Why do most scientists accept evolution.

[skepticalseeker613]

Because "Creationism" is in no way a form of science. opposed to Creationism, Evolution is supported by evidence. Also Creationism jumps to conclusion that "god did it" instead of studying, observing and experimenting before the conclusion is made. This is the same problem with UFO conspiracy theories and crypt-zoology

 

[Sunstone]

If "God did it", He did it more or less as described by the evolutionary sciences.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It's pretty simple really...

1. You take a bunch of people who want to understand more than they currently do
2. Provide them with tools like the scientific method which (among other things) examines how one can identify whether or not deviations have occurred from what was expected with a particular model of understanding
3. These people are then inclined to refine their understanding of reality which results in discarding things they had once considered the truth if alternatives prove more accurate in description and in prediction

Evolution has proven a far more accurate (and useful) approach to understanding the diversity of life than any other approach to which humanity currently has access, therefore the majority of the above individuals are inclined to recognize it's usefulness.

 

[allright]

I'd say most scientists accept evolution because they understand that it is true and have no compelling reasons to not believe what is true.

Right the fact they will be fired from their job or teaching position
has nothing to do with it

 

[InformedIgnorance]

@allright
If they were able to disprove evolution, rather than being fired they would be showered with accolades and grants; receive nobel prizes have libraries named after them etc.

Those people who seek to push the frontiers of our understanding of Science value increased comprehension far more than holding on to a security blanket.

To such people the challenges (and opportunities) faced by having evolution disproved would be far more invigorating and exciting than you can imagine.

 

[fantome profane]

Right the fact they will be fired from their job or teaching position
has nothing to do with it

Did you read the OP?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was actually thinking about saying something rather similar. Honestly the reason most scientists (I think) accept evolution is because they know that those in fields related to evolution do. Why do most scientists accept quantum physics or climate science? Because they are aware that there is a vast amount of research, they know how the research process works in general terms (those in the social & behavioral sciences may not know that mathematical journals don't have lead authors, but they these and other trivial differences don't matter). Because they trust in a process that could be wrong, but usually in fairly predictable ways over fairly predictable intervals of time. A study a decade old on cloud dynamics and how they should fit into climate models is fairly likely to be at least inaccurate. It's an area of climate science that we still don't know a lot about. Studies on atmospheric co2, on the hand, are about a century old, and climate science since 1988 has become extremely advanced. Darwin didn't know about genes, and Mendel didn't know about DNA or RNA. Before Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect "quanta" was still Latin and quantum physics didn't exist.

There are two things I'd like to highlight here. The first is that two of these "theories" (evolution and global warming) aren't really theories at all. They are a large number of theories bundled together mainly for discourse outside of science. For all three, a lot of experiments, theories, studies, conferences, reviews, and on and on are not on things like "evolution" but about extremely specific topics, such as an entire volume of studies all devoted to extracellular nucleic acids. Actually, the divide between chemistry, quantum physics, and biology can be very thin or non-existent.

Which leads to the second: referring to why scientists accept evolution is like asking why they accept astrophysics or neuroscience. There are so many things subsumed under the one word "evolution" that saying it is wrong is not to throw out one theory, but vast amounts of research from quantum physics to psychology to astrobiology. The longer something is studied, and the broader its scope, the more unlikely it is that the whole enterprise was completely wrong. Evolutionary processes aren't just confirmed by experiments, the ways in which such processes work tell us about how biological systems work.

So a lot of scientists accept it because they have some idea of how long and by how many people from how many fields have worked on the various this "evolution", and realize how unlikely it is that well over a century and the creation of new fields, interdisciplinary fields, etc., were all contributing to something that at its foundations was wrong.

And the great thing about the sciences is that if any psychologist, computer scientist, engineer, etc., wanted to see what support this "evolution theory" has, they could look. And it would be there.

The exception is quantum physics. That's just something physicists made-up after they actually figured it all out and wanted to keep their jobs.

Neat post. I'll not pretend to be a scientist, but isn't another factor that they utilize the theories and suppositions currently in place to create new hypothesis, and that in testing these, they are not only testing the new, but re-affirming or re-checking the old?

 

[Littleman]

Most scientists accept evolution because they categorically reject every other creation myth, including the true one in Genesis 1

they discarded the true creation myth so they had to invent their own

they take for granted that religion is false or irrelevant and reject every truth that they cant fit into their small and narrow empirical system

they arrogantly assume their many creationist ancestors were a bunch of delusional idiots and that abandoning their scriptures somehow enhances their understanding of reality

im not saying the evolution we can observe happening isnt happening, but to go beyond that and assert that its been happening for millions of years and that mankind ultimately grew out of fish is just ridiculous

 

[johnhanks]

Right the fact they will be fired from their job or teaching position
has nothing to do with it

Your provenance for this "fact"?

And who exactly will do the firing, and why? Because those firers in turn fear for their positions? So who do they fear will fire them? ... and so on, all the way up to ... who? And above all, why?

 

[johnhanks]

Most scientists accept evolution because they categorically reject every other creation myth...

No, they accept it because they value empirical evidence more highly than myth.

im not saying the evolution we can observe happening isnt happening, but to go beyond that and assert that its been happening for millions of years and that mankind ultimately grew out of fish is just ridiculous

Study the evidence. Read "The Greatest Show on Earth", or "Why Evolution is True". And if then you still reject the evidence, explain to us how it is flawed.

 

[Littleman]

the supremacy of empiricism is itself a myth

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the supremacy of empiricism is itself a myth

Empiricism is using your perceptual faculties and reasoning. Which one (or both) are you saying is myth?

 

[Littleman]

I'm saying that the basic idea underlying all modern science of the distant past, which is that scientific empiricism is more valid than religion, is itself a myth.

To many Jews/Christians the total veracity of the bible is not a myth and none of its stories are either. To scientists the reliability of scientific method is not a myth, nor are the results of any scientific inquiry. And in my eyes they're both wrong to some extent, and only the Quran is free of myth

but there is no excuse for scientists to reject religion the way they do! empiricism without metaphysics is completely pointless. and there is no way to interpret any kind of evidence without invoking some kind of myth!

 

[johnhanks]

the supremacy of empiricism is itself a myth

I'll take that as a "no" to my suggestion that you examine the evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm saying that the basic idea underlying all modern science of the distant past, which is that scientific empiricism is more valid than religion, is itself a myth.

To many Jews/Christians the total veracity of the bible is not a myth and none of its stories are either. To scientists the reliability of scientific method is not a myth, nor are the results of any scientific inquiry. And in my eyes they're both wrong to some extent, and only the Quran is free of myth

but there is no excuse for scientists to reject religion the way they do! empiricism without metaphysics is completely pointless.

Scientists didn't always reject religion in the numbers (percentage wise) they now do.

 

[Littleman]

I'll take that as a "no" to my suggestion that you examine the evidence.

ya, Genesis 1 is the only evidence i need

why make a new creation myth out of a bunch of bones when there are already so many good ones out there >_>

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Personally I like the Nilfheim one, though that one with the giant turtle sounds kinda cool too.

If reality doesn't conform with my beliefs then obviously reality is wrong.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Personally I like the Nilfheim one

FYI- W. H. Auden and a co-author published an edition of the elder eddas and dedicated it to J. R. R. Tolkien.

though that one with the giant turtle sounds kinda cool too.

Only if it's turtles all the way down.

 

[rusra02]

I believe there is more than one reason why many scientists (not all) accept evolution.

1. There has been a constant drumbeat that "evolution is a fact" for decades.
2. I believe many scientist fear being ostracized if they make public their private doubts about evolution, and with good reason.
3. The ToE has attraction to many who do not want to be accountable to a Creator.
4. The herd mentality. I believe most who believe evolution believe because they have been told that all intelligent people are believers.
5. False religion, including creationists who misrepresent what the Bible says (YECs) cause many to view believers in Creation as anti-scientific.
6. The Evolutionist community has been successful in removing even the mention of other explanations for life from virtually all public institutions, including the educational systems from primary school through university.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I believe there is more than one reason why many scientists (not all) accept evolution.

1. There has been a constant drumbeat that "evolution is a fact" for decades.

And that it isn't for just as long.

2. I believe many scientist fear being ostracized if they make public their private doubts about evolution, and with good reason.

Einstein is considered on of the few founders of modern (quantum) physics. He fought the mainstream view most of his life. Most quantum physicists today think he was wrong, but still respect him.

Multiple academic publishing companies have put out volumes and monographs arguing against what is known as the theory of evolution. Two on opposite ends of the spectrum, William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, edited a volume filled with papers form various academics in various fields with various positions (Dembski is a hard core ID proponent). Guess what? They all still have careers.

3. The ToE has attraction to many who do not want to be accountable to a Creator.

Which explains the 150,000 years of people who had know idea about what this might even mean yet were worried about accountability. Have you read ancient literature, such as Homer, and heard the descriptions of the afterlife from a non-Christian viewpoint? Have you even read actual Jewish religious writings from antiquity?

4. The herd mentality. I believe most who believe evolution believe because they have been told that all intelligent people are believers.

You reference a scientific explanation for individual behavior within a social structure governed by group dynamics which sciences revealed, only to trash the methods they used as "herd mentality". If that isn't ignorance, I don't know what is.

5. False religion, including creationists who misrepresent what the Bible says (YECs) cause many to view believers in Creation as anti-scientific.

Can you read ancient Hebrew? Can you read ancient Greek? How about Latin? Now I'll admit I have 0 ability to read Coptic, and my Aramaic is like reading Portuguese if you know Spanish, but what Bible are you reading and why do you trust the human translators?

6. The Evolutionist community

They're called scientists. They're people who may use faith through reason, but won't abandon reason for blind faith.