Do you believe in Evolution/Creationism?

[Cassius]

Do you believe in evolution? That's like asking "do you believe in sandwiches?", "do you believe in airplanes?", or "do you believe in the moon?". If you don't, you're probably the proud owner of a ridiculously low IQ.

Evolution is quite different to those examples. You can see what we call sandwiches, you can touch and taste them. You can see, hear and touch an airoplane. You can't do any of those things with the theory of evolution, a process which no-one has witnessed more than an tiny segment of. I happen to believe that evolution is a very plausible theory, and thus I accept it in that sense. But evolution cannot be definitively proven, much as the existence of God cannot be definitively proven. Evolution (and in fact, a large proportion of science) cannot be said to be definitively true because all it is is a theory which scientists have collected a (probably) small amount of all the potential evidence out there to support it with.

[Oakvale]

I honestly say I don't know what was before the Big Bang. But since then, we know what happened: Evolution. Maybe there was God who made the Big Bang, maybe it was something else - we don't know, and for at least some time, won't do in future.
So I took Answer Nr. 1

"Before the Big Bang" is not a meaningful concept.

[RogueBeaver]

I believe that a higher power created man, but I think science has proven without a shadow of a doubt that man has evolved over time. So I went with Option 3, though I'm still unsure where I lie in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly, it's not something that deeply concerns me.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Do you believe in evolution? That's like asking "do you believe in sandwiches?", "do you believe in airplanes?", or "do you believe in the moon?". If you don't, you're probably the proud owner of a ridiculously low IQ.

Evolution is quite different to those examples. You can see what we call sandwiches, you can touch and taste them. You can see, hear and touch an airoplane. You can't do any of those things with the theory of evolution, a process which no-one has witnessed more than an tiny segment of. I happen to believe that evolution is a very plausible theory, and thus I accept it in that sense. But evolution cannot be definitively proven, much as the existence of God cannot be definitively proven. Evolution (and in fact, a large proportion of science) cannot be said to be definitively true because all it is is a theory which scientists have collected a (probably) small amount of all the potential evidence out there to support it with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
(or more simply, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_results_challenge_creationism and http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new-step-in-evolution/)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Evolution is a scientific fact. I don't "believe" in established scientifict facts. Those are established facts.

[RedSLC]

Do you believe in evolution? That's like asking "do you believe in sandwiches?", "do you believe in airplanes?", or "do you believe in the moon?". If you don't, you're probably the proud owner of a ridiculously low IQ.

Evolution is quite different to those examples. You can see what we call sandwiches, you can touch and taste them. You can see, hear and touch an airoplane. You can't do any of those things with the theory of evolution, a process which no-one has witnessed more than an tiny segment of. I happen to believe that evolution is a very plausible theory, and thus I accept it in that sense. But evolution cannot be definitively proven, much as the existence of God cannot be definitively proven. Evolution (and in fact, a large proportion of science) cannot be said to be definitively true because all it is is a theory which scientists have collected a (probably) small amount of all the potential evidence out there to support it with.

A scientific theory is not the same thing as a normal "theory" (the word closest in meaning would probably be hypothesis - something in science that is proposed, but not definitively proven). A scientific theory is that name for something that has been repeatedly shown to be true with repeated testing and observation, which is exactly the case with evolution.

This should provide a deeper explanation.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I believe in myself (positive self-talk option).

[Mordecai]

all it is is a theory

Yep, safe to say you don't really know what you're talking about. And very weaselly to try equivocate it with existence of a god.

[Randy Bobandy]

Evolution is basically a fact.

[SWE]

The one with a scientific basis

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

The one with a scientific basis

Agreed.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

ITT people don't understand how science works.

[TJ in Oregon]

I believe that a higher power created man, but I think science has proven without a shadow of a doubt that man has evolved over time. So I went with Option 3, though I'm still unsure where I lie in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly, it's not something that deeply concerns me.

^^^ This mostly, with the quibble that science has not proven without a shadow of a doubt man has evolved over time, as "without a shadow of a doubt" is an insanely high standard science isn't really capable of proving anything to. Now, saying that will probably lead the scientific cheerleader types who don't understand science to try to induct me into the flat earth society, which brings me to my next point: we need to be careful with the verbiage we used associating evolution to science and our understanding of what exactly is a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it is a falsifiable hypothesis supported by evidence that has not been proven wrong. In order to be a legitimate scientific explanation is must be something we could potentially prove wrong by experimental or empirical observation, ie. falsifiability. A theory is not that same thing as a fact; facts are independent observations whereas theories are connections drawn between facts. Facts are the datapoints and theories are the curve connecting them. A theory is also more than a hypothesis because it is a falsifiable hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Thus a theory is not just some dude's opinion.

The evolution of man from primates is the only scientific theory at present to explain the descent of man. It seems likely it will remain that way. Other concepts often discussed like "Intelligent Design" may very well be true, but are inherently not scientific because they are not falsifiable. There is no empirical evidence one could ever possibly collect that would disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Thus, it cannot be a scientific theory. Now, that doesn't mean it's not true, only that it's not science. I tend to see the falsifiability of scientific empiricism to be a limit on the scope of what science can tell us, rather than a limit on everything else.

Voted Option 3

[bedstuy]

I believe that a higher power created man, but I think science has proven without a shadow of a doubt that man has evolved over time. So I went with Option 3, though I'm still unsure where I lie in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly, it's not something that deeply concerns me.

^^^ This mostly, with the quibble that science has not proven without a shadow of a doubt man has evolved over time, as "without a shadow of a doubt" is an insanely high standard science isn't really capable of proving anything to. Now, saying that will probably lead the scientific cheerleader types who don't understand science to try to induct me into the flat earth society, which brings me to my next point: we need to be careful with the verbiage we used associating evolution to science and our understanding of what exactly is a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it is a falsifiable hypothesis supported by evidence that has not been proven wrong. In order to be a legitimate scientific explanation is must be something we could potentially prove wrong by experimental or empirical observation, ie. falsifiability. A theory is not that same thing as a fact; facts are independent observations whereas theories are connections drawn between facts. Facts are the datapoints and theories are the curve connecting them. A theory is also more than a hypothesis because it is a falsifiable hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Thus a theory is not just some dude's opinion.

The evolution of man from primates is the only scientific theory at present to explain the descent of man. It seems likely it will remain that way. Other concepts often discussed like "Intelligent Design" may very well be true, but are inherently not scientific because they are not falsifiable. There is no empirical evidence one could ever possibly collect that would disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Thus, it cannot be a scientific theory. Now, that doesn't mean it's not true, only that it's not science. I tend to see the falsifiability of scientific empiricism to be a limit on the scope of what science can tell us, rather than a limit on everything else.

Voted Option 3

If you had to put a number on the percentage chance on the idea that humans evolved, what would it be?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't believe in evolution for the same reason I don't believe in gravity; I accept it.

^^^^

[⛄]

If you don't "believe" in Darwin's theory Of evolution because it's only a "theory", then you can also jump off a skyscraper because Newton's theory of gravity is just a theory, too.

[Franzl]

Of course, but I don't see a necessary contradiction between accepting evolution and holding religious beliefs.

[TJ in Oregon]

I believe that a higher power created man, but I think science has proven without a shadow of a doubt that man has evolved over time. So I went with Option 3, though I'm still unsure where I lie in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly, it's not something that deeply concerns me.

^^^ This mostly, with the quibble that science has not proven without a shadow of a doubt man has evolved over time, as "without a shadow of a doubt" is an insanely high standard science isn't really capable of proving anything to. Now, saying that will probably lead the scientific cheerleader types who don't understand science to try to induct me into the flat earth society, which brings me to my next point: we need to be careful with the verbiage we used associating evolution to science and our understanding of what exactly is a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it is a falsifiable hypothesis supported by evidence that has not been proven wrong. In order to be a legitimate scientific explanation is must be something we could potentially prove wrong by experimental or empirical observation, ie. falsifiability. A theory is not that same thing as a fact; facts are independent observations whereas theories are connections drawn between facts. Facts are the datapoints and theories are the curve connecting them. A theory is also more than a hypothesis because it is a falsifiable hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Thus a theory is not just some dude's opinion.

The evolution of man from primates is the only scientific theory at present to explain the descent of man. It seems likely it will remain that way. Other concepts often discussed like "Intelligent Design" may very well be true, but are inherently not scientific because they are not falsifiable. There is no empirical evidence one could ever possibly collect that would disprove the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Thus, it cannot be a scientific theory. Now, that doesn't mean it's not true, only that it's not science. I tend to see the falsifiability of scientific empiricism to be a limit on the scope of what science can tell us, rather than a limit on everything else.

Voted Option 3

If you had to put a number on the percentage chance on the idea that humans evolved, what would it be?

Probably somewhere between 90 and 100%. But that's not "without a shadow of a doubt".

[nuclearneo577]

As a fact, I accept evolution like I accept gravity. Anti-evolution bills drive me nuts. End of conservation.

Theistically, I don't see why any God needed to help evolution along or even start it, we already know so much about how it works. However, if some kind of deity does exist (which I doubt because I'm an atheist), and it started the universe, it must have also started evolution, as to avoid having to guide the universe every step of the way.

[bedstuy]

If you had to put a number on the percentage chance on the idea that humans evolved, what would it be?

Probably somewhere between 90 and 100%. But that's not "without a shadow of a doubt".

I would put it close to 100%, maybe 99.9999999%.  Nothing about the history of life on earth makes sense without evolution.  It's sort of the underlying theory of biology and all evidence supports it.  And, it's been around since the 1860s.  It's silly to think there's 10% or an 8% chance that it's just wrong.

[afleitch]

To answer TJ, It sort of allows you to get away with any idea you imagine though doesn’t it? Of course, the imagination of an idea is itself an act grounded physical. Metaphysics must be rooted in physics. Abstract philsophical comments don’t necessarily have an objective reality to them but the human minds that construct and deconstuct them do. Our perception of the world is rooted in the physical. Even abstract concepts like ‘love’ are rooted in objects; physical things to show love to. Concepts such as ‘justice’ are bound to physical concepts like action, punishment and so on. Inferring a ‘mind’ of god is rooted in our understanding of sentient thought which is bounded to the physical. Inferring god as an ‘actor’ is again bound either in sentient actors such as you, I and the pet dog or physical actors such as the wind and the fire which act upon us.

So stating that physical evidence (which as you say is falsifiable) isn’t required for non physical claims such as the existance of god are not entirely incorrect. However what you can’t fail to acknowledge when making a claim for god or an idea as being not bound with the ‘physical’, is that you can’t uncouple them. They are not two different ‘magisteria’; the metaphysical is collapsable into the physical. All metaphysical claims are ultimately physical and all physical things has an effect on reality. That which has an effect on reality can be investigated in reality. Things that do not have an effect on reality, or things for which no sufficient investigative evidence has been provided to support having any effect on reality cannot be said to exist in a meaningful way.

To pick up on Franzl’s point, no they are not incompatible once you internalise both the idea of evolution and internalise your response to the effect that has on theology. It is difficult to collapse Christian creationism and the origin of ‘sin’, in even its loosest form into evolutionary theory. Strictly speaking Genesis is ‘metaphorically false’ as well as literally false. The story of Genesis serves no purpose in describing either creation literally or metaphorically, or mankind’s ‘awareness’; the ‘knowing’ of oneself. Genesis describes a literal state of ‘perfection’ from which man has fallen. We know from evolutionary theory that species evolve towards ‘perfection’ in terms of utilising the resources around them to their advantage. We are not made in the image and likeness of anything but those which came before us. We don’t kill on sight for the reason that chimps don’t and lions don’t. Evolution has equipped us with what we need to survive collectively. Our behaviour as a species and therefore as humans, mirror those which came before us. We may fine tune them, we may apply them to radical situations but that is all. There’s nothing to suggest that we have greater cognitive processes now than we did when we were hunter gatherers. So if we are made ‘in the image of god’ then I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest for example that our nearest relatives are ‘almost’ made in his image. A chimp is closer to our likeness and by extension that of gods than they are to a squirrel.

What if we take ‘likeness’ to infer cognition rather than physicality? What of other cognitive relatives? I have no doubt that the ‘smartest’ Neanderthal more than likely had greater cognitive abilities than the most ‘stupid’ Homo Sapiens. Regardless of cognition, both us and the Neanderthals ritualistically buried their dead in a similar manner (burial; leaving posessions, flowers, trinkets) which is suggestive of spirituality (and I say ‘suggestive of’ for the same reason that early Homo Sapiens show the same traits, but we cannot definitively prove that they were ‘spiritual’ as no written evidence survives, but the pattern of ritual strongly suggest that they were, in the same way that we are today) There is also tentative evidence from Spain that Heidelbergensis did the same as far back as 1 million years ago.

So you can postulate a god all you want. After all god is simply an inference. Evolution can sit comfortably with deism if you haven’t given the deity set conditions, particularly conditions set prior to the acquisition of knowledge. It’s when you invoke those conditions through theology, that theology gets tested.

[Bojack Horseman]

I'm an atheist.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

While, just as all science is fallible, modern theories of evolution are also fallible, there is more evidence and reason to support atheistic evolution than any other alternative.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Take a great big guess.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If you give an omnipotent deity a set of conditions, of course, then you are essentially asserting that you are in a position that allows you to impose said conditions, and that's bad theology regardless of your acceptance or denial of evolution.