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.
This is NOT a debate on the validity of evolutionary theory or the lack thereof. God knows we have plenty of those threads.
But what I wonder is why it is so threatening and polarizing a subject for so many people religious or not.
Is it really that terrible to think we came from an ape-like ancestor? It's not like we still crawl around on all fours, wave our arms wildly, scream and shriek at every little thing and throw our poo around (well, most of us anyway. )... so what if that's what our ancestors were...It's not what we are now.
And about god... Why wouldn't god create sentient life by evolving it over billions of years? It's not like an all-knowing eternal being doesn't have the time to do it. Evolution does NOT prove there isn't a god, nor devalue spirituality. It may discredit religious institutions, granted... but religion and spirituality are two different things.
This is NOT a debate on the validity of evolutionary theory or the lack thereof. God knows we have plenty of those threads.
But what I wonder is why it is so threatening and polarizing a subject for so many people religious or not.
Is it really that terrible to think we came from an ape-like ancestor? It's not like we still crawl around on all fours, wave our arms wildly, scream and shriek at every little thing and throw our poo around (well, most of us anyway. )... so what if that's what our ancestors were...It's not what we are now.
And about god... Why wouldn't god create sentient life by evolving it over billions of years? It's not like an all-knowing eternal being doesn't have the time to do it. Evolution does NOT prove there isn't a god, nor devalue spirituality. It may discredit religious institutions, granted... but religion and spirituality are two different things.
So what gives?
It goes against the bible, adam and eve were created by god out of dirt and rib, coming from an ape negates the dirt and rib idea. SO i have been told. To me evolution makes the most sense.
Evolution as a theory could be sticky for this reason:
The races of humans formed because populations of humans were geographically and tribally separated from one another over a long period of time. Long enough for genetic marking to occur. Anyone who thinks there isn't any genetic difference between human subspecies is an idiot, if there were not we'd never know who belonged to various races with any accuracy at all! We wouldn't be able to predict that mixed children would look different than any two people of the same race having children. It happens in other animals when they are geographically separated or where a very low amount of gene flow is occurring between populations, too. There are many different subspecies (races) of the common kingsnake, for example.
If genetic marking occurred, and obviously it did by our appearances, then what other differences might there be? Could one group be have needed more brainpower while another needed more brawn? How could those differences in biological adaptation still be helping or handicapping most members of these various groups today? I don't know whether it's a factor or not, but just saying once you accept a theory of adaptation, you open yourself up to asking what all these adaptations may have been and how that plays out still today.
I think a lot of people feel that it will diminish any "meaning" to their life. Also, certain people like to think they are somehow superior than all other living things, and the idea of common ancestry with other life forms threatens that superiority.
Evolution as a theory could be sticky for this reason:
The races of humans formed because populations of humans were geographically and tribally separated from one another over a long period of time. Long enough for genetic marking to occur. Anyone who thinks there isn't any genetic difference between human subspecies is an idiot, if there were not we'd never know who belonged to various races with any accuracy at all! We wouldn't be able to predict that mixed children would look different than any two people of the same race having children. It happens in other animals when they are geographically separated or where a very low amount of gene flow is occurring between populations, too. There are many different subspecies (races) of the common kingsnake, for example.
If genetic marking occurred, and obviously it did by our appearances, then what other differences might there be? Could one group be have needed more brainpower while another needed more brawn? How could those differences in biological adaptation still be helping or handicapping most members of these various groups today? I don't know whether it's a factor or not, but just saying once you accept a theory of adaptation, you open yourself up to asking what all these adaptations may have been and how that plays out still today.
Not exactly correct...
Genetic studies have shown there is more variation between two troops of chimpanzees living on opposide sides of a mountain than two human groups on opposite sides of the world. We are actually freakishly similar genetically, and there is no such think as a "human subspecies". Anthropologist don't even accept "race" as a valid divisor of humanity. All our differences are superficial and artifical (culturally oriented) in nature.
Ya know, I never understood why they are so threatened by evolution. As you said, Chango, it does not disprove a "god", whatever that may be. I think what many Fundamentalists call doctrine is actually more in the realm of dogma. Since dogma is intractable, they are threatened by anything that might take their god out of a box. Being an agnostic theist, I find that the concept of "god" is much more magnificent than a "god" one can say "I know" or "I understand everything about", then play lip service to its mystery. Whatever "god" is, it has to bigger than anything the world's religions think it is.
I think there are more people in the US threatened by evolution than in other countries. Here is a link where a BBC movie on creationism and Darwin failed to find a single distributor in the US - but had no problems anywhere else Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America' - Telegraph : "Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published. "
We are supposed to be the most advanced nation on earth but the fundies try and drag us back to the stone ages. In fact, in some southern states like Oklahoma, a very high percentage of science teachers do not believe in evolution (search web for specifics).
We are supposed to be the most advanced nation on earth but the fundies try and drag us back to the stone ages. In fact, in some southern states like Oklahoma, a very high percentage of science teachers do not believe in evolution (search web for specifics).
I had to rep you for that. A good source for empirical data is in the journal, The American Biology Teacher. There's a new one in press regarding teachers in Florida (should be out this spring).
I had to rep you for that. A good source for empirical data is in the journal, The American Biology Teacher. There's a new one in press regarding teachers in Florida (should be out this spring).
Thx. In Texas, they almost got "intelligent" design into the school textbooks last year. As OP said, science is very scary for some.
edit: Maybe, OP should have asked this in the christianity sub-section which would have more of the target audience.
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.