natural being (or alien) was sitting around tweaking some caterpillar to look like the local vegetation in South America that had only been growing there for the past 8 million years. 

As time went on, evolution and natural selection became more and more compelling as causes of where the bio-diversity we have came from. And even once I was convinced that the theory of evolution was fact, more evidence still came my way. Just a few years ago when DNA came to be better understood there would be occasional reports on how scientists tweaked some gene in some animal to produce a radically different animal.  Then came Mitochondrial DNA tracking in which we can tell when one species was another and when.

But such evidence doesn't exist in the same form for the theory of gravity.  Luckily, the bible doesn't speak about it (which is odd since gravity is a pretty crucial thing that you would think a super being would want to talk about unless of course the writings were not by a higher being but rather by pre-industrial humans with a limited understanding of their environments but I digress).


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Jun 26, 2008
Evolution doesn't work it defies the laws of genetics and logic. It is impossible for a trait to be passed on that the parents of the creature does not have because the parent creator does not have the code for that trait in its DNA and therefore cannot pass it on. Also if the animal did somehow begin to pass it on and say an animals front legs started to turn to wings the parent creature would abandon that child because it is deformed and in some cases possible even eat it. Assuming that the animal isn't abandoned you now have an animal that cant run right but also cant fly how is it supposed to survive against predators or hunt if it is a predator. Saying it survives even that if the coding for this trait appears it would have to be dominant to pass it on and find a mate, which would be hard considering it would appear unattractive to its species. Fossil evidence also does not support evolution it appears as more of a crayon box with abrupt differences between each piece down the line instead of appearing more like a spectrum showing slow minute changes.
on Jun 26, 2008
Artemis15,

Evolution merely defies your understanding of the laws of genetics and logic.

If you read a book or two, that might not happen again.
on Jun 26, 2008
If I am wrong then show me offer an argument to counter mine explain how it is possible to pass on a trait that you do not have.
on Jun 26, 2008

If I am wrong then show me offer an argument to counter mine explain how it is possible to pass on a trait that you do not have.


Some time after Darwin proposed the idea of animals inhering traits from their ancestors, the discovery of genetics provided the (predicted) way to do so.

You specifically referred to genetics in your illogical statement. However, it seems to me that you haven't understood genetics.

Genetics doesn't say that traits are not inherited, it says that they are and explains how.

Also, you misunderstood how these changes happen. Animals do not suddenly have offspring with wings. Rather body parts change slightly over millenia.

Many Creationists don't understand that evolution predicts SMALL changes.

If you are truly interested, read Richard Dawkins' books, start with "The Selfish Gene". It explains everything well and better than I could.

on Jun 26, 2008

I'd also recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker', talks about how genetic mutations and certain genes turning on and off through generations essentially cause evolution.

It's interesting how far off we are on gravity, indeed using Einsteins Gravitational Theory we still can't measure accuratley (i think were off by 10 meters actually after a period of 40 years) the moons orbit around the sun.

Regards to the actual issue at hand here, someone said it perfectley in one of my posts. If a man looks you straight in the eye and tells you the moon is made of ice cream without blinking, then you've gotta wish them luck with that and move on.

on Jun 26, 2008
If it took so long for these changes to occur than we would have fossils showing these small changes but we do not the traits simply appear and still how do u explain this creature surviving when it cant run but at the same time cant fly since its legs are turning into wings.
on Jun 26, 2008
i
on Jun 26, 2008

It never ceases to amaze me how blinded some people are by their religion. They seem to be completely unaware of how their religion has biased them taking a more open-minded approach to scientific research.

I agree. Take those who are true blue believers in Evolutionism, that is, in  Darwin's theory of molecules to man over eons of time...that's none other than atheistic materialism as a religion.

Darwinism provides a new understanding and view of human nature, of life and death.   

Communism, Eugenics, etc. are all secular belief structures too. But they're not THEORIES.

No, Communism, Eugenics, along with atheistic Humanism, Marxism, and Nazism they aren't theories but they are belief systems that flow from Darwin's evolutionary ethic. The evolutionary process became the arbiter of all moralty.

If you check you'll find that Darwinism was a powerful influence in the mindset of Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Engels and Sangar.

Today's Darwiniacs, as I like to call them, are still going strong. They are still pushing the dethronment of Almighty God and the enfranchisment of man. Evolutionary faith that the evolved primate is still progressing and through his own efforts will make this world a better place. Yes, they'll say that religion had its place for primitive people, but evolutionary science replaced religion as the guardian of morality.

After all we owe our existence our humanity not to a Creator God, but to chance mutations of matter. As long as we don't call Darwinism atheism, but Science, we'll all get along.

Do you understand better why I am not so excited about the idea of making our children into little Darwinists and tell them life is absurd. Are they better equipped for survival than little Christian kids?  Are they happier? Smarter?  Look around...I don't think so.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 26, 2008
ignorance is bliss.
on Jun 27, 2008

ignorance is bliss.


Enjoy!
on Jun 27, 2008

I'd also recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker',


Yes, very good book too. Read it a few years ago, before the "Selfish Gene" even, I think.

Problem is, those who understand evolution have already read it and those who refuse to learn prefer to remain ignorant (while not understanding how reading science books make one less ignorant), so your valuable suggestion is ultimately pointless.

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4