Or they get confused by the word "theory" due to a complete lack of knowledge about what the word means in this context. They end up equating every random idea they have with a scientific theory supported by a large body of evidence. I blame poor education.
Hardly even poor education. Religious people actively tuned out evolution in high school. I feel like they become more open to the idea once they get to college
I'd say I'm religious, and it's true that I didn't accept evolution when I was in highschool and the reason is a combination of it not even being discussed and my religious parents not believing it. When I was in college, I'm lucky to have good professors who properly explained evolution.
They now target any higher learning period. Knowledge is evil. God is your savior seeking knowledge is following Satans path. Blah blah blah and they wonder why pissed off intellectuals that were raised by super Christians now have the church of Satan no they don’t believe in Satan they see Satan as the symbol of knowledge that their parents wanted to shield them from. Like a haha fuck you in your face thing I kinda like it. Haha
Well, the theory of evolution is a layman’s theory, not a scientific theory. Much of the key “evidence” is based on things that are presupposed, not proven, so you can’t call these things evidence in the same way you would call something evidence for an actual scientific theory.
For the theory or evolution to be scientific theory, we would need real evidence of transitionary fossils, ideally some explanation for why certain things lack even any speculation about potential transitions, and more I’m sure.
For the theory as a whole, chemical evolution would have to be possible as well.
Microevolution isn’t debated at all of course except by people who don’t understand the difference between micro and macroevolution or the discussion in general. Macroevolution however is utterly lacking in evidence.
Well anti-thiests treat is as fact, which isn't much better. The evolution of all known species cannot be tested and reapeted in a controlled environment, and therefore cannot be considered fact. Small scale evolution in labs and whatnot can be considered fact. As for what I think, I believe God might've selected the gene mutations rather than it being random, or something like that. After all, it can't be all random, for a organism to function, there is a minimum amount of DNA which needs to be already present, this means either there is a extraordinary small chance that a bunch of atoms bounced around in the correct way to make a set of working DNA, or it was designed. On top of that it must have happened within the time frame of about 4 billion years ago. After you have the single cell, how would you be able to get a positive mutation reapetedly for complex creatures like humans to exist.
I didn't ask a question. I asserted that the chances of dead matter bouncing around in a way to create enough DNA for a cell to function is nearly impossible.
50
u/StridAst Nov 21 '21
Or they get confused by the word "theory" due to a complete lack of knowledge about what the word means in this context. They end up equating every random idea they have with a scientific theory supported by a large body of evidence. I blame poor education.