Why are there people who believe the law of evolution is untrue?

The bible says so.

Their Religion says otherwise.

Because we have freedom of thought and we aren’t required to believe anything ;P

Because they’re among the stupidest people on the planet. If it weren’t for humans being so technologically advanced, natural selection would’ve killed them off long ago.

See what I did there?

Well, a lot of people misunderstand evolution. Some only believe the evidence supports one kind of evolution, others simply ignore the evidence. And it really is still a theory.

Religion and evolution are not incompatible.

Because I they can.

It’s not so much a “law” as a well established theory. Like gravity. Observable, testable, etc.

Zat said, when one’s religious beliefs say “this cannot be what happened”, then one must rail against it. The reaction to “The Satanic Verses” is a good example of this.

This topic is biased…

But other than that, every one has their beliefs. Their is NO absolute truth. I don’t see why we all have to believe in the same thing. Let them believe what they want. You have no reason to put them down for it..

As for me, I personally have no belief in anything, but I feel that we all should have the opportunity to believe what we want with out being persecuted or put down for it by others.

Because if we don’t, the implant in our heads would explode.

For the same reason some people wonder why their scanner doesn’t work even though they never turned it on int the first place. (speaking form personal experience)

because some of us don’t view the evidence as sufficient.

@Hellfrost Can you cite this “Law of Evolution” please?

Law? Theory*

Good link:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

Also: @DominicX: Theory in the scientific sense practically means fact. a scientifc theory must meet certain criteria, criteria that outside of a scientific context are basically those we would require from a fact: testability (as in: can we witness it) and predictability (in the sense that when it happens it follows some specific rules).

@Thammuz But “fact” and ”Law” are a bit different, no?

@cooolbeans, @SpatzieLover: in a sense there is a “law of evolution”, it’s the base of the theory which is that changes stack over time. It’s not called “law of evolution” but it’s the closest you can get…

@Thammuz There is no “Darwin’s Law” though.

They want to take it to the Supreme Court and get it overturned. They believe evolution is unconstitutional.

@SpatzieLover: yeah, so?

<rant mode: on> I’m seriously sick and tired of people referring only to darwin every goddam time there’s a debate on evolution.

Darwin was not the only man ever to work on he theory of evolution, as a matter of fact he only started it, most of the work has been done afterwards by other people who a) never get credit b) nobody apparently cares about. <rant mode: off>

The ToE evolved a great deal since its first inception, and many of its initial flaws have been accounted for and corrected, Darwin’s origin of species is NOT an accurate depiction of the present version of the ToE. It is, however, a good starting point.

I’m not an expert on the subject, even though i do have a general comprehension of it, if you really care enough you can find LOTS of explaination here and there, i suggest AronRa’s videos on youtube, he’s fairly easy to comprehend and people way more expert than me confirmed me he knows what he’s talking about.

@Thammuz I believe evolution to be true. However, the question asks, “Why are there people who believe the law of evolution is untrue?”

My answer remains the same: There is no such scientific law.

Because they think if they’re wrong about one thing, then that is a threat to their entire pathetic faith.

And the nitpickers who are jumping on your usage of the word “law” are technically correct, because there are many forms of evolution, and some aren’t “laws” yet.

The sad thing about anti-evolutionists, though, is their fear of anything that contradicts what their pastor or Fox News tells them.

@SpatzieLover: oh, ok, got it. Yeah, there is no such law.

Evolution is still a theory, not a law.

It isn’t the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth like some folks like to make out, but it is a popular idea that got misappropriated by some very sinister elements.

“it is a popular idea that got misappropriated”

Is that like the squeaky wheel gets oiled?

what @DominicX said Religion and evolution are not incompatible.

as bitter and mean @Kraigmo sounds, he is right, to a degree, for many of this persuasion

Well I certainly am no rocket scientist but I do recognize a stone when I see a stone. After all the proof for this so called “theory” I think it’s about time you change the word theory into fact or more easily; law. Evolution was changed into the Theory of evolution because at the time there wasn’t enough evidence to support the title law. Many (religious) critics stated that there where too many missing links, other stages of evolution we and other animals like and unlike us went through. However this was over forty years ago. In those four decades many, many, many new finds have been made that support the “theory” of evolution.

And to the statement that my question is bias; of course it is. I am a firm believer in the law of evolution. My question is quite simple to me; I want to know why people don’t believe something so fundamentally obvious. Of course people are free to believe whatever they want, I would never try to impede this. I am just curious to know why people doubt this law.

And to answer the statement; religion and evolution aren’t incompatible; unless you are talking about a new religion then you are wrong. None of the old religions is compatible with evolution. Why? Because their holy books describe the creation of the earth. These holy books are 100% true. In fact they are the word of their deity so they cannot be questioned. So, how would you compare this with evolution?

@Hellfrost Not entirely sure that a rocket scientist would be qualified to judge stones (geologist), or evaluate the status of evolutionary theory (biologist). Good thing you’re neither =)

@Hellfrost yes evolution is compatible with many religions. The Genesis account which is agreed upon by Jews, Christians, and Muslims (I think) can be interpreted many ways other than young earth creationism.

It is the human conditionto choose subjectively what is in your own mind, and many thus differ in their beliefs. It is more important to respect dissent and differing points of view than it is to find fault in genuinely held beliefs. This will strengthen some and weaken others in their resolve to further elaborate on evolution, thus advancing everyone’s knowledge level. I enjoy and appreciate everyone who thinks differently as they sometimes are the key to amazing things.

@dannyc in any other circumstance I’d agree, but when the peope who “think differently” clearly can’t distinguish between their mouth and their asshole, i’m nt that inclined to give them either my time or any shred of respect.

I mean, come on “the banana fits in your hand, so it has to be designed”?
It also fits in your ass, what does that tell you about god and buttsecks? (not to mention the fact that bananas were grown BY US into that shape)

@ grumpyfish I might not be either of those but at least I am a free thinking individual. You don’t need a title to understand basic principles about something. And I was using the rocket scientist thing as a metaphor, you know that thing which the bible is full of. For some reason but many idiots seem to take these metaphors as fact.

@dannyc Fantastic Answer

@Hellfrost I appreciate that you’re a free thinking, rational person. However, you brought up not being a rocket scientist. (* grin *)

Notably:

“A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.”

In the scientific world, Laws are not necessarily more valid than a Theory. They are simply one type of observation. Law of Gravity says G_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu}= {8\pi G\over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}. However, it doesn’t posit a why (gravitons? space time curvature? FSM?).

There are in fact no laws in biology (please correct me if I’m wrong)—there are chemical laws that apply to biology, there are physical laws that apply to biology (conservation of energy, laws of thermodynamics, etc.).

Honestly, I’m just arguing semantics. Theory and Law are two very different concepts, and should not be confused as a chain of authority.

But that is what’s going on. People hear theory of evolution and they think that this is something questionable because it’s; only a theory. Almost all of the scientists out there agree that evolution is a fact. Just like almost all agree that the big bang theory is the most likely explanation of the creation of the universe.

The word theory hinders the acceptance of evolution. And yes, that is a bad thing.

@Hellfrost
I don’t respect people for choosing to believe what I also believe is right, but if what they believe is backed up with true merit as I see it. Your passion for the topic hugely outweighs your actual knowledge on the topic at hand.

I’m sorry to say this Hellfrost but you are one of those people who believe what they think is right but don’t have much merit to back it up (from what I see hear you are, you may normally hold back on your views until you know more.)

@cooolbeans Well sorry for being a dumbass then (which is basically what you are saying only in long and abstract way to make yourself appear superior) I do happen to know what I am talking about. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have started the argument. As stated before I am not claiming to be a genius, as many people on here do. What I do claim to have is a basic understanding of what I am talking about, I don’t blindly believe something because I read it in a magazine or because Bill Maher said it.

Anyways, thank you for that “f*ck you in disguise” it speaks volumes about your personality

@Hellfrost, I can say one thing on your whole point: you miss the point. The fact that the ToE is called “Theory” is because scientific language is based on the same premises science itself is, one of which is what is called “systematic error”.
This implies that NO scientific accomplishment, as accurate as it can be, will NEVER be 100% accurate and therefore, out of intellectual honesty, something that escapes most human beings, a model of explaination in science will always be considered a theory, and a correlation between values called a “law” (just because it’s demonstrably efficient, and even there the systematic error is within the measurements).

You might be amazed at this but scientists actually don’t care wether people understand or not what they work with, what they know and whatnot.

Most people don’t understand how a moptherboard works, or a USB drive, or the internet. The difference is that they don’t go around saying “it’s magic goblins inside my computer case” because they don’t give a shit.

On the other hand when someone touches their precious bullshit belief that they’re special and unique and will never really die, putting them before the harsh reality that they really don’t know, they go fucking ape shit and raise barricade over barricade to make sure their precious little shelter from reality remains safe and sound.

And in all of this where do scientists stand? On the “i couldn’t care less even if i tried” line. It’s not their job to make idiots understand they’re idiots.

Science shouldn’t, won’t and doesn’t bend to be more “idiot friendly”.

@hellfrost Also remember that there’s a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Remember when people tell you that you do not understand something, it doesn’t mean that they think you are dumb, it can simply mean that they think you do not have the background knowledge required.

“Rocket scientist” == “Genius” is a common popular misconception. You can actually be of average to below average intelligence and be quite the effective rocket scientist, it’s just harder. OTOH, some of the most brilliant minds have put themselves into fairly menial tasks (Einstein’s Patent Inspector job, comes to mind, Ramanujan’s clerk job is another).

For that matter, I am very intelligent (no, I don’t know what my IQ is, nor do I really care), and enjoy knowing things. However, I do research to back up what I think I know.

For the most part, it doesn’t matter if people believe in creation or not, it only becomes a problem when it overlaps with things like education. As long as week can keep the creation/intelligent design people out of the science classroom (on the basis that it’s not science), it won’t be a problem.

But I think the greater problem is the general public not understanding that science is the study of that which can be observed, which makes ID have no place in the classroom (as, by definition, it cannot be observed).

shrug as someone else said: “The dark ages were really good for the people.”