6 common reasons why some people still do not believe in evolution

1. They find the idea of being a descendant of an ape highly unfashionable and degrading. Their ego has grown since the days of their ancestors, and therefore they believe they are far too superior to have evolved from these ancestral apes. They would rather believe something that was written to sell to their senses, that they are independent from causality and were created by an all powerful supernatural deity that allows them a chance to live past death in a blissful perfect place called heaven.

2. They are ignorant to what evolution means and how the process of natural selection works. They only know and care about the ancestral ape point.

3. They are ignorant to the evidence (transitional fossils, genetics, dna research, ect…) that indicates and supports evolution. Sometimes they are even willfully ignorant.

4. They misunderstand evolution to mean that we evolved from the modern ape rather then that we and the modern ape evolved from a common ancestor.

5. Because evolution is classified as a theory, they ignore all the evidence that support the theory’s verity.

6. They are too lazy to care or think about it, It’s so much easier to just say, “god did it.”

Additional reading - 24 myths and misconceptions about Evolution

There are 28 comments in this article:

  1. 17/04/2008TheBloggerExposed says:

    Yep! Those are the 6 reasons compelling me to accept a ludicrous theory from an ancient book stating that Eve came from a borrowed rib from Adam so that they could fornicate and begin the human race. Never mind the fact that their children would only have each other to procreate with.

    But since I don’t say “ooh ooh ahh ahh” I obviously did not come from apes! With a little research and by filling in some gaps, I have actually traced my lineage all the way back to Adam and Eve, thank you very much.

    TheBloggerExposed’s last blog post..Life Or Limb

  2. 17/04/2008Travis says:

    hehe, nice one BloggerExposed!

  3. 17/04/2008TheBloggerExposed says:

    Thank you, Travis. Not sure if you’ve noticed, but my features actually favor Eve’s side of the family, or more simply, Eve.

    TheBloggerExposed’s last blog post..Life Or Limb

  4. 18/04/2008shotgun jones says:

    actually you are wrong, travis. God exists. ’nuff said

  5. 18/04/2008Travis says:

    shotgun jones, you simply saying “God exists, nuf said” is about as meaningful as one saying, “rainbow colored unicorns exist, nuf said.”

  6. 18/04/2008Travis says:

    Bloggerexposed, I didn’t notice, thanks for pointing that out. :)

  7. 18/04/20087h1m0 says:

    Travis I think shutgun jones over there is just f’ing with you. :P

    Back on topic. I find it kind of funny on how religion tries to explain what we all ready know and that even good evidence doesn’t convince God lovers to accept it.

  8. 19/04/2008Travis says:

    7h1m0, I hear ya.

  9. 20/04/2008Kobra says:

    Mountains of empirical evidence or… a book written by cattle-sacrificing primitives who believe that every animal in existence lived within walking distance of Noah’s house and managed to fit on a single boat?

  10. 20/04/2008Travis says:

    Kobra, LOL.

  11. 20/04/2008TheBloggerExposed says:

    When you think about it, our human tendencies only serve to support the story of Adam and Eve by proving the power of genetics. (I resent the theory that fornicating is an animalistic instinct based on the need to continue the species).

    For instance, I just so happened to inherit Eve’s womanly parts (hence my features resembling hers). If that weren’t enough, I would like to point out that Eve’s torridly seductive behavior was obviously a dominant trait. Even thousands of generations later, we women are unable to fight the urge of flaunting our sweet and juicy fruit.

    Equally conclusive that Adam was the first sperm donor, is modern man’s weakness to resist said fruit. Coincidence? I think not.

    See, who said the the bible and science can’t coexist?

    TheBloggerExposed’s last blog post..Life Or Limb

  12. 21/04/2008Kobra says:

    TheBloggerExposed: I did, and your statements lack evidence or solid logic.

    “I resent the theory that fornicating is an animalistic instinct based on the need to continue the species.”

    Tough shit. Resentment does not disproval make.

  13. 21/04/2008TheBloggerExposed says:

    OK, apparently my sarcasm wasn’t evident. It’s sad that religious types can be so ridiculous that it was not obvious that the ludicrous statements I was making were simply cheap shots at fundamentalists’ skewed logic.

    In other words, Kobra, we’re actually on the same page about this! :)
    TheBloggerExposed’s last blog post..Life Or Limb

  14. 21/04/2008TheBloggerExposed says:

    Kobra,

    “I would like to point out that Eve’s torridly seductive behavior was obviously a dominant trait. Even thousands of generations later, we women are unable to fight the urge of flaunting our sweet and juicy fruit.”

    …did you think this statement was serious?! If so, that’s hysterical–what you must have been thinking about me!

    TheBloggerExposed’s last blog post..Life Or Limb

  15. 21/04/2008Kobra says:

    TheBloggerExposed: You have obviously never suffered through “Defenders of the Catholic Faith.” :P

  16. 21/04/2008TheBloggerExposed says:

    Oh contraire, Kobra! I just have to stop and chuckle at the self-righteous ignorance from time to time to keep from letting them drive me mad.

    TheBloggerExposed’s last blog post..Life Or Limb

  17. 14/05/2008Josh says:

    Hi. First of all, Travis, every time I’ve been here (your [blog]), I’ve been inspired by your art and thoughts. If I steal any ideas from you (which I’m apt to do), I’ll try to remember to give you credit. =d That’s partly to say I’ve been a reader from a distance.

    Well, I’ll probably get flamed, but… anyway,

    In Travis’s NewScientist link, one of the Evolution Myths is “Religion and evolution are incompatible.” Regardless of which Myth is most widely adopted, I find this one the most tragic. It’s the one that defines “sides” - us against them. Religious people vs. scientific people. Apparently, those involved in the discussion here have also bought in to this myth (and I’m sorry I’m late into the discussion).

    Yes, there are some conservative fundamental people who would fit the silly descriptions you’ve been speaking of, and there are those who are on the other side of the spectrum, who would adopt evolution and reject religion on ignorant grounds. But I think most of us are not on either extreme side, but somewhere in the middle, who can think with reasonable clarity and openness about science and religion.

    I’m primarily concerned with the posture of hostility in this discussion. I find it childish to demean the religious for being closed-minded towards scientists while you’re being equally disinterested and intolerant of the religious. This sort of attitude only serves to further polarize the two groups.

    I hope you don’t misunderstand… I’m not taking sides with you or the religious. I only assert that there can be honest, intelligent manners with which to talk about these concepts.

    And Travis, you have your wits about you and can constructively discuss. From reading your other posts, I expected more than your “nice shot” responses to the other two in this discussion. I suspect that you are annoyed by the ridiculous comments that some religious folks leave on your blog… but it seems that you adopt/promote ridiculous comments by those who are sided with you philosophically.

    I didn’t mean to chide, but to challenge. Kind regards.

  18. 20/05/2008Travis says:

    Josh, thank you for your well thought out comments. I’d like to address what you expressed as your primary concern. Your concern was that there is some demeaning going on here of the religious for being close-minded towards science, and in doing so is being close-minded to the very people we are demeaning for being close-minded.

    I understand your concern, and it is a concern for me as well. But I think often the things the non-religious say to the religious that sounds “ridiculous” as you put it, are expressed that way on purpose, as an example to show the religious just how “ridiculous” their comments are sometimes.

    Discussions on politics, moral debates, and everything else are met with strong criticism, there is no reason that religion and the religious should have any special privileges that allow them exclusion from the same constructive criticism that we apply to everything else in our society and lives.

    I agree, I don’t want to make the same mistakes as the matters mistakes I am criticizing against. Ironically, everywhere you look, there seems to be an intolerance for intolerance. I for one have no intention to be intolerant, but I do enjoy taking the garbage out if it means I can come one step closer to the truth. It is the truth I seek, not comfort. The very same people that like to misdirect a topic with “you are offending me with your religious criticism” are often the same people that have their beliefs based on personal comforts instead of evidence. I have some garbage of my own I am sure, but that is why I blog about these issues, If I am wrong I look forward to being corrected (that is the best part, taking out my own garbage), If I am correct, the evidence will be there.

    I will equally debate a person that is sided with me philosophically as one who is not if I think what they have said is faulty. The manner in which different people express their opinions on a topic is not the concern, the concern is the topic itself and the arguments for and against it. Discussing the manner in which we discuss avoids ever really addressing the content and body of the discussion. This happens all too much in my opinion.

    I appreciate your insightful reflection on this. Glad to see you participate. It’s nice to know that I have readers even if they choose to stay at a distance.

  19. 29/05/2008Kevin says:

    I don’t see any of those reasons as being justified. Replace the word evolution with “the sphere earth theory” and you’ll get almost the same effect. Ignorance, misunderstanding,

    Kevin’s last blog post..Atheist Reactions

  20. 2/06/2008Derek says:

    Interesting. Thank you for the opportunity to “look”

    A belief in no God is paradoxically the same as a belief in the creator God. The forces of evolution are just another form of worship as the worship in the creator God.

    No belief whatsoever seems to be the middle path. Acceptance of experience can bring us to the point of realising that we do not know who we really are, but this cannot be intellectualised.

    Isn’t “God” just the name for “All”? Surely we cannot say that All does not exist. Perhaps none of it does - but again, that is saying the same thing.

    The past is gone, just an illusion - we cannot bring it back. The future is the same. So there is only now, that immediately disappears that makes it an illusion also.

  21. 2/06/2008Kobra says:

    “Another form of worship?” You have to be kidding me.

    The Theory of Evolution is the basis for modern biology; there is no worship involved. Only intensive study and scientific rigor to make sure we got it right.

  22. 2/06/2008Derek says:

    Perhaps “worship” is not the right word :-) Perhaps passion. Passion that there is a God or passion that there is no God.

    No passion would be neutral. :-)

  23. 2/06/2008Kobra says:

    That is where you are wrong, Derek. I am a passionate agnostic; I strongly believe that any form of god (if any exist) would be beyond our current understanding but that science will one day find evidence of a god’s existence (IF there is one). In fact, I’m quite radical about this idea.

  24. 2/06/2008Derek says:

    I am a Zen practitioner, not linked to any particular idea of God or no God. I do not know, I just make statements that come into my awareness in response to this post or any other similar posts. I am perfectly willing to be wrong, as I don’t see any point in being right. Discussions like this with passionate people such as yourself interest me and by participating I am expanding my awareness of all points of view from agnostics, atheists or devote religious people. Through such interaction I tend to look deeper inside my own mind and I thank you for the challenge.

    I am not saying that God does exist or does not exist. Yes, “everything” is beyond our present intellectual understanding. I agree that one day, if science can know everything, it will reveal the answer, but it will take conscious awareness to realise this answer and awareness is something that is independent of science as we were aware of our existence without science ever explaining it.

  25. 2/06/2008Kobra says:

    Have you considered that our existence could be nothing more than an illusion? A supercomputer built by a different race in a different universe, or perhaps just a dream?

  26. 2/06/2008Travis says:

    Derek, Thanks for your comments.

    Atheists don’t believe in “no god.” For atheists, there is no god to believe or disbelieve in. There is no passion in this lack of belief just as there is no passion in your lack of belief in fairies.
    Nobody is “worshiping” or having “passion” in evolution. They are simply following the evidence, and the evidence points to natural causes, evolution by natural selection. If anyone has a passion in something, it is in taking out the garbage, following the evidence in pursuit of the truth.

    I can intellectualize who we are, the self. We are but the outcome of income received. We are the result of our accumulated experiences, and how our biology and chemistry reacts to these experiences. As long as we are alive and are subject to new experiences our self changes accordingly. Any realization of this is yet another experience that changes ones self. Identifying yourself is like trying to step on your own shadow, as soon as you go to place your finger on the self, it moves by your own movement. Understanding this is as close as we can probably get to knowing ones self.

    “God,” another name for “all?” These days it seems that people assign all kinds of definitions to god. This creates confusion and people talking past each other. Atheist lack belief in god as defined as a supernatural deity. Not god as defined as “all” or as “nature” etc…

    I am quite familiar with Zen myself. It was the beginnings of my studies that led me to pursuing truth.

    Kobra, what evidence indicates that our existence could be an illusion or built by a supercomputer built by a different race in different universe, or that it is all just a dream?

  27. 2/06/2008Derek says:

    Hi Travis,
    There must be atheists and atheists, for some of the atheists I have interacted with have become quite passionate when I have asked about their convictions.

    When I say that God is another name for All, I cannot know that unequivocally, I have just been interested in parallels that I have learned of from various religious beliefs and where it has been written that God is omni… this that and the other. Zen often speaks of all being nothing (Mu) which paradoxically is being one with all - that is what we aspire to realise in zazen. Some may like to call this consciousness God, but I take the position that I cannot know what it is, for if I define it, it can become redefined over and over again. And then I learn of the ancient Vikings talked of the All Father. All these are just questions that I suppose being a Zen practitioner brings up..

    Having regularly sat zazen for the last 30 years has given me insight into many things, but they are my insights, looked at from my point of view - they cannot really be anyone else’s but sharing them seems to deepen the question for me and Zen teaches there are no answers for they are in the questions. There have been glimpses of self that have been quite profound, but that’s it really.

    If atheism is the disbelief in God as a supernatural deity, then I must be an atheist by that definition. But to me, I experience more than just the material body I occupy and notice how my will can get my mind to transform the way I feel, and I cannot define my will, yet I can will things to happen. So to me I am undefinable and everything I take into my experience is added to the energy of who I am - in that, way I am sort of “pretending” to be an individual entity.

    I feel I have digressed here a little, but that tends to be what happens with such dialogue and I hope that others can get the same sort of value I get out of it.

  28. 2/06/2008Derek says:

    Kobra: There are many Zen masters and other disciplines who state that our existence is in the here and now and it is an illusion. For the moment you look at now, it has moved on and gone forever - therefore our existence must be an illusion. These masters don’t provide and answer just the question and they leave you seek the answer in Zazen (a type of Zen meditation),

Leave a comment: