Is evolution still a controversial theory?

   I'm not sure why a Darwin movie is even being made? I mean, was he really that interesting? Sure, his theories were, but the man himself? I'd be like an Edgar Allen Poe movie. Sure he was a great writer and all, but was he interesting enough to carry a movie? I suppose it's all in what you decide to focus on, how you write and the skill of the writers themselves.

   As far as people not believing in evolution, to some extent I can't believe it all has to do with education. Sure, lack of education can explain some of it, but at least here in the US, I think the theory is pretty well entrenched in the culture. There are people out there who are well aware of the theory but just choose not to believe in it, in my experience, because of religious beliefs. I know of some people (fellow gamers) who claim to be faithful, and believe that both the bible and evolution are in their own way valid. The way it was explained to me was that the bible tells a creation myth using imagery people back then could understand, evolution they say was moved by the hand of God.

   I myself can't argue either particular point because I don't know all of the details of either theory. I'm not a biblical scholar, nor am I a theologian. Based on what I do know, evolution is the most likely, and definitely more provable. I still have no idea why someone would want to make a movie around Darwin or the theory of evolution, but I wish them luck and maybe if nothing else, this movie will get people talking about the issue, seems to have worked here.  

I was speaking more in general about movies themselves but back to the main topic...

JimB:

In response to all the people who are saying things like "It makes me sad that people don't believe in evolution" and "That's not good," I ask: Why?

You have a point here, it isn't a big deal that only so many believe in it.  Well guess what I know about evolution but it doesn't mean I 'Believe' in it.  It isn't a Religion its a Thesis.

Zeev:

Because there are really two main reasons people don't believe in evolution:

Poor education, which I think is a vastly bad thing for a society.

Poor approaches to religion.  I'm not going to make claims about specific religions, but as a human being, if one is to accept a supreme deity (or deities) that shaped the world with a purpose into what it is now, believing what some dead guy wrote centuries ago is more important than the lessons the world around us has to teach, then that person is worthy of pity.

The first part is too general an argument.  At least here, most people actually know what evolution is.  It is a matter of being aware of it just like anything else.  A child doesn't even know the word 'God' until he is taught it.

Your also right on the second part, Religion isn't about writings on where we come from.  Those will always be theories and beliefs that scholars have been writing about forever.  While it is good to know the past, its how you live your life that matters.

I leave my arguments as is for now.  Its a subject that can stir up a lot of people.

Roman Virtue:

It'd be like an Edgar Allen Poe movie. Sure he was a great writer and all, but was he interesting enough to carry a movie?

Possibly a bad example, what with all the rumors about his crippling emotional problems and necrophilia and gods know what else.

I do believe that there is a movie about Poe and his wife.

JimB:

Roman Virtue:

It'd be like an Edgar Allen Poe movie. Sure he was a great writer and all, but was he interesting enough to carry a movie?

Possibly a bad example, what with all the rumors about his crippling emotional problems and necrophilia and gods know what else.

Really!? I kinda want to see a movie about him now...

There are several reasons and levels to "evolution", which has become a loaded term.

First, everone evolves.  If you asked me at age 5 to define love, and ask me now in my 30's, my answers would differ as I have evoleved as a person on an emotional and spiritual level.
Second, innate to evolution is the destruction of the exceptionalism of our species.  Dehumanize humanity, as the theory does, then nihilism wins.
Third, evolution has many holes in the theory.

One problem people have with evolution is that science does not speak to the moral foundations of society.  Our foolish notion that science and faith are "at war" causes people to look to science as our new faith of miracles.  Science does not speak to morality, and reliance on science erodes the moral foundation of society.  Faith speaks to reason, but rejects knowledge that differs with dogma.  Therefore a society without a commitment to science lacks growth.

These core problems are why evolution has problems with acceptance - because it devalues the human condition.  Theists who find the congruity with evolution that does not dehumanize man do not have any problem with it.  


If they made a movie about CS Lewis, and it made money, they can make a movie about Darwin - assuming they do a good job.  What made the movie about Lewis work was that it did not focus on his message - just the man.  Darwin fails to do that and tries to make itself to epic, from what I hear, and therefore will not enjoy success.  Do not blame the audience, blame prodcution.

lundstroms2004:

Evolution has many holes in the theory.

Like what?  I'm not asking out of confrontation, but because I don't know.

lundstroms2004:

Science does not speak to morality, and reliance on science erodes the moral foundation of society.

Do you have examples of this, or are you speculating?

lundstroms2004:

Therefore a society without a commitment to science lacks growth.

Do you have examples of this, or are you speculating?  And what definition of 'growth' are we applying, here?

Shock:

The Vulture:

Shock:

here is my question: how you go about doing that?

it's not like every is rushing to make a major movie about how Edison invented the light bulb..

True, but there was a rush to make a movie about some convict being executed on a couple pieces of wood.  I mean its not that big a deal, it happens right?

well, that's saying that Altheism is a religion (with Darwin as it's "demigod" figure) all to it's self by comparing it to a action religion.

I always found it ironic that Darwin was Anglican...

Darksider:

Is evolution still a controversial theory?

Well, there are an awful lot of stupid people in this country.

lundstroms2004:

First, everone evolves.

That's not an example of a loaded term.  That's an example of multiple definitions.  The scientific theories of evolution are one definition of the word.  It has a specific meaning that doesn't apply to some general uses of the term.  This happens all the time with scientific language.  Most scientists lament that most people don't get the specific scientific break down between hypotheses, theories and facts as used scientifically, and therefore don't understand what scientists are often trying to say.

lundstroms2004:

Second, innate to evolution is the destruction of the exceptionalism of our species.

Huh?

Evolution doesn't really impact this.  If you want to view humans as unexceptional, you can certainly draw points from science.  At the same time, if you want to view humans as exceptional, there's plenty of things you can draw from the same sources.

If you look at the scientific history of the world, our evolution and success as a species is quite exceptional though.  We've done things no other species in the record has.

lundstroms2004:

Third, evolution has many holes in the theory.

Darwin's original theories?  Absolutely.  However, it's been 150 years, and science has refined and improved on this theories to the point where this claim is mostly a matter of ignorance.  No scientific theory is perfect (that is, in it self, a base assumption of science anyway), but evolution's original 'holes' have been filed to the point where the only way to be more certain is to move from science into faith on the subject.

lundstroms2004:

One problem people have with evolution is that science does not speak to the moral foundations of society

And it shouldn't.  That isn't the point of science.  However, multiple philosophic schools use logic and reason, not faith, to speak to the moral foundations of society.  If a given scientist doesn't seek morality in faith, they are still obligated to find it in other methods of thinking.  If you have no moral guidance, you are useless as a scientist, because proper science requires moral people.

lundstroms2004:

Faith speaks to reason, but rejects knowledge that differs with dogma.

What faith rejects is up to the individual faithful.  I think what you mean is that organized religions reject knowledge that it cannot mesh with dogma.

lundstroms2004:

These core problems are why evolution has problems with acceptance - because it devalues the human condition.  Theists who find the congruity with evolution that does not dehumanize man do not have any problem with it.  

These two statements contradict each other.  Does evolution dehumanize or doesn't it?  If some people can see that it does not, then it doesn't justify other people simply not seeing it correctly.

lundstroms2004:

Darwin fails to do that and tries to make itself to epic, from what I hear, and therefore will not enjoy success.  Do not blame the audience, blame prodcution.

It's hard for some of us to blame anything when we're going to have to order the DVD from another country before we can see it.

To answer the OP-yes.

A friend of mine told me that several people in his class had laughed when the teacher had spoken of evolution and dinosaurs (on two seperate occasions).

Morte:

A friend of mine told me that several people in his class had laughed when the teacher had spoken of evolution and dinosaurs (on two seperate occasions).

This makes me very sad. Stupid people breed stupidity..

Evolution supposes mutation to be the means by which nature rises to homo sapiens. The experience of biological science sees mutations as detrimental to life.  The greatest failure of the theory of evolution is its inability to provide an explanation of the source of life. Only living creatures can produce other living creatures, yet we are asked to believe that inert matter produced life.  Also, given that true sciene is based on observation of controlled experiments, evolution requires correlational leaps rather than specific causal links.

However, do not get me wrong.  The thread discusses the "controversy" of evolution, and I am not giving a thumbs up or down.  I am just simply stating some of the reasons it remains controversial.  As our understanding of biochemistry increases, so to will our understanding of protogenesis.

___

Science is not a moral pursuit.  The true scientist must divorce themselves from the moral questons of their craft, because morality is moot when it comes to determining through controlled experiments the nature of cause and effect.  There is no need to cite examples, as they are mutually exclusive (morality and science).

____

When I speak to a lack of growth due to science, history has shown that technology and innovation drive social growth.  The rising waters of social and cultural evoluution take with them the individuals associated with that society.  Primitive cultures that have not experienced growth, the so called noble savage, have stayed that way because of their technology.  Technological progress drives societies because technology ultimatly creates leisure time that can be dedicated to pursuits of technology and culture.  All the great human cultures in history were great because they had the greatest technology for their time.

______

When I wrote about evolution defeating the exceptionalism of man, I meant it.  If you say that man was crafted by god(s), then man has form and function due to divine purpose.  If you say man was crafted by random chemical reactions into the complex being it is today, then you say that man is not exceptional in the sense that his existence has moral consequence that echoes through eternity.  If the development of our species is random, then so to are our moral truths.  Such is the crux of why evolution has so many detractors.  It is not enough to engage in hyperbole (stupid people do not believe in evolution).  And evolution has become a loaded term because of its overusage in the common argot without the proper scientific nuance necessary to explain it to others.

For example, I am certain that everyone who pays attention to this post can talk about particle wave duality, but I doubt any of us can explain every nuance of the phenomonenon.  How is it that observation alone changes the very nature of an electron, and not just its velocity?  We could talk to someone in general terms, and they would not grasp it and reject it because the tested conclusions are so counter intuitive.  Does that make them stupid?(no is the answer).  The same is true with evolution.  Because of a lack of patience and adequate instruction, it remains and will remain controversial because people like generalities over nuance.

Another great example is the big bang theory.  When it was first shown that our universe expands, and is not static or contracting, the simple thought of sourcing everything to one defining moment made sense.  Lots of religious people complained and said it was evil to teach it.  Some scientists could not explain why electromagnetism did not overpower gravity at the begining, but that did not invalidate the theory.  It drove people to search more.  The pope at the time when it was finaly a provable theory, in the scientific sense, did not abjure the theory.  Rather he stated that he was happy that science had at long last proven that there was in fact one moment in time when it all began.

Such keen optimism and insight is sadly lacking in todays evolution and faith debates.  It is not furthered by a scientific community hijacked on the talk shows by militant atheists and a religious community hijacked by bible banging literalists.  Resolve the bastard stepchildren in both camps, and you can reduce the controversy. (sorry for spellinng errors...typed fast)

lundstroms2004:

The true scientist must divorce themselves from the moral questions of their craft, because morality is moot when it comes to determining through controlled experiments the nature of cause and effect.

I disagree.  Those experiments have to serve a purpose, to fulfill some kind of need.  You can argue the experiments themselves are morality neutral, but the purpose for them is not.

lundstroms2004:

Technological progress drives societies because technology ultimatly creates leisure time that can be dedicated to pursuits of technology and culture.

Science is great because it gives you more time to think about science?

lundstroms2004:

If you say that man was crafted by god(s), then man has form and function due to divine purpose.  If you say man was crafted by random chemical reactions into the complex being it is today, then you say that man is not exceptional in the sense that his existence has moral consequence that echoes through eternity.

Alternately, you could argue that evolution makes mankind more exceptional than divine inspiration, because divine inspiration means man owns nothing of his own accomplishments, whereas evolved man earned everything he has through jillions of years of suffering and setbacks.

lundstroms2004:

I am certain that everyone who pays attention to this post can talk about particle wave duality,

Oh, sure, particle wave duality, you betcha.  That's the principle by which the flavor molecules are released in a hamburger patty to make its Deliciousness Factor rise to a level of 7.6 yumyum units.  I don't understand how this interacts with the string theory of ketchup resonance, but I do know they sure am tasty together.

(I'm just having fun.  Sorry for being a jerk.)