Question for people who do not accept evolution: Suppose someone robbed your house (see details) - How would you deal with this?

I trust the science. The fingerprints and DNA of a person who did not belong in the house is pretty powerful evidence. My security system would have photographed him also, which would add to the pile of evidence.

BTW, I do accept evolution. Sorry, the question wasn’t directed at me.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land – No problem. It might be interesting to get some reactions from evolution supporters as well.

I believe that life was created. I also believe life evolves. I would trust the evidence, forensic science is invaluable in not only proving guilt but innocence as well. As for proof of the origin of life…that continues to “evolve” as well. A lot of the evidence once heralded as proof of life’s origin as been questioned and even disproved by some of the very scientists who seek to debunk the idea of creation. Everyone has their own ideas and beliefs but when all is said and done then the truth will be known without a shadow of a doubt. Meanwhile, it will continue to go round and round..with one side trying to convince the other. Why not just let people believe what they will…as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others? And that is directed at BOTH sides. :-)

Here is what I think and what I have encountered when dealing with creationists/ID’lers:
1. They either do not know or they deny that the evidence exists (Like Micheal Behe, who, at the Dover trial, denied that there was any work on the evolution of the Immune system and even when he was presented with a big pile of papers and books dealing with just that, he just dismissed them out of hand while admitting he did not read any of them nor having any knowledge at all, not even superficial, about the contents of these books.)
2. Or they have an incomplete/distorted (by the likes of Kent “Tax Evader” Hovind) view about the science and the evidence.
3. Or they claim that the evidence is manufactured in a “global conspiracy of scientists to oppose the word of God.”
4. Or they claim the evidence was planted by Satan to lure people away from God.
5, Or they claim that God planted the evidence to test people’s faith.

@Jade, well said, and my sentiments precisely.

DNA is the blueprint for everything in our bodies but DNA is not always 100% conclusive in crime scenes as the experts also work on probabilities and contamination can be a factor as well, labs also vary in testing techniques. But I’d like to see the statistics where the victims denied the DNA results given in court.

I suppose it can be interesting to discuss and debate creation vs.evolution, but whether you believe God patted us on the rump or we started out as little swimmy things—or, we originated in some other way, because you know, that’s possible, too—WE’RE HERE!!! Let’s work through a bigger issue: HOW CAN WE ALL CO-EXIST ON THIS LITTLE BALL WE CALL EARTH?

@octopussy DNA+fingerprints+fiber evidence piles up the statisics very high against the accused. This all assumes that the accused never had any justifiable reason to be in the house previously.

@Jade – You asked, Why not just let people believe what they will? I can think of at least one reason. Refusing to understand evolution kills millions of people whose lives could otherwise be saved. Because so many scientists try hard to understand evolution they can fight diseases such as influenza or cancer. Children with cancer are still alive because of our understanding of evolution. Shouldn’t we do everything to prevent the death of these children? Shouldn’t just this one reason be enough for evolution deniers to give up their denial?

@ragingloli – Well, in my case the evidence that supports evolution didn’t lure me away from God. On the contrary it lured me toward God and let’s me believe in Him even more.

@octopussy – Yes, therefore it’s always a good idea to have independent clues and put together all the pieces. As for evolution we do not only have the fossils and body plans, we’ve also got geology and the understanding of plate tectonics. And we do have the genomes of all living species. And we can compare them.

When a burglar leaves several independent clues, the case is much stronger, isn’t it?

@mattbrowne- People believing in creation does not stop anyone from research to prevent disease. All the people I know who believe as I do, are behind scientific research as much as those who don’t believe in creation. There are some who take the stance “It’s God’s will”, let the chips fall where they may, but those are NOT the majority and have no power to stop the scientific community from conducting research…which includes the evolution of diseases and such. My believing in creation in no way impedes anyone’s right to study evolution and believe what they want on the subject. And I have no desire to impede or see anyone restricted because of what I happen to believe. And I would imagine that the majority of those who believe in creation feel the same way..though I am in no way trying to speak for them…only myself.

God would have ensured I would not be robbed in the first place.

@Lightlyseared you funny!

@Owl – I totally agree about how we can all co-exist on this little ball we call earth. Here’s one example. Evolution and genomics can tell us that racism is a totally stupid concept.

Let’s take 55 chimps and look at their genomes. Then we look at the genomes of the entire human population. What we find is that

55 chimps are more diverse genetically than all of the 6,795,957,461 people alive today. People are almost identical genetically. An amazing finding I think.

@Jade – Scientists who are seriously engaged in research to prevent disease cannot deny evolution. It’s simply not possible. Besides, creation and evolution must not be a contradiction. God can be seen as the creator of the natural laws. Human beings are a consequence of this. I believe in creation. And the same time I also accept evolution.

@mattbrowne Amazing fact! Thanks for posting that.

Great question!

I don’t have an opinion because I’ve never given the issue any thought, but your question is very nicely presented.

I have this feeling that God’s up there thinking, Oy, I give these people 14 new hours each day to evolve themselves, and all they do is rehash old arguments. sigh

lol @Owl!

Evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An intelligent agent may have seeded the initial life forms. I’m not conceding that such being(s) have any sacred attributes or are worthy of worship. See Clarke’s Third Law.

personally i think the conclusion that we evolved is inescapable, however in my unqualified opinion i do have a couple of doubts. not exactly if we evolve or not, but rather about how much we have missed.

i would think, to have the diversity that we have now days that we should expect to see many more fossils of extinct creatures. (yes i know we have vast vast vast amounts already) but i still think we have only just scratched the surface. and that many of these fossils are now at the bottom of the ocean, or destroyed by mountain formation and earthquakes and all kinds of other things.

its just when i look at how different a human is to a fish to a bird to a rat to a snake etc… i get the idea that there must be all kinds of wacky failed mutations that we never even got to see. maybe some soft invertebrates or blob like things that would never even be able to leave fossils even in optimum conditions.

anyone else share this unqualified opinion of mine?

On the topic of people not being unified in the belief of evolution. i would like to point out that, although jade is correct in saying that people are entitled to ther own beliefs and the few who belive that science in evolution is wrong will never be able to effect the work of the scientists themselves. if we didnt have so many people against or unsure about evolution, and science as a whole, science would have many more people on its side and much more capabilitys at hand. it is the radical, closed minded, religous beliefs that are dragging us down as a species.

@Jade Ultimately I don’t care what you or any ordinary person believes. I do care what politicians and policy makers believe, since they make decisions about science funding, education policy, and health policy. A president who doesn’t accept evolution is likely to cut science funding, not maintain sound scientific standards for education, and make poor decisions regarding health policy. That’s downright dangerous. I also think that while everyone is entitled to believe what they want to, they don’t have the right to teach those beliefs in a science classroom. Our children need to learn the basic theories (including evolution) that make modern science work. One doesn’t know if little Johnny will grow up to be a preacher, a scientist, a forklift driver, or a politician. It is wrong to deny him an education that will enable him to be a good scientist or a good leader. In fact, it is wrong to deny him an education that will make him an informed voter. And that is almost enough to make me overturn my statement regarding allowing everyone to believe whatever they want. In a democratic society everyone gets a vote, and the vote of someone who doesn’t accept evolution is more likely to result in a leader who doesn’t accept evolution, which is more likely to result in inadequate and even dangerous policies regarding science funding, education, and health policy. So everyone has the right to believe what they want, I can’t force anyone to change their beliefs, and I can’t take their vote away, but I do think all that makes it worth arguing and making the case for evolution, particularly in a respectful and interesting way, as @mattbrowne usually does.

@Jade, you have the right to believe whatever you want.

Similarly, I have the right to believe that you are wrong. And if you post your opinions on a public forum, I have the right to tell you that you’re wrong.

This doesn’t mean you are oppressed. It doesn’t mean I’m trying to take your right away. It means we are debating. And if your beliefs are so fragile that they cannot even withstand public debate and criticism, then perhaps that says something about their truth value.

@mattbrowne, the thing about people who “don’t accept evolution” is that they actually do.

Ask a creationist how many “kinds” of animals Noah brought on the ark. Whatever the number, it’s going to be orders of magnitude less than the number of species alive today. Creationists believe that the million+ extant species today evolved from the limited number of “kinds” Noah brought on the ark. In the space of ~6,000 years. So, magical evolution.

So, they don’t actually deny evolution, they just believe in a magical evolution that fits into the context of their mythology.

@Snarp uberGA. Fine to teach Genesis as social studies (comparative religion) or theology. Not acceptable in a science classroom. Private religious belief does not belong in the public sphere, imposed on others.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land, I don’t think it’s a matter of private vs. public. I think it’s a matter of science vs. not-science.

Our public schools are supposed to prepare kids for college and work. That’s the public good that our taxes pay for. One of the main ways schools do this is by teaching kids about science. Religious mythology is not science.

@Qingu In general I agree with you. In the US the Constitution forbids religion in the public sphere (interpretations of the First Amendment vary). Teaching of religion belongs in the private sphere. Teaching about various religions is permitted, but not doctrinally, in government schools.

This “Intelligent Design” pseudoscience is an almost entirely American phenomenon; it’s real “design” being to get around the Constitution. It is pure conjecture, with no basis in scientific method. It is interesting to speculate about the possibility that life may have been “seeded” onto ancient Earth by higher forms, but there is no evidence of it. Literal interpretation of Genesis is mythology or theology, not science.

Our entire technological structure is based on discoveries made using the scientific method. It is the paradigm of this age, and anyone not taught at least what it is cannot be considered an educated person. The vast preponderance of evidence acceptable to the scientific method points to evolution theory being correct. It is therefore what must be taught as science.

My understanding from a few anti-evolution proponents that I’ve encountered/read about isn’t necessarily that they eschew science altogether, they simply reconcile the parts of science which conflict with their religious beliefs. Here are a couple of leading theories on the matter as far as I understand it.

1) God, being all powerful, planted false evidence so that we would believe the earth is older than it really is, as sort of a test of faith.

2) The scientists who study the things in which we do not believe have an agenda and/or are funded by interests that have an agenda. You can get science to tell you anything you want it to tell you if you manipulate the data in the right way.

The first camp is kind of the catch all, particularly for the fundamentalist movement, because it really shuts out any possibility of serious debate. God can do whatever God wants….this argument allows any inconsistency, any illogic to be explained away with a simple brush stroke.

The second camp is more selective and these folks might be more apt to distrust science in general, some very well might not believe DNA to be concrete evidence, but of course we have to then deal with issues of self-interest and hypocrisy in your example. A perfect example of this movement is what we saw with the global warming emails a month or two ago where some scientist at a university most of us have never heard of sent and email to a colleague suggesting they sex up a graph in a way that might over-emphasize the problem….those who believe that global warming (much like evolution) is “junk science” had a field day and used that as some sort of “proof” that global warming in its entirety is a scam.

And usually these are the same people (the global warming deniers and the evolution deniers), because when you get right down to it, if you want to believe that God provided us with this earth to use how we see fit, that would include the oil….the oil can’t simply be decomposed dinosaurs because a) we know that God provided us this oil and b) we know that dinosaurs didn’t live as long ago as “science” says they did…the bible tells us so.

Bottom line, you can’t use logic to argue with someone who’s mind is made up, because in the mind of the faithful, faith will ALWAYS triumph over logic.

@dalepetrie Nice explanation of the mindsets. +GA

I would suspect that anti-evolutionists would decide that no matter what the evidence says the theft was part of a conspiracy orchestrated by Richard Dawkins to oppress poor, beleagured Christians.

@Darwin – and if they can somehow tie it to the war on Christmas, all the better.

@dalepetrie , closed minded people cannot be swayed to chang their beliefs. it is up to the future generations to drop these radical movements and thoughts, to establish a sociaty with a little bit of sense. very good answer. your example with global warming was on the dot.

@OrbenDiaz – couldn’t agree more.

@Quingu- I have no problem whatsoever with anyone believing that I am wrong. That will not change what I believe. You will notice that no where in my replies have I said that I thought anyone’s opinion was wrong. I may not agree with an opinion, but that doesn’t make it wrong. I am not debating creation/evolution because I happen to believe in both. I am comfortable with my beliefs just as I am comfortable with the fact that not everyone shares them. Mattbrowne did make a valid point concerning politicians, but it is also my OPINION that, in matters of policy, ethics should be considered. Decisions can be ethical without bringing religion into it at all. One of the most ethical people I know happens to be an Atheist, and a dear friend of mine.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land – Was it the Ancients seeding life? Where are all the stargates?

@poisonedantidote – More fossils of transitional species will show up. Fish and humans are actually not that different. Same body plan. Take a fin and an arm. Same structure. One bone. Two bones. Some stuff in-between. Couple of digits. Scientists also know that two of the three tiny bones of the inner ear used to part of fish jaws.

Evolutionary evidence is pretty strong. The middle ear contains three tiny bones known as the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. Reptiles only got one tiny bone in their ears. The evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles is one of the most well-documented and important evolutionary events, demonstrating both numerous transitional forms as well as an excellent example of exaptation, the re-purposing of existing structures during evolution. Here’s an enlightening article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles

@Snarp – Thanks for your wonderful comment!

@Qingu – Interesting point. Does this mean evolution deniers also believe in magical forensics? Can a robber be convicted on the basis that the clues were left as described in myths? The Bible does contain stories about greed and theft and other sins. Should forensic experts take this into account?

@mattbrowne Who knows? We may not have the technology to even detect them, or there may by a Cochrane-type “warp drive”. So many questions and religion is such an unsatisfactory answer (at least to me). When Carl Sagan was asked why he called himself agnostic, his answer is the same as mine: “to be an atheist, you would have to know a lot more than I do”.

I’m not wasting my time with Pascal’s Wager, but not ruling out possiblities. I know that this does not fit the rules of formal logic. I allow for all possibilities, but accept the most probable as my working hypothesis.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land For the record, there’s a lot of misconception about what the terms “agnostic” and “atheist” mean. One can be both agnostic and an atheist. In fact, most agnostics are also atheists. Atheism simply means that one does not believe in god(s). It does not mean that one believes that one knows there are no gods. In fact, if one does not actively believe, then one is an atheist. Agnostic means that one recognizes that one has no direct knowledge about whether or not there is a god, but it says nothing about whether or not one believes in a god. I for one am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in god(s) and I think that god(s) are highly unlikely, but I know that it is always a possibility, one that is almost impossible to rule out. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good discussion on the meaning of agnosticism, if you’re interested.

But hey, you can call yourself whatever you want.

@Snarp Thanks for the correction in semantics. That’s why I love this site, I can always find somebody smarter than me. +GA

@stranger_in_a_strange_land Not necessarily smarter, just something I’ve encountered and given some thought to lately.

@mattbrowne, there are “appearance of age” arguments. Like, the earth appears old but so did Adam—he appeared to be a grown man, despite having been created in a day. So God has the ability to make illusions about age, therefore we can’t trust what science says about age.

I don’t know how that would interact with forensics but it’s an interestingly problematic worldview.

@Snarp – In the same manner one can be both agnostic and deist, i.e. combining a scientifically unanswerable question with a belief.