Current Events > In your opinion would someone have to be insane to not believe in evolution?

(+) Yeah! (+)

do you think so? have heard others say this before

---

nah. just an opinion...

---

If they have even the slightest idea how things change over time, yes. If they are ultra religious and refuse to even think about it, I would call it more delusional than insane.

What if evolution went in reverse?

---

dolomedes posted...

not an opinion tbh

Yeah, it is. Whether or not they're right isn't subjective, whether they believe what is true is, in fact, an opinion. People can't just reform what they believe, and it's harder for some than others.

---

2Pacavelli posted...

What if evolution went in reverse?

You think evolution only goes one way?

---

dolomedes posted...

not an opinion tbh

ya. its a bad take for sure, but they can take it and not be insane.

---

No. Religion requires you to be wilfully ignorant of many things in the world, and replace a doubt driven world view with a faith based one.

---

Jabodie posted...

No. Religion requires you to be wilfully ignorant of many things in the world,

It doesn't. Granted, a lot of religious people are willfully ignorant, but it's not a prerequisite.

---

2Pacavelli posted...

What if evolution went in reverse?

it does.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/91022/5-muscles-you-might-be-missing

dolomedes posted...

evolution does not have a direction

I mean what if it was humans that came first and the apes later?

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

it does.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/91022/5-muscles-you-might-be-missing

Thanks for the info

---

vigorm0rtis posted...

It doesn't. Granted, a lot of religious people are willfully ignorant, but it's not a prerequisite.

You're right. It just requires you to choose to disregard much of modem science in lieu of a holy text for the testimony of a holy figure. Or claim parts of the holy text that are obvious incorrect are metaphors where other parts are literal.

And, as the majority of the world is religious, how can the rejection of a concept on religious grounds be insane?

---

dolomedes posted...

humans are apes and evolved within the ape clade, so, uh, what?

I mean what if it was homosapien that came first then the chimpanzees came after?

---

2Pacavelli posted...

I mean what if it was homosapien that came first then the chimpanzees came after?

this makes no sense

---

people get upset when you start calling religious people insane TC...

---

JebronLames posted...

this makes no sense

If the weird "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" kicked in much earlier, this could be plausible.

Jabodie posted...

Or claim parts of the holy text that are obvious incorrect are metaphors where other parts are literal.

Less of this is required than you'd think. A lot of it is intentional metaphor and the people who wrote it knew it was. Modern Christianity is decidedly dumber about their faith than people in the first century.

If you ever want an example, look at the difference between what Christianity thinks about David v. Goliath and what Judiasm thinks it means.


---

If we are going by the definition that includes being mentally ill, then insane would not be the right descriptor. They could be uneducated on the subject or simply dismissive of it, and maybe misguided by someone they trust as an authority figure.

---

dolomedes posted...

lol @ aquatic ape and plausible used in the same sentence

that's fair

No.

---

dolomedes posted...

that didn't happen, so we can't really 'what if' given those examples. if you're envisioning an ancestor of humans that is hairier & less bi-pedal w less cognitive ability, that still wouldn't be a 'reversal' of evolution. there would have to be reasons for the apparent backpedaling.

again, see snakes. their closest relatives are the lizards, which retain the body plan put forth by the earliest vertebrates to walk on land - namely, two pairs of legs.
or whales - they evolved within the same lineage as ungulates (hoofed animals). their ancestors had legs and walked on land, but whales etc went back into the water. lost those legs.

there is no reverse. there is no direction.

Okay that makes sense thanks for the info. So that's why Whales are Mammals and other sea animals aren't?

---

I wouldn't say insane. I would say uninformed. Or stubborn because they see it as a threat to their worldview that makes them feel comfortable.

But I have met many religious people who "believe in" evolution, in fact I think it's officially accepted by the Catholic Church

---

Nah. Judging by the comments in this video, it's clear many who "believe" in it don't really get how it works. They just parrot one side instead of the other.

I would say they're just misinformed and picked the wrong side.


---

Insane, no. Irrational, yes.

---

dolomedes posted...

what video?

Meant thread

---

absolutely. 100%

---

one of the foremost paleontologists is a Christian minister; Robert Bakker

When I was in the 9th grade I had a friend that didn't accept the theory of evolution and it basically killed our friendship. We ended up sitting next to each other in biology and things got pretty weird >_>

---

I have such mixed feelings about "it's not an opinion"

Like, yes, in the sense that people act like opinions don't need to be defended. But on the other hand, all scientific conclusions are kinda opinions.

---

most self-proclaimed proponents of evolution and opponents of religion reject aspects of evolution due to latent religious bias

few know this

---

dolomedes posted...

cool, so was that a dig at me?

No you had good posts

---

DuranOfForcena posted...

uh, no, they literally aren't.

There's a reason that scientific debates exist. It's because different scientists synthesize the same data with different assumptions, have different evidentiary weight on different types of information, and therefore often come to different conclusions. The conclusions drawn from studies and reviews often reflect a scientist's thought process just as much as they do the data.

---

My degree is in evolution

I think it's hilarious that people don't believe it. Like you can also believe the sun isn't real but it's still gonna be there every day. What a futile thing to waste energy on

---

COVxy posted...

There's a reason that scientific debates exist. It's because different scientists synthesize the same data with different assumptions, have different evidentiary weight on different types of information, and therefore often come to different conclusions. The conclusions drawn from studies and reviews often reflect a scientist's thought process just as much as they do the data.

The reason why debate exists is because you have people who review and accept the mountains of evidence that exist, and then you have others who do not. We are always looking to update what we know and there are hypotheses that exist for areas where we arent clear about something, which can be fun in a thought-provoking way to speculate on those. But that is not the same as saying science, let alone evolution specifically, is just opinions.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

The reason why debate exists is because you have people who review and accept the mountains of evidence that exist, and then you have others who do not.

I think you read my general "scientific debate" as "the debate of evolution" which doesn't appropriately convey my meaning.

The key issue is that inductive inference is hard! And there isn't some formal way in which scientists do it. Scientists adopt their own (informal) priors about what's likely and weights about what evidence is meaningful. So there are disagreements about the inferences made! This is not a disagreement about the data, but what the data means.

So it is not uncommon for a scientist to read through a paper, get through the discussion section and say "that was a good and rigorous paper, but I disagree with their conclusions". Now, there's usually reasoning there, but the point is they've reached a different belief about what the state of the world is given the data.

---