6 ms·

I always wonder why people care so much about this. There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone. If your case is strong make it and move on.

I always wonder why people care so much about this. There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone. If your case is strong make it and move on. Most people don't have sufficient background in science to understand much of physics or math these days but no one really gets mad about that. The truth is the truth and it settles itself in the end. I'm yet to hear of a single chair of a biology department of any major university who doesn't agree with contemporary evolutionary theory and people in the US have doubted evolution since it was first introduced. There isn't some looming threat to science and no one needs to get so upset about this. I'm a follower of Jesus who believes in angels but I don't have a super strong belief about evolution either way. I'll probably teach evolution to my kids who I plan on homeschooling and encourage them to consider how this might fit with a world view that includes God. Believing or not believing in evolution is just not a central issue to most people following Jesus. I've never met anyone who this is a big issue for. I guess they're out there but it's never really seemed like this massive issue for people.

amichail 17y ago
Evolution and Christianity are in conflict in the sense that it is possible but unlikely that evolution went through a bottleneck where Adam and Eve were the first two humans and all other humans are their descendents. This makes the concept of original sin problematic -- and thus introduces a problem with Christianity.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  Unless that's not a literal description but rather a story that demonstrates that our parents rebelled against God and now we're under their curse.
  - albemuth 17y ago
    Almost any religious belief can be spun in a way so that believers stop questioning their faith.
    - gloob 17y ago
      Almost any secular belief can be spun in a way so that believers stop questioning their faith. Religion has rather little to do with it.
- jmtulloss 17y ago
  I disagree that evolution and Christianity, as broad concepts, are in conflict. The whole Adam and Eve thing is (obviously, to those that look at science as providing facts) not to be taken at face value. Original sin is not a central theme to many if not most Christian sects, and it's not exactly necessary in those sects where it does play a role. Christianity was invented by men, so certainly every flavor got a few things wrong. It's when people on either side are unwilling to admit that there might be flaws in their own thinking that we get these poisonous and unproductive debates.
- chrischen 17y ago
  I too disagree. Christianity is open up to interpretation and can be mangled to fit anything.
dasil003 17y ago
The reason academics care about it is because a tiny minority of right-wing extremists has made it their raison d'etre and actually made enough noise about it that journalists have given it far more ink than it is worth and some sizable chunk of people now actually believe there is something debatable there. The interesting question is why that lunatic fringe cares about it so much. If you want to get literal and selective with the bible there are any number of modern memes, theories, practices and policies to attack, most of which would have more practical value as a target than evolution.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  Couldn't agree more.
- Adam503 17y ago
  The REALLY depressing part is it's NOT a "tiny minority." In 2005, Gallup has had as many as 53% of American surveyed claim they are creationists. http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-...
  - dasil003 17y ago
    The tiny minority I'm talking about are the ones who decided to invent the public attack on evolution and use it as a tool to gain power by controlling those 53%. I really don't think it matters if some individuals choose not to believe in evolution for personal reasons. The problem is when extremist rhetoric is used to control the electorate and force things to happen like John McCain picking Sarah Palin as a running mate.
jballanc 17y ago
(Disclaimer: I'm reading HN because I'm procrastinating work on my Ph.D. thesis...on an evolutionary model ;-) There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone. How's this for a reason why it should matter: You pay taxes, as do your neighbors. When you pay those taxes, you expect them to pay for things you feel are worth while. You also vote, and you will probably vote for people who you are confident will steer those tax dollars to projects you feel are worth while. I'm a scientist (or at least, I am for now...I don't think I'll be able to make a living at it for much longer. I'll have to get a "real" job). Most of the research I do is funded, directly or indirectly, by tax dollars. When the people who value evolution and an understanding of the biological world had their way, a lot of money was steered toward funding that sort of research. Then, people who didn't accept evolution came into power. They steered money away from this sort of research, and into fighting wars of aggression. For nearly the past decade, funding has remained flat (after doubling in the preceding 5 years...a rate which was probably too fast, but that's a whole 'nother story). Why would you care about my research? Well, I research evolution. Specifically, I'm interested in how to determine what factors will function as selective pressures a priori. Why is that important? Remember last April when OMG SWINE FLU!!!1!!11 Do you remember the pundits and professors and learned people of all sorts that got on the TV and the radio? Do you remember the hosts of all those show asking: Now what? How bad? And do you remember that nobody could give a straight answer? You know why they couldn't give a straight answer? It's not so much because the don't know why the flu might be more or less severe. There's been a lot of research into that lately, and we have a good idea what mutations might make the flu a killer, and which are mostly harmless. No, the reason they couldn't give you a straight answer is because which of those mutations would be acquired, and in what proportions, depends on evolution, on selective pressures...and we can't predetermine what those selective pressures will be! Maybe we could, if you'd be ok giving some tax dollars to fund evolution research, or at least vote for people who would be ok with that. Oh, and for the entrepreneurs that will predictably say that I shouldn't rely on the government for funding, and that I should instead count on the private sector? Here's the deal I'll offer you (and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better offer): I give you a 5% probability that the research I will do in the next, say, 40 years, at a cost of only $15mil a year, will lead to being better able to predict where the next pandemic might occur. Would you fund me? Or, more importantly, could you find a government that would allow us to keep that information as a trade secret until the original investment of $600mil (adjusted for 40 years of inflation, of course) was recouped? /rant phew...now about that thesis...
Confusion 17y ago
People care because the anti-evolutionary forces are hurting scientific progress and the technological advances that usually accompany them. If an honest research proposal needs to include the word 'evolution', but you can't use that, because it would reduce your changes of getting funding, then something is seriously wrong.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  I don't want the government to fund research at all so if that's what you're referring to then it's probably not going to convince me much here. I guess if they are screening for the word evolution then that's pretty dumb though. I have a hard time believing that's still the case since Bush left office.
  - jballanc 17y ago
    There doesn't have to be deterministic screening for scientists to get the message. Events like the one described in the link below don't exactly impart confidence in an evolutionary biologist that they'll continue to get funded if they stay in America: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6...
chrischen 17y ago
I once worked for a PhD student in entomology (nematology) who did not believe in evolution. She was a devout Christian and rationalized the adaptiveness of organisms as microevolution and claimed that any long term large scale change is unlikely/impossible. Btw she got her doctorate.
- jswinghammer 17y ago
  So a woman who studies worms doesn't believe that macro-evolution is impossible. She worked hard and got her degree. I don't see a crisis here.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    I never said there was a crisis. She certainly did work hard and get her degree. I was just pointing out that there are people in the biological fields who deny evolution.

amichail 17y ago

Evolution and Christianity are in conflict in the sense that it is possible but unlikely that evolution went through a bottleneck where Adam and Eve were the first two humans and all other humans are their descendents. This makes the concept of original sin problematic -- and thus introduces a problem with Christianity.

jswinghammer 17y ago
Unless that's not a literal description but rather a story that demonstrates that our parents rebelled against God and now we're under their curse.
- albemuth 17y ago
  Almost any religious belief can be spun in a way so that believers stop questioning their faith.
  - gloob 17y ago
    Almost any secular belief can be spun in a way so that believers stop questioning their faith. Religion has rather little to do with it.
jmtulloss 17y ago
I disagree that evolution and Christianity, as broad concepts, are in conflict. The whole Adam and Eve thing is (obviously, to those that look at science as providing facts) not to be taken at face value. Original sin is not a central theme to many if not most Christian sects, and it's not exactly necessary in those sects where it does play a role. Christianity was invented by men, so certainly every flavor got a few things wrong. It's when people on either side are unwilling to admit that there might be flaws in their own thinking that we get these poisonous and unproductive debates.
chrischen 17y ago
I too disagree. Christianity is open up to interpretation and can be mangled to fit anything.

dasil003 17y ago

The reason academics care about it is because a tiny minority of right-wing extremists has made it their raison d'etre and actually made enough noise about it that journalists have given it far more ink than it is worth and some sizable chunk of people now actually believe there is something debatable there. The interesting question is why that lunatic fringe cares about it so much. If you want to get literal and selective with the bible there are any number of modern memes, theories, practices and policies to attack, most of which would have more practical value as a target than evolution.

jswinghammer 17y ago
Couldn't agree more.
Adam503 17y ago
The REALLY depressing part is it's NOT a "tiny minority." In 2005, Gallup has had as many as 53% of American surveyed claim they are creationists. http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-...
- dasil003 17y ago
  The tiny minority I'm talking about are the ones who decided to invent the public attack on evolution and use it as a tool to gain power by controlling those 53%. I really don't think it matters if some individuals choose not to believe in evolution for personal reasons. The problem is when extremist rhetoric is used to control the electorate and force things to happen like John McCain picking Sarah Palin as a running mate.

jballanc 17y ago

(Disclaimer: I'm reading HN because I'm procrastinating work on my Ph.D. thesis...on an evolutionary model ;-) There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone. How's this for a reason why it should matter: You pay taxes, as do your neighbors. When you pay those taxes, you expect them to pay for things you feel are worth while. You also vote, and you will probably vote for people who you are confident will steer those tax dollars to projects you feel are worth while. I'm a scientist (or at least, I am for now...I don't think I'll be able to make a living at it for much longer. I'll have to get a "real" job). Most of the research I do is funded, directly or indirectly, by tax dollars. When the people who value evolution and an understanding of the biological world had their way, a lot of money was steered toward funding that sort of research. Then, people who didn't accept evolution came into power. They steered money away from this sort of research, and into fighting wars of aggression. For nearly the past decade, funding has remained flat (after doubling in the preceding 5 years...a rate which was probably too fast, but that's a whole 'nother story). Why would you care about my research? Well, I research evolution. Specifically, I'm interested in how to determine what factors will function as selective pressures a priori. Why is that important? Remember last April when OMG SWINE FLU!!!1!!11 Do you remember the pundits and professors and learned people of all sorts that got on the TV and the radio? Do you remember the hosts of all those show asking: Now what? How bad? And do you remember that nobody could give a straight answer? You know why they couldn't give a straight answer? It's not so much because the don't know why the flu might be more or less severe. There's been a lot of research into that lately, and we have a good idea what mutations might make the flu a killer, and which are mostly harmless. No, the reason they couldn't give you a straight answer is because which of those mutations would be acquired, and in what proportions, depends on evolution, on selective pressures...and we can't predetermine what those selective pressures will be! Maybe we could, if you'd be ok giving some tax dollars to fund evolution research, or at least vote for people who would be ok with that. Oh, and for the entrepreneurs that will predictably say that I shouldn't rely on the government for funding, and that I should instead count on the private sector? Here's the deal I'll offer you (and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better offer): I give you a 5% probability that the research I will do in the next, say, 40 years, at a cost of only $15mil a year, will lead to being better able to predict where the next pandemic might occur. Would you fund me? Or, more importantly, could you find a government that would allow us to keep that information as a trade secret until the original investment of $600mil (adjusted for 40 years of inflation, of course) was recouped? /rant phew...now about that thesis...

Confusion 17y ago

People care because the anti-evolutionary forces are hurting scientific progress and the technological advances that usually accompany them. If an honest research proposal needs to include the word 'evolution', but you can't use that, because it would reduce your changes of getting funding, then something is seriously wrong.

jswinghammer 17y ago
I don't want the government to fund research at all so if that's what you're referring to then it's probably not going to convince me much here. I guess if they are screening for the word evolution then that's pretty dumb though. I have a hard time believing that's still the case since Bush left office.
- jballanc 17y ago
  There doesn't have to be deterministic screening for scientists to get the message. Events like the one described in the link below don't exactly impart confidence in an evolutionary biologist that they'll continue to get funded if they stay in America: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6...

chrischen 17y ago

I once worked for a PhD student in entomology (nematology) who did not believe in evolution. She was a devout Christian and rationalized the adaptiveness of organisms as microevolution and claimed that any long term large scale change is unlikely/impossible. Btw she got her doctorate.

jswinghammer 17y ago
So a woman who studies worms doesn't believe that macro-evolution is impossible. She worked hard and got her degree. I don't see a crisis here.
- chrischen 17y ago
  I never said there was a crisis. She certainly did work hard and get her degree. I was just pointing out that there are people in the biological fields who deny evolution.