Belief in evolution

Untouched by the hand of God

How people in various countries view the theory of evolution

See article

Readers' comments



Also the position that religion fills the void where science fails is just the 'god of the gaps' argument. Anything we don't know the answer for must exist because of god.Why don't we just say 'we don't know yet'? More intellectually honest and allows space for inquiry and learning. Too often religion ends up closing avenues for science rather than meekly retreating (just ask American stem cell researchers).


@ExtropyI find that the 'discrediting' tends to go the other way. Remember that, in the US, at least, an atheist is just slightly more likely to become president than a communist (and probably in these economic times, even less likely).Religion tends to be the side of the argument that is more dogmatic. How often do you see scientists turn their back on proof or logic? How often do you see the religious shut down all discussion with that most progress-killing of all words : faith?Science rarely forms 'elitist gangs'. Religions form churches full of people who know the ultimate truth and who know just as well that all others are wrong. Sounds like an elitist gang to me...


Evolution is a fact. I work in the biomedical sector and I can see it working every day (virus and bacteria are continously changing, adapting to antibiotics and whatever change we introduce to confront them). So if there is something to question is perhaps the existence of God. Do you have any evidence of its existence? Religion works when you are confronting the unknown, but because the extent of the unknown is reduced by science relentlessly the territory of religion is also being reduced. And I see nothing wrong with that. We live a better and more decent life than our ancestors.


Evolution does not disprove religion, what it does is provide an alternate, more useful, empirical alternative to the creation myth.It is a serious challenge to religion, not because it disproves god (nothing can disprove that - and that's what makes creationism and intelligent design bad science), but because it makes the idea of a 'creator' or 'designer' unnecessary.If evolution is true, then there's no need to posit a designer. Life is not as it is because a higher power willed it so, but because billions of years of gradual change have made it what it is. Evolution says that what seems like design is actually the result of an ongoing process of species adaptation.What puts evolution ahead of creationism from a rational point of view (and what other kind of view should we be taking for this type of question?) is that it is empirical. If you say 'god created man out of clay', there's no way I can disprove that. A creationist will always fall back on the power of an omnipotent god (no evidence of clay in our DNA? That's because god was too clever and changed clay to flesh). On the other hand, if I say 'man evolved from lower organisms', then all you have to do to disprove it is find a fossil of modern man.Evolution passes the test as good science. It's disprovable, it's predictive and it helps explain what we see around us. Can religion say the same?


To: Hamilton (nothing against your beliefs just correcting)According to (Neo)Darwinism mankind did not evolve from "apes", but from a common "hominid" ancestor being shared by both the common-day apes (Pan) and men (Homo), by means of, roughly, natural selection and mutation.To: every Darwinist "upfront" denier"Darwinism", from his 150 year old book, has been revised, basically pretty much like everything else in science. What is popularly called Darwinism today is a much more elaborate framework encompassing everything from genetics to animal psychology.


Sadly there is a human propensity that puts discrediting others at a higher level of importance than personal discovery.In my opinion it is not difficult to reconcile faith and God with science. There is always room for faith- so long as there is such thing as an unknown, there will be a need for it, and for many a subsequent need for God as well. Science is a brilliant human creation that systematically pushes back that unknown, but no matter how far we push, we discover that the universe works on scales that truly stagger us. It is one thing to understand the rules of a game; it is something very different (and often much harder) to understand why the game has reached its current state, and what to do next.I believe that a person of science has truly lost their way if they extrapolate from theories to embolden their sense of superiority over another person. Science is a self-critical means of understanding, not an elitist gang. Similarly when a religious person drives themselves to anger trying to defend a potentially allegorical account of history rather than being a living example of their morality, I think they are focusing on the wrong thing.


Personally accepting Intelligent Design theory is much better than the men-out-of-mud-women-out-rib, or any other ludicrous ultra-conservative idea on evolution. Respect should be sought mutually, if people feel better accepting a "slightly" alternative form of creation-theory that fits their "universe", then so be it, what can't be is science explicitly denying or prejudging those who support it (at least as a personal belief) (problem recurrent specially within academic circles)What is unacceptable is the Intelligent Design propagandist claim that this is science without due scientific proof and then lobby for it to become school curriculum, along with "abstinence and sex-after-marriage" in place of sex-ed, geocentrism, Christian Dogmas, exorcism and so forth.


Embarrassing for the U.S. Apparently folks think they can cherry pick what science does and does not apply to them- this from the country that has brought more science and technology to the world than any other. Might this be a result of low educational priorities?

A. Hamilton

I think the trouble is that some of the theory is miscommunicated, or people are asking the wrong question.

Does man adapt to his environment? Yes.
Did many evolve from Apes? Unknown, unprovable.


I think that virus infection is a much provable cause in changes in the DNA (much more than radiation, .. : It is hardly possible to improve the disposition in a crystallery exposition with a gun...). Instead a viral infection is a very complex ammunition, and can change an entire group of individuals.


Science and belief in God--the Maker of Heaven and Earth, are totally compatible. God created everthing at the beginning, including science, which is the theorectical explanations of natural phenomena. I always thought this theory of evolution has been discredited after the discovery of DNA. DNA "occupies a central and critical role in the cell as the genetic information in which all the information required to duplicate and maintain the organism." Now theorectically and logically speaking, we know that human DNA are different from the animal or plant DNA. If DNA is hereditary, meaning it is passed down from generation to generation, our earliest ancestors too should be human being like us(Adam and Eve). I only believe in microevolution--"small specific genetic changes that lead to subspecies" but not macroevolution. Even Darwin himself stated at the end of his theory, that this is merely a THEORY, and that due to the limited resources and technology at his time, he could not gather enough evidences to support it, but the future will prove it when evidences of middle products of human evolutions (half-ape, half-human) are found; if not, this theory can not be established. It must have/be supported by evidences. Now for those who are the ardent adherents of evolution, your belief means you are still anticipating some supporting evidences of evolution to be found by more advanced archaelogical technology or findings in the future. What if that took ages long after your time? This waiting is indefinite. What if the gospel about Jesus and the Book of Life is true? You would have lost something by your time all human beings can not afford to lose.


Space Preacher wrote "Each and Every organ composing your body serves a different purpose. Purpose is rooted in the functionality of organs. Organs without a purpose are doomed to disappear. How can you say such a thing?"

EVERYTHING REQUIRES a purpose? Really?

Does the vestigial tail in a human embryo serve a purpose? Do occasional, non-functioning extra digits (polydactly) serve a purpose? Do pimples serve a purpose? Tonsils? Red hair? Albinism? Dwarfism? The spontaneous abortion that occurs in roughly 40% of fertilized eggs?

Mutations occur without purpose. Then have a higher likelihood of being passed on if they confer an advantage, or at the least, do not cause a reproductive disadvantage. However the origination of the mutation is clearly not planned.

Purpose requires the the funcion of the mutation be planned IN ADVANCE of its execution. This is clearly not the case.

That life is able to make use of a very small minority mutations after they occur and that this usefulness allows them to be repeated is adaptation. It is part of the very definition of evolution.


@learningengineer:Oh dear God.Natural selection is not evolution.The beak of the finch does not explain how dinosaurs became birds.Darwin does not explain *how* things change, he merely notes that things do change.Among the people who want to believe something, there will be many who want to believe something so much that almost anything will be enoughEvidence is what you are prepared to be convinced by and the dumber you are the easier it is. Anyone who could believe that Darwin proved what we now call 'evolution' has got to be few sandwiches short of a full picnic. You really aren't very good at this 'science' stuff, are you? Mark Twain said that "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt". You might consider that excellent advice.Simon


Evolution was proven by Darwin in a book SimonEllis evidently can't read called On the Origins of Species. There is also another book called the Beak of the Finch that proves it as well. The January 2009 issue of Scientific American is entirely devoted to the topic. TRY READING IT. Pretending the evidence isn't there because of your incompetence doesn't mean it isn't. Every time you take clinically tested medicines you are taking part in the science of evolution. Do you realize this? I also noticed you ignored the rest of my post as well seems about right. There are several examples of human evolution occurring in the past thousand years: tolerance to milk, immunity to AIDS because of the plague and more. Just because you are uneducated doesn't mean the evidence isn't there it just means you are uneducated.


All events are unique. E.g. clouds, snowflakes, people.

However, mankind perceives patterns amongst the events
witnessed. (Clouds, Snowflakes, People)

That there are patterns in the history of living things
is indubitable.

That these patterns represent a "force" cannot be
proven. The patterns may lie in the perceptual
process or in the structure of the universe.
Since mankind is "locked" into his perceptual
process he can only use "faith" for his belief.

This "faith" may reside in science or religion
or agnosticism.

Ultimately, it is simply "faith."

Space Preacher

@ Nomajic

you wrote: "You assume that there is a purpose. Whether everything came from something, or from "nothing"; purpose is absolutely not required."



Robert Caister wrote: "With regards to why everything is here in the first place, science can only explain the effect and at best the ingredients and actions of the cause but not the purpose of the cause."**********************************************This is exactly my point. You assume that there is a purpose. Whether everything came from something, or from "nothing"; purpose is absolutely not required.While your ego requires meaning, it is entirely possible that the physical world does not. It is also possible that the creation of an incomprehensible (and thus unprovable), infinitely powerful being allows your mind to bridge the gap.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Daily chart: Ebola's spread
Graphic detail 2 hrs 51 mins ago
The Yukos ruling: An expensive lesson
Schumpeter 3 hrs 20 mins ago
Food deliveries and hotels: Sneaky
Gulliver 3 hrs 21 mins ago
Eid in Iraq: Making the most of it
Pomegranate July 29th, 10:31


Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

