Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[Quintessence]

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by this.

That's a fair objection and perhaps I misunderstand you.

From your writing, it sounds like you choose to call something religious only if it is faith-based. Anything that isn't faith-based is therefore not religion. So any examples that would meet the criteria you have imposed on others and imposed on yourself can never be religion in the first place in your view. Plenty of religions and religious practitioners are not at all faith-based (they ground themselves in reason, logic, experience, arts, and sciences), but it does sound like you've more or less defined them out of existence in your worldview. Maybe that's misreading what you are presenting?

In any case, I'm not part of a religious tradition particularly cares what other humans believe or don't believe. There are no articles of faith, no creeds or dogmas that I'm required to "believe in" or anything. So I tend to have poor incentive to argue with folks about stuff like this or spend time presenting information when I get the sense it won't be of any benefit to anyone. Why write a couple paragraphs on how my worship of Moon isn't about faith to someone who thinks all religion and theism must be faith-based? There's a reason why I typically stick with Interfaith Discussion, I guess.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Plenty of religions and religious practitioners are not at all faith-based (they ground themselves in reason, logic, experience, arts, and sciences), ...

Could you offer a few examples of those which "ground themselves in reason, logic, ..., and sciences"? Thanks.

 

[Quintessence]

Could you offer a few examples of those which "ground themselves in reason, logic, ..., and sciences"? Thanks.

When I was brushing up on philosophy, part of that also included some coverage of the role of Islam and Christianity in the continuation of the love of wisdom. For whatever reason, this aspect of our cultural history is very poorly covered in public education but the application of philosophy to ground religion - reason and logic - as well as inspiring study of the sciences was pretty significant. I'm not really an expert in it since it isn't my wheelhouse, but there's tons of stuff one can dig into if one has the desire. @Rival is probably way more familiar with all of it than I am.

Some example articles:

Philosophy and Christian Theology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Islamic philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[1137]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I think it's pretty clear that evolution is, for the most part, true, though I doubt it's as simple as people make it out to be. However, I think it's also pretty clear biological evolution cannot account for higher consciousness, or it's unexpected, non biological rise in humans.

 

[Rival]

When I was brushing up on philosophy, part of that also included some coverage of the role of Islam and Christianity in the continuation of the love of wisdom. For whatever reason, this aspect of our cultural history is very poorly covered in public education but the application of philosophy to ground religion - reason and logic - as well as inspiring study of the sciences was pretty significant. I'm not really an expert in it since it isn't my wheelhouse, but there's tons of stuff one can dig into if one has the desire. @Rival is probably way more familiar with all of it than I am.

Some example articles:

Philosophy and Christian Theology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Islamic philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't give a long spiel atm but would recommend the book God's Philosophers by Hannam.

 

[Pogo]

I think it's pretty clear that evolution is, for the most part, true, though I doubt it's as simple as people make it out to be. However, I think it's also pretty clear biological evolution cannot account for higher consciousness, or it's unexpected, non biological rise in humans.

And the properties of hydrogen and oxygen cannot account for the wetness of water. It is called an emergent property and does not require some new system nor can it be demonstrated to exist without the physical basis of a brain.

 

[Quintessence]

I can't give a long spiel atm but would recommend the book God's Philosophers by Hannam.

Might have to look into that one. There were a lot of reasons I drifted out of Catholicism but a good chunk of it was the Sunday school teachers weren't teaching the intellectual and philosophical foundations of the religion. I was a science nerd, even as a kid - expecting me to just accept stuff on faith wasn't going to cut it. Certainly, for many Christians it does, but I required more than that. Sad thing is that depth is there - I've seen bits and pieces of it through a philosophy of religion course I took in college as well as in other places - but it just doesn't get taught. Which, today especially, is just kind of dumb when some of the main objections to these religions come from the misguided notion that they are not (or cannot be) grounded in reason and logic.

 

[Altfish]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I have not seen a good reason to reject evolution. BUT, new evidence could be discovered which would change out explanation.

 

[sun rise]

A common denominator from all religious claims I have heard in my life.
I'm not aware of any belief that is branded as "religious" which DOES have independently verifiable evidence.
Have you?

Practices of some religions, specifically meditation show how science and belief are not always separate. And to me a good chunk of Buddhism meets that question.

I subscribe to what the Dalai Lama said If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. - that's not exactly on point but to me close.

 

[1137]

And the properties of hydrogen and oxygen cannot account for the wetness of water. It is called an emergent property and does not require some new system nor can it be demonstrated to exist without the physical basis of a brain.

This is a pretty common misunderstanding of emergent properties, both water/wetness and legs/running. Both examples actually help illustrate just how different the mind and brain are though. Water and wetness have material properties, such as they can be physically felt, they are accessible to others, and all the other things listed above. You can see legs and running, you can both feel legs and the wind created by them as they run past. These emergent properties share the properties of all other matter, including what they emerged from. This is not the case with consciousness, the properties of which contradict those of the brain it supposedly emerges from.

 

[Pogo]

This is a pretty common misunderstanding of emergent properties, both water/wetness and legs/running. Both examples actually help illustrate just how different the mind and brain are though. Water and wetness have material properties, such as they can be physically felt, they are accessible to others, and all the other things listed above. You can see legs and running, you can both feel legs and the wind created by them as they run past. These emergent properties share the properties of all other matter, including what they emerged from. This is not the case with consciousness, the properties of which contradict those of the brain it supposedly emerges from.

well that is the alternative claim, but where is the evidence that it is not just a state based on an arrangement of physical things?
You can hypothesize it, can you present evidence for it?

 

[1137]

well that is the alternative claim, but where is the evidence that it is not just a state based on an arrangement of physical things?
You can hypothesize it, can you present evidence for it?

The problem is arrangement of physical things produces something physical, and consciousness is not physical. The evidence is easily attainable by anyone, test if you can access the consciousness of another with your 5 senses, or how much more room a person takes up under anasthetic vs awake and in deep thought.

 

[bobhikes]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

Darwin's evolution theory sure plenty of reason's. Today's theory just incorporates all the things Darwin left out and makes it pretty useless and all in compassing. But you'd be surprised there are a few findings that require stretching it to it's limit.

Basically selection by choice seems to be possible especially with male, female species.

Still the majority of evolution is mutation survive if beneficial to the species. Do a search on Google and you can find some scientific challenges not fully accepted yet and to be honest they will probably be rolled in the theory of evolution eventually.

I'm pretty old and originally cross species breeding was not part of evolution because it only happened due to mans interference but now we have found it in the nature and they are not all sterile so it's part of the evolution theory now.

 

[sun rise]

Scientists and those with a knowledge of how science works know that over time we learn more and more. Evolutionary science is no different.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am wondering if the OP question is wrongly phrased. "the science of evolution" could be interpreted as either the science used in support of the theory of evolution or it could be that you meant the validity of the theory itself. Those are separate questions. The science used in support of the theory is multitudinous and the validity of any particular supporting "science" wouldn't negate the theory itself necessarily. The theory itself could be rejected if the falsification standard of it is validated.

Evolution was originally proposed as a "Theory" by Charles Darwin. and he was not the first. In reality as what I call the science of evolution involve many theories and hypotheses in Geology, Biology, Genetics, Physics, and other sciences. It is old terminology like "Darwinism," and "Neo-Darwinism."

 

[Wes Bailey]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

Yes observational facts https://www.reddit.com/r/dragoNgiants/top/?t=all on this it shows massive humans of different sizes outlined.. we can observe and reproduce in a lab change in size in life forms.. we cannot and have not done this with evolution... there is no video showing me missing links only what we piece together to act as tho we have observed proof... just watch the videos taking my word will do nothing but confuse

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes observational facts https://www.reddit.com/r/dragoNgiants/top/?t=all on this it shows massive humans of different sizes outlined.. we can observe and reproduce in a lab change in size in life forms.. we cannot and have not done this with evolution... there is no video showing me missing links only what we piece together to act as tho we have observed proof... just watch the videos taking my word will do nothing but confuse

That is because "missing links" is a bogus term. If you want to still use that then "Lucy" was your example.

 

[GoodAttention]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

People can reject evolution because they don't understand it, or because they don't trust the people who are explaining it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I can think of a few issues that can be brought up:

1. The definition of what one means by the "science of evolution."
   • That can be a very broud statement, and lets be honest person doesn't have to be religious to not understand what has been shown to factual and repetable or to even undrerstand what the data shows and what it doesn't show.
2. Based on #1, there could be a challenge as to what type of data is being used to define what is and what isn't evolution.
   • For example, the famous picture of a modern chimp changing into a modern day European man is not how actual scientists define what is termed as evolution, but the graphic is used even in spaces where it is understand the graphic to only be a symbol for a much broader discussion.
3. The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab.
4. I would also say that on the level of "Forum debate" one can find just as many bad attitudes, and a lack of understanding, about a disagreement of what the data means on both sides.
   • For example, there are people who can seperate their religious beleifs and simply have the ability to question and challenge what the available data means and who gets to interprets what it means.
   • There are also issues around the history of the interpretation of results where one can find that, again on the forum level, where the statement of, "You don't understand science" w/o the claiment themselves fully understanding how the research was even performed in the subject matter of discussion.
5. Lastly, interpretation of the results. The existance of a result doesn't mean that everyone, even within what is termed the scientific comunity, agrees with how one interprets it.
   • Thus, the rejection that some could have is how certain scientists or certain non-scientists interpret the data.

I think on both sides there are people who don't understand what science and what it isn't - what can be accomplished with current scientific methods and technology and what cannot be currently accomplished. In either case, my favorite quote is the following:

“But you can’t be a scientist if you’re uncomfortable with ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos. This is very different from the way journalists portray us. So many articles begin, “Scientists now have to go back to the drawing board.” It’s as though we’re sitting in our offices, feet up on our desks—masters of the universe—and suddenly say, “Oops, somebody discovered something!”​

​

No. We’re always at the drawing board. If you’re not at the drawing board, you’re not making discoveries. You’re not a scientist; you’re something else. The public, on the other hand, seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty.”​

― Neil deGrasse Tyson, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can think of a few issues that can be brought up:

1. The definition of what one means by the "science of evolution."
   • That can be a very broud statement, and lets be honest person doesn't have to be religious to not understand what has been shown to factual and repetable or to even undrerstand what the data shows and what it doesn't show.
2. Based on #1, there could be a challenge as to what type of data is being used to define what is and what isn't evolution.
   • For example, the famous picture of a modern chimp changing into a modern day European man is not how actual scientists define what is termed as evolution, but the graphic is used even in spaces where it is understand the graphic to only be a symbol for a much broader discussion.
3. The need to distinquish between what has been proven in the lab, with repeatablity, and what is theorized w/o repeatable or data in the lab.
4. I would also say that on the level of "Forum debate" one can find just as many bad attitudes, and a lack of understanding, about a disagreement of what the data means on both sides.
   • For example, there are people who can seperate their religious beleifs and simple have the ability to question and challenge what the available data means and who gets to interprets what it means.
   • There are also issues around the history of the interpretation of results where one can find that, again on the forum level, where the statement of, "You don't understand science" w/o the claiment themselves fully understanding how the research was even performed in the subject matter of discussion.
5. Lastly, interpretation of the results. The existance of a result doesn't mean that everyone, even within what is termed the scientific comunity, agrees with how one interprets it.
   • Thus, the rejection that some could have is how certain scientists or certain non-scientists interpret the data.

I think on both sides there are people who don't understand what science and what it isn't - what can be accomplished with current scientific methods and technology and what cannot be currently accomplished. In either case, my favorite quote is the following:

“But you can’t be a scientist if you’re uncomfortable with ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos. This is very different from the way journalists portray us. So many articles begin, “Scientists now have to go back to the drawing board.” It’s as though we’re sitting in our offices, feet up on our desks—masters of the universe—and suddenly say, “Oops, somebody discovered something!”​

​

No. We’re always at the drawing board. If you’re not at the drawing board, you’re not making discoveries. You’re not a scientist; you’re something else. The public, on the other hand, seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty.”​

― Neil deGrasse Tyson, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier

Just one comment. You have a flawed understanding of "repeatability". It is not the events that have to repeatable. It is the evidence. In fact there are several different forms of "repeatability". One is if there is general agreement about a particular fossil. If a person can demonstrate that his or her interpretation is the beast and is agreed to by other experts in the field that is one form of repeatability since multiple people are seeing the same fossil and are drawing the same conclusions.