Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heck, humans have survived for a long time before anyone believed in evolution. There is no reason things are different now.
In fact I would not want to go back to the early days when medical care was either non -existent or positively harmful, but that's not really the point. We could have made a lot of medical advances without Darwin's ideas. But that's not the point, either. Arguably we could have had time - keeping, navigation and geography while still believing it was a flat earth under a dome. But there was always the threat of something going badly wrong because the whole basis of the science was invalid, and it's best to get it right anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
Yes, that is part of it.
In addition, some people simply cannot believe that we humans are just one more type of animal life. They have to believe we are special.
Once you believe we humans are more special than other animals, you cannot believe we had an animal like an ape as a direct ancestor.
For example, one very intelligent Muslim poster said he believes in evolution for all creatures except humans. He thinks humans were created somewhere else and then brought to Earth.
There is something of case to made for that anyway. There is an argument that God (or maybe visiting alien scientists) took promising apes and elevated the consciousness to our level. I don't rule out the idea, but I also don't rule out the idea that reasoning was something we developed that other animals can't just as some other animals have abilities we don't. And reasoning is an astounding ability.
However, those who will resuse to admit that we are related to the apes have to explain why we look so much like one. Even without the evidence that apes evolved to upright problem -solvers, the relationship is hard to deny.
Why deny it? It is based on a dogma that grabs supporting evidence, even if false, and dismisses anything that they don't like out of hand, even it demonstrably true and persuasive. You can do it if you like, but that is no way to reason and it is not the sort of thinking that should be presented to othere as good reasoning.
Not in schools, not in government (political polemics aside ) and certainly not in science.
Who do some people deny evolution? Because they cannot simply accept their direct answer was non-human.
I think you meant "direct ancestor" not "direct answer", and if so, you'd be wrong, because evolution does not at all imply that our direct ancestors were apes. What it says is that humans and apes have a common ancestor between themselves. Which is an entirely different matter.
It is telling that much of the objection of creationists is based on this fallacy. It is easy to get people to not even look at the evidence by appealing to their vanity -- they do not want to be descended from apes. But that is not even what is claimed by evolution.
For Theists, the answer is easy. They say we look like apes because a god wanted it that way.
Indeed. I have seen the answer to every question is 'That's the way God wanted it'. It simply sidelines all the evidence without even looking at it.
That's ok, because those who approach from a faith point of view will agree with that anyway, but anyone who considers the question will see its no answer at all.
What's interesting is that evolution has nothing to do with naturalism. There are both theists and atheists that accept it. It's not a claim exclusive to atheists. Ken Miller, for example, is a devout catholic but is also a strong proponent of evolution by natural selection. The idea that evolution is something only atheists can accept is nothing more than creationist propaganda. The reason to accept evolution(regardless of your religious affiliation) is that all the evidence points to it. No matter what IDers prattle on about, all the evidence supports evolution and none supports ID. This is why the vast majority of scientists accept evolution and disregard ID/creationism.
The evidence that supports naturalism is that there is no evidence that supports the supernatural. The onus is on the one making the assertion and believers can't empirically support the idea that the supernatural exists. It's similar to me saying that there is a fairy in the garden but it can't be detected by the five senses. However, it's proven to exist by the fact I see plants growing.
Most people would pass this off as lunacy, but it's no different than the arguments made by those who believe in the supernatural. Things like consciousness, moral codes etc. aren't evidence for the existence of the supernatural. What these arguments really are, are nothing more than not understanding how something works so they insert god as the answer even though they can't substantiate that by empirical evidence. Empirically verified claims are the only claims that matter, therefore the supernatural does not merit belief. Given that fact, it is rational to accept the claim that the material world is all that exists.
Don't you see the warped logic in play here? You need your health care providers, the pathologists, the antibiotic makers, etc. to know how evolution works.
No, I really don't see any errors in my logic.
Why do the antibiotic makers need to know how evolution works?
They need to know how to create antibiotics to kill the new bacteria that are being created. They could believe the new bacteria have evolved from older bacteria or they could believe a supreme being has created the new bacteria.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,918,389 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
No, I really don't see any errors in my logic.
Why do the antibiotic makers need to know how evolution works?
They need to know how to create antibiotics to kill the new bacteria that are being created. They could believe the new bacteria have evolved from older bacteria or they could believe a supreme being has created the new bacteria.
You did tell us you don't understand science, right?
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,507,366 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
No, I really don't see any errors in my logic.
Why do the antibiotic makers need to know how evolution works?
They need to know how to create antibiotics to kill the new bacteria that are being created. They could believe the new bacteria have evolved from older bacteria or they could believe a supreme being has created the new bacteria.
1. Alot (not always) of the time you can clearly see the lineage of a mutated virus or bacteria. It the almost the same as the old virus but there usually been a small adaptation to make that virus or bacteria resistant to current medication level, types, groups. It not a new virus or bacteria that just poofed into existence. You can clearly see evolutionary process. sometimes medical science is able to make some good predictions of future mutations of these pathogens and try to preempt future complications. Does it always work. No of course not. But the process is understood.
If we decided to deny evolution, If we denied how it worked as a society from day one of darwin's publishing. We would most likely still be burning Incense and praying for cures. And honestly you would probably be dead right now because of your blood infection.
2. You can believe deity(s). Notice I never said anything about deity(s) nor atheism in my posts. You can believe (for now) that a deity(s) created life. You can even believe that a deity(s) had a plan to change microscopic lifeforms (by a process). What you can't do is deny the Obvious process of evolutionary adaptation that can be seen with a powered microscope. Evolution is a process. There is no sudden magic involved. It can be seen. It can be understood. And sometimes it's path can be predicted.
3. Since you and many others have been "saved" by the modern medical system that requires most of it participants to have a least some level of comprehension and belief in the evolutionary process. By your action of deciding to participate in that system to save yourselves. You (if you deny evolution) and others that would like to deny the process have forfeit your right to do so. You made a choice. And you choose (knowing or unknowingly) a system that is evolutionarily based. Once again..your done!
Last edited by baystater; 06-09-2014 at 10:17 PM..
You did tell us you don't understand science, right?
Nope, I would never say something like that.
I have a PhD in mathematics and a lot of course work in scientific fields.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and certainly not in science.
