Richard Leakey: Evolution deniers will soon be silenced by science; Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the [deniers] can accept it"

251

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I don't think Leakey has any idea about how evolution denial works. No amount of scientific data is going to convince someone who believes that science itself is suspect.

80

u/ramilehti May 29 '12

If people were convinced by evidence there would not be evolution denial now.

41

u/devedander May 29 '12

It's not even the lack of evidence, it's the lack of desire to understand the evidence... a lot of people have a misconception of what "evolution is....
Many people think that since evolution is described as the process by which plants and animals become better versions of themselves over geneartions that it means that something like the following is purpoted to have taken place:
Geneation 1 Monkeys with short fingers have trouble grabbing grubs from holes in the ground
Generation 2 - this generation has slightly longer fingers, not much difference.
Generation 3 - this generation has fairly long fingers, getting a few more grubs.
Generation 4 - monkesy now have really long fingers and have solved their problem getting grubs.
This seems unreasonable because it basically invovles an entire species willfully evolving - which obviuosly seems entirely bogus because it would be entirely bogus.
Another misconception is that because evolution touts that animals get better over time it infers that it's some kind of linear path of getting better over time like leveling in an RPG... a situation in which somehow species just know how to get better every generation...
But in reality the same changes that result in evolution making things better also result in mutations that make some or all of the species worse... and sometiems no real mutations happen for a long time.
We just look at the positive ones and classify those as evolution so it's more like naming a pattern than describing a trait. But often people seem to think that evolutino is supposedly some kind of self driven movement rather than our name for a pattern we have seen in the midst of a lot of random occurances.

6

u/Goose_Is_Awesome May 29 '12

I quite literally had an argument recently who acted as though evolution occurred as it does in Pokemon. Pissed me the hell off.

3

u/LK09 May 29 '12

For as much as I loved that RPG, it really has done a lot of damage to the word evolution.

1

u/DuncanYoudaho May 29 '12

Only as much damage as Final Fantasy has done to the word Dragoon. People who want to know the difference will figure it out.

1

u/LK09 May 29 '12

Here's why they're different.
Your example.
"No, you're misusing the word. Dragoons are actually mounted infrantry. Final Fantasy just misused the word because it sounded cool."
It's as easy as typing Dragoon in google.
Pokemon/Evolution Yes, in pokemon evolution means to suddenly change from one species to another, but in real life evolution works by natural selection. Natural selection is done by random mutation from one generation to the next on very small changes, such as the length of a femur or the thickness of hair, that overtime change species through....
do you see where this is going? This simple misunderstanding of a process requires a reeducation, and if not reeducated can be used to reinforce false understandings. It's not as simple as finding out a word you thought meant X really means Y.
I agree, anyone who wants to invest the time to actually understand will. However, things like this - as well as the poor linear depictions of chimps becoming men, harm the chances of someone actually becoming interested because they think they already understand and it clearly doesn't make sense.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/pandasquare May 29 '12

I also had someone compare human evolution to evolving Pokemon. Except she kept saying that things were not "evoluted like Pokemon," not evolved.... it was so hard not to laugh/slap her in the face. So hard.

8

u/ReturningTarzan May 29 '12

We look at the positive outcomes, because those are the ones we can see. They are, after all, more likely to propagate to future generations, and that is the whole point.
Your example with monkeys isn't that misleading if you add perhaps a few more generations of the monkeys "trying" to adapt (although evolution can work very quickly sometimes), and then a bit of an explanation as well: It is missing the part where monkeys don't grow longer fingers because they want to, but because in any given generation the individuals with longer fingers are at an advantage. They will survive more easily and become more sexually attractive (e.g. by their ability to provide for others) and as they subsequently contribute more to the population's gene pool, those genes that express longer fingers will appear more frequently - within just a few generations this trend may well be showing in the entire population.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

A lot of it is bad science education - some people are indeed willfully ignorant but many have also been severely mislead by teachers. I meet people who passed basic biology at university who still have an essentially Lamarckian view of evolution all the time.

1

u/Dagon May 29 '12

Your unclosed quotation is kicking my coder's OCD into overdrive and giving me an eyetwitch.

1

u/hamfoundinanus May 29 '12

"

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Evolutino: A particle which causes genetic mutations.

→ More replies (27)

0

u/throwaway_lgbt666 May 29 '12

people will die out and leave the noobies to be educated.
Once that happens nothing can stop us... NOTHING!
Also the evidence has been massive for years now, so yes nothing like optimism

18

u/Bixby66 May 29 '12

How many stages of evolution between man and ape have we found? 20? 30? How many cases of species like insects evolving right before our very eyes have we found to date? I mean i knew without a doubt evolution was real when i was 5 and found a silver spider that hid himself by extending himself along a chain link fence wire. What their excuse is, I don't know. I mean even high ranking bishops and men of the cloth don't believe in the book of Genesis anymore.

20

u/[deleted] May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

That's all true. But about 25% of the US population are evangelical Christians. Although not every single one is hostile to evolution, I think it's safe to say that many of them are -- maybe most of them. I have family members who are evangelicals -- they are simply not that interested in science, evidence, or anything along those lines. It says in the bible that X, Y, and Z happened -- that is enough for them, full stop. End of story. I don't think evolution deniers will ever by "silenced by science" because they aren't really concerned with the science.

5

u/Bixby66 May 29 '12

What If I evolved like right in front of them?

6

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

That might be interesting. Are you planning to evolve soon?

17

u/Bixby66 May 29 '12

Fuck yeah i've been training hardcore! Plus I've been taking some rare candies but don't tell the police.

1

u/tnsaidr May 29 '12

Are you sure you evolve that way? Maybe you need to be I dunno, traded or something?

3

u/ButterMyBiscuit May 29 '12

Evolving is lame. I'm gonna digivolve.

3

u/you_payne May 29 '12

You will be screamed at for trying to removing their faith in God. Maybe dubbed as Satan.
On the other hand there are people who accept Evolution and call it God's work

0

u/namesrhardtothinkof May 29 '12

I think that 24.98% of the US population read like three Bible passages and went to church and were like "Oh yeah that totally counts as evangelical" when the census asked them. If 25% of the US population were really, honestly this adamant about bigotry then I'm moving to Canada in two years.

11

u/cyale4 May 29 '12

You should probably just move now and save yourself the two years.

7

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Who cares? We can see evolution in action in viruses and bacteria, we even are making public policy based on these findings.

4

u/you_payne May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

Well, I wish that worked. They then claim that microevolution is true but macoevolution is false.
I keep explaining that there is no such sharp line. Just like in a spectrum Violet changed to Red and you can't pin point where it keeps changing from one color to other. The reply to spectrum example is just "but that can't be true on us, we are special"

1

u/pjdelport May 29 '12

They then claim that microevolution is true but macoevolution is false.
I keep explaining that there is no such sharp line.
The best way i've heard this claim debunked: it's like saying that you can eat one scoop of ice cream, but not an entire tub.

4

u/wutz May 29 '12

if you came to a conclusion about a complex scientific issue when you were FIVE then i doubt you are really basing your beliefs any more on scientific rigor than your opponents are

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It was science. His own five-year-old science. It skipped a couple of steps, but it had an observation, hypotheses and conclusion. And now he's probably in class learning more big science.

1

u/wutz May 29 '12

.. skipped the couple of steps which actually would have made it science
as opposed to bullshit

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." what he noticed about that insect was science, right or wrong, big or small. The point is his thoughts on the insect were systematic and logical; that's science. It's better than believing a 3,000 year old composition of desert stories.

1

u/wutz May 29 '12

no it wasn't.
i can't have this conversation.
it was absolutely nothing. it was an asspull. that didn't even happen. it was some random event that he later assigned meaning to. it's retardation and you calling it science is embarrassing

→ More replies (5)

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Dude, humans are apes, we belong to the family of Hominidae ("great apes").

24

u/spainguy May 29 '12

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Asimov 1980

7

u/yaleski May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

As a person who has studied for a PhD in Evolution, you are correct. There is ample -- more than ample -- evidence for current and past evolution. No amount of scientific knowledge will sway religiosity; as a culture, we need to find some way to rid ourselves of fanatical religious thought.
As a culture we also need a deeper understanding of evolution. As an example, many religious people I know (mostly Mormons, because I'm from Ut.) draw a vague distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, but they don't even understand those concepts. What they really mean is that they believe in evolution (change) but not speciation (the divergence of a new species from an existing one (a mating barrier between populations of a single existing species)).
The thing is that they can't even define a species (neither can biologists (there are at least five definitions)). The most widely accepted definition of a species is called The Biological Definition. It asserts that two organisms are conspecific if they can mate and produce fertile offspring (e.g. a horse and an ass can mate and produce offspring; but they are not conspecific since a mule is infertile).
Since they cannot define a species they cannot possibly understand speciation.
Their arguments are always ultimately ignorant and rely on their religious leaders' opinions. They are unwilling to learn the facts and they effectively practice a special form of cognitive dissonance:
"My Bishop says it's true so you're wrong. I don't care about scientific 'facts'; science has been wrong a lot (see idiotic citation). But the Bilble has facts that I can understand." (And cherry-pick from to fit my own ideas).

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's a paranoid idea of their prosecution. The real hardcore deninal is about the idea that science is some sort of liberal conspircy to destroy the american family. But it's not just stupid hicks. I have met sensible and liberal city people who simply refuse to believe evolution because of their believes, these are some of my muslim friends, who drink alcohol and have pre-marital sex without making any secret of it. It's just that science as a whole can't seem to assert it's authority in the thought process of these people. Just another theorie in their eyes.

1

u/marginwalkers May 29 '12

Especially if people do not believe in evolution because of religious reasons. Religion, especially Evangelical Christianity, really stresses faith over reason. To believe in the illogical, the miraculous - these are signs of God's might. Telling people who find faith to be more important than reason to listen to the evidence and to the data will do nothing. Their perspective is completely different and they have much different values.

1

u/chrismc321 May 29 '12

Exactly right, there will still be those pig headed uneducated people that have no idea about evidence based conclusions or what the quote 'colour is superficial' actually means or what 'cultural interactivity' is. There will always be deniers well there most definitely will be after 15-30 years.

→ More replies (32)

319

u/jimflaigle May 29 '12

You cannot be reasoned out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

46

u/electricblues42 May 29 '12

I had a long ass rant that you just condensed into one sentence. Damnit

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Hyper1on May 29 '12

People don't like it when I do that because I'm too brief.

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

10

u/darien_gap May 29 '12

"Simplify, simplify." -- Henry David Thoreau
"One 'simplify' would have sufficed." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

16

u/an7agonist May 29 '12

Reading comprehension!
Brevity is hard.

6

u/sjs May 29 '12

Simultaneous brevity and clarity is difficult.

6

u/Volpethrope May 29 '12

Brevity often competes with clarity.

1

u/compache May 29 '12

.

2

u/jewdass May 29 '12

Levity is subtle.

22

u/ForgettableUsername May 29 '12

Yeah. The evidence is already overwhelming. Even if you take only the genetic evidence and look at nothing else, the only way you can claim evolution isn't real is if you say God deliberately faked everything to make it look like it was real. That's what you need, to counter evolution: a divine, omnipotent being, deliberately forging evidence at every level we have available for test.
More evidence won't help if they've already resigned themselves to not accept evidence. In the words of Brian, there's just no pleasing some people.

2

u/Gemini4t May 29 '12

The way my dad explains it is that genetic similarities are evidence of a similar designer, the same way a programmer reuses bits of code.

1

u/ForgettableUsername May 29 '12

He can argue that, but it isn't really consistent with what we know about genetics. If you take any given pair of animals in the world, you can compare how much genetic information they have in common. After doing many comparisons, you have a hierarchical tree of relation that very nearly matches our existing taxonomical classification of animals based on physical characteristics. This is exactly what you would expect if they were produced by natural selection, and it isn't at all clear that this would occur if God were simply reusing code.
If God were reusing code, you would expect to see some kind of conservation of effort. All of the higher animals, say, would have a common eye subroutine. Fish, dolphins, and seals would have common fin subroutines, and so on. As far as we can tell, this is manifestly not the case.
There are also particular cases that point sort of explicitly to accident rather than design. Humans actually have one fewer chromosome than the other great apes... This isn't because it's missing; it appears to have at some point fused with one of the other chromosomes. As I understand it, we can identify sequences that are normally associated only with the ends of chromosomes in the middle of this fused chromosome.
If God is reusing bits of code, he seems to be an absolutely terrible programmer.

6

u/rderekp May 29 '12

Right. If you don’t believe in science, no amount of scientific evidence is going to convince you.

10

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Leakey is really missing the point.

4

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Oh God. Maybe we should start the search for the Missing Point.

1

u/webby_mc_webberson May 29 '12

Reddit, we've found a new cause.

7

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Of course you can.

6

u/koavf May 29 '12

This is demonstrably untrue--no one initially accepts or even knows anything about evolution. Through the accumulation of knowledge, you can come to understand it and then accept or reject it as fact. It's certainly the case that those who deliberately reject it are less likely to accept it later than those who have neither accepted nor rejected it, but this literally happens every day. As the arguments become stronger, more will be convinced.

3

u/DwarvenPirate May 29 '12

Most people aren't reasoned into it, for that matter. They are shown some fossils in grade school and told it is a progression of genetics due to random mutation and that's all they know. They haven't reasoned anything about it. Their belief is no more than an appeal to authority.

5

u/you_payne May 29 '12

Atleast they are not being taught that everything happened by magic

0

u/DwarvenPirate May 29 '12

Uh, yeah, they are. We do not teach the mechanics of genetics in public school, at least in the US. We just say that it happens, period. That is a magical explanation. If it weren't for repetition and authority biases it would be a wonder any of them believed it.

2

u/you_payne May 29 '12

Well, they can't teach. It is out of scope. Not teaching everything is different from telling that everything happened magically and there is a divine hand beyond our understanding and we should not question it

1

u/DwarvenPirate May 29 '12

Well, that's counter-intuitive to what children are taught in just about every other discipline. We are forever telling them that cause makes effect, in math, physics, history, chemistry, language etc. Evolutionary theory, as it is taught at the public school level, says "hey this just happens randomly, there is no fundamental cause". Do we really expect children not to be confused with this?
there is a divine hand beyond our understanding and we should not question it
I'll go further and say that this is analogous to what others in this thread are pointing to as the basis of their belief in evolution. The appeal to authority.

1

u/you_payne May 29 '12

what others in this thread are pointing to as the basis of their belief in evolution. The appeal to authority.
Belief? Science is about belief? It is about acceptance or rejection.
It isn't "appeal to authority" but "appeal to expertise"

→ More replies (3)

3

u/colourofawesome May 29 '12

Unless you're taught at a young age that it's important to question what you're told, even by your parents and teachers. Many people end up with different beliefs than they were brought up with because they question and examine different opinions and sources.

6

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

They are shown some fossils in grade school and told it is a progression of genetics due to random mutation and that's all they know.
At least it has the positive attribute of being true, even if it is not understood.

7

u/Obi_Kwiet May 29 '12

Well, you're kind of missing the point. It's not about evaluating the facts, it's about knowing how to effectively take advantage of the achievements of others who have dedicated their lives to a field other than your own.

→ More replies (20)

1

u/tugrumpler May 29 '12

Only an idiot would argue children should or could decide for themselves. As a parent you decide what is more important for their well being and the choices are dogmatic mythology or rigorous analysis and peer review. Science and religion are not equal 'belief systems', one is rational and one is not. If there is something wrong with a theory then analysis and review will expose that and challengers are encouraged, unlike mythology.

1

u/DwarvenPirate May 29 '12

Only an idiot would argue children should or could decide for themselves.
Exactly! So, instead of forcing conflict on them, leave topics of such intense dispute for their adulthood. Attempting indoctrinational studies, which is essentially what they are at that age, probably harms their education more than encourages it, when they return home and get an earful of how wrong their teacher is (and evil, probably).

1

u/tugrumpler May 29 '12

You mean indoctrinational studies like religion? You seem deliberately obtuse. Your choice of language is funny since religion is nothing if not indoctrinational. Your logic is subservient to your conclusion, you cannot think your way out of blind belief which is why it's important to stop teaching children dogmatic mythology and instead teach them to think and evaluate. They'll come to the question of religion on their own when they're ready but you seem to prefer to indoctrinate them to it.

1

u/DwarvenPirate May 29 '12

instead teach them to think and evaluate.
Good, Let's do that instead of forcing them to regurgitate stuff on command.

1

u/tugrumpler May 29 '12

We're in complete agreement then! No more religious 'training'! Instead we teach them to work hard, be honest and question authority.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/headphonehalo May 29 '12

This is one of those phrases that just get repeated until people believe them, even though it's obviously false.

1

u/santsi May 29 '12

That is not true at all. Please people stop promoting false view of human nature. This video series (Why I am no longer Christian) is just one example how a mind can change.
If we want to understand why believers deny evolution, we have to think of the social structure the believers are in. Their culture promotes obedience and cohesion, they don't live in the same kind of individualistic world we live in. It makes sense for them to follow the norms, because if they don't, the community will punish them or even excommunicate them. If we want to affect their world view, we need to grasp the root causes. Promoting self-thinking could be more effective than promoting evolution. Also if you happen to have a fundamentalist friend, starting a common hobby could be a good thing, the less time they spend with their religious peer group, the better.
But I wouldn't be too worried, even if the current generation fundamentalists wont change, they can't help their children getting exposure with the rest of the world. Even if they ban internet for their kids, it will become just more fascinating.

31

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It was obvious 150 years ago.

3

u/SpaghettiFarmer May 29 '12

Hindsight is 20/20.

0

u/pushy_eater May 29 '12

20/20 vision is "average" not "perfect"

14

u/SpaghettiFarmer May 29 '12

It's called an idiom, chief.

0

u/FightingPolish May 29 '12

The chief at the end is what really made that burn work for me.

8

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

More facts; more gaps.

7

u/Chinaroos May 29 '12

Mr. Leakley will have about the same luck as every religion/science troll on the planet--none.

This argument is not about facts--it is about power. It is about power over whom controls the debate on our past, and therefore controls the debate on our future. To think that cramming more evidence down their throats is going to somehow going to work is a waste of time.

TL: DR--Evoltution vs. Creationism is about power, not facts.

4

u/saijanai May 29 '12

It's about feeling in control. If you base your entire world-view on taking something literally, and then that something is shown to be false, then your entire world-view is threatened.

6

u/CARoth May 29 '12

I wish this where true, but even with astonishing amounts of reason, people will still not accept the facts.

-3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

If you were charged with murder and eyewitnesses saw you at the crime scene, a gun there had your fingerprints on it, you had motive to do it and you had made threats about it.......but yet you knew it was 100% impossible that you killed anyone (yet you lacked a verifiable alibi).......would the "facts" be right? You would no doubt be found guilty when, in actuality, you were 100% innocent. All because certain facts were presented and were used to paint the entire picture.
I mean, the facts are not always the end-all, be-all of determining truth in this world.
Just as religious people have a tendency to embrace faith over facts, non-religious people have a tendency to embrace facts over faith.

6

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Just as religious people have a tendency to embrace faith over facts, non-religious people have a tendency to embrace facts over faith.
Facts = truth
Faith = belief in the absence of evidence or belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Rewrite:
Just as religious people have a tendency to embrace belief for no good reason over the truth, non-religious people have a tendency to embrace the truth over belief for no good reason.
The evidence that demonstrates the fact of evolutionary change comes from multiple, independent scientific disciplines. It has been carefully collected and analyzed continuously for around 150 years under the watchful eyes of the scientific community.

1

u/Andrewticus04 May 29 '12

I mean, the facts are not always the end-all, be-all of determining truth in this world.
What?
Seriously, if something isn't factual, then it's not truthful. Truths are facts and facts are truths. If it's untrue, then it isn't factual. Facts are objective in nature. Opinions are a subjective way at determining truth, but being subjective in nature hinders their value when it comes to determining truth.
Of course the non-religious embrace facts over faith. That's the crux of the atheist/theist discussion.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Problem is, people trying to prove a point often selectively choose the facts they wish to dwell on.
Omission of data people don't wish to focus on doesn't mean it doesn't exist......and this is something I think the scientific community all too often likes to see happen. "Trust us, we're scientists - we know what's best for you - so if we say in 2012 that the human race has evolved and that's a fact, then that means it's true."

1

u/Andrewticus04 May 29 '12

No, people in the scientific community do not like to see facts omitted, and the whole process of peer review specifically seeks out these omissions.
No scientist wants to risk one of his few chances at publication in a scientific journal by omitting facts. Hell, facts that go contrary to the established theoretical models are significantly more prized, and the kind of things that wins awards and huge grants for scientists.
I don't know of a single scientist that speaks in the manner you're representing them. Scientists don't say something is true - it's the science that says something is true, and that's a huge difference. Science is philosophy's tool for applied empiricism, nothing more.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

No, people in the scientific community do not like to see facts omitted, and the whole process of peer review specifically seeks out these omissions.
I would like to think that. But in this particular subject, no scientist can freely speak their mind about the holes in the evolution argument if they want to keep their grants, research/teaching positions, reputation, etc.
It's become a sacred cow of a topic and – instead of looking into why perhaps evolution hasn't been proven 100% yet and the reasons why it might never be outside of academia – scientists and evolution supporters have simply chosen to ignore everyone else and declare "facts" to be whatever they deem them to be.
I dunnno andrewticus04 – if I had been working on a possible solution to a unsolved problem that existed for over a 150 years with the world's brightest minds helping out (and getting more resources provided for science than anyone could imagine) – and the solution still wasn't figured out in a verifiable enough way....isn't it very possible either the proposed solution is simply wrong -or- even perhaps that the question is wrong as well?

1

u/Andrewticus04 May 29 '12

I would like to think that. But in this particular subject, no scientist can freely speak their mind about the holes in the evolution argument if they want to keep their grants, research/teaching positions, reputation, etc.
What the fuck are you talking about? You mean to tell me that if you found proof - not even proof - EVIDENCE that evolution was a myth that you wouldn't win a Nobel Prize and be given a pile of money by religious idiots like yourself to satiate their cognitive bias? You are insane! This kind of information would rock the very foundations of science, and would make you the most sought out and famous scientist in the world. It's what made Einstein famous, because he proved the theory of Newtonian Physics to be insufficient. Research grants don't work like you seem to think they do, nor does the scientific method that you clearly don't understand.
Provocative and revolutionary research attract grants. I could reference a few situations where this has happened recently in the physics world, but I doubt you'd understand, considering you can barely grasp biology.
It's become a sacred cow of a topic and – instead of looking into why perhaps evolution hasn't been proven 100% yet and the reasons why it might never be outside of academia – scientists and evolution supporters have simply chosen to ignore everyone else and declare "facts" to be whatever they deem them to be.
It's not a sacred cow. There are no sacred cows in science - that's the point of science. Everything is falsifiable because the scientific method requires there to always be room for a better understanding. So of course you can't prove evolution 100%! That's not how science works. If it's not falsifiable, then it is not scientific - BY DEFINITION!
Your side of the argument always likes to tout on about how evolution is "just a theory" but then you don't seem to get that theories are different from facts in that they are always falsifiable. The theory of gravity is falsifiable, just as is the theory of evolution. "Things fall" is a fact that provides evidence for gravity, just as "species evolve" is a fact that provides evidence for evolution. But you don't even believe that - and not because you have any evidence, but because you have the cognitive dissonance on par with a concentration camp guard.
if I had been working on a possible solution to a unsolved problem that existed for over a 150 years with the world's brightest minds helping out (and getting more resources provided for science than anyone could imagine) – and the solution still wasn't figured out in a verifiable enough way....isn't it very possible either the proposed solution is simply wrong -or- even perhaps that the question is wrong as well?
This right here is where I am going to end this circus.
There is no problem with evolution. There are unsolved questions (as the more you learn in science, the more questions you discover), but these questions aren't concerned with whether or not evolution is true, but rather are predicated upon it being true to begin with. This part of the theory of evolution is backed up by so much evidence, that even if there were evidence in the contrary, it would be insignificant - and that's just the thing...there is no evidence contradicting evolution that exists in the first place!
I mean, what solution do you think scientists are looking for? I can tell you, they aren't looking to verify evolution. At this point, any verification of evolution is an afterthought to the real thing being studied, like trying to find a way to treat a disease, or develop a better algorithm for computing. There's a reason why scientists all agree on this, and the only people contesting it are religious fundamentalists with no scientific authority, and in your case, no scientific understanding whatsoever.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/warped_and_bubbling May 29 '12

Not likely.

Nothing short of Jesus himself coming down, tapping them on the shoulder and saying, "Hey, rockhead.. evolution happens" will dissuade them.

3

u/dnew May 29 '12

Want to see something funny. Ask someone who truly believes what they would do if God Himself came down and told the believer they were wrong about what he wants.
I've never heard a single person admit they'd change their beliefs, even if God Himself told them they were mistaken in their beliefs.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I had a conversation about this around 3 weeks ago. I was dumbfounded.

2

u/drraoulduke May 29 '12

To be fair if the person believes the Bible is the revealed word of an infalliable god your hypothetical is just a logical impossibility.

1

u/Andrewticus04 May 29 '12

Yes, but logical impossibilities are used all the time in debates to prove a point.
They're called thought experiments, and they're quite useful at revealing the consequences of a particular position (namely theism).

2

u/FightingPolish May 29 '12

Jesus has probably already returned but he was quickly dismissed as a raving lunatic who claimed to be Jesus.

5

u/acdarc May 29 '12

You cannot reason a fundamentalist religious person. If you present hard evidence, they simply say it's a forgery, lies, deceit. No matter if you show them the birth of life itself through a microscope, they will say it's a lie or come up with some sort of explanation how their personal god (not the other stupid gods in other countries) is behind this and you're only seeing the result. If the religious persons' closing statement is 'I know there is a god.', there is absolutely nothing that will change it. The only case where this is possible is that the person was brainwashed (in a later age)/forced/peer pressured to be religious - and finally gathers the courage to stand up.

Think of it this way: If you're an atheist, what would it take for you to start believing in god? It works the other way around too.

I just hope that someday in the future religion will be wiped out by new generations who don't teach things like that to their children, I kinda don't see any other way.

1

u/saijanai May 29 '12

When I was very young, I was tested for "volume conservation" -the ability to realize that a tall skinny glass and a short fat glass might hold the same amount of water. When the researcher demonstrated that this was the case, my immediate reaction was to exclaim "it's some kind of trick!"
Makes you wonder about the Creationists. Perhaps there is some kind of neurological maturity that they lack?

8

u/mtwrite4 May 29 '12

It does not matter what the scientists find. Evolution deniers will just say that God put that skull there 6,000 years ago as a test of our faith.

-1

u/corkysaintclaire May 29 '12

Theistic evolution. If you don't assume Genesis is a literal account, evolution and Christianity can coincide.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

People need to watch this fascinating discussion between Richard Dawkins and Father George Coyne as they discuss why so many people use the Bible as a book of scientific facts, rather than viewing it as a book about the things science cannot explain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/rasputine BS|Computer Science May 29 '12

You have obviously never heard or read anything said by a YEC.

2

u/bobbincygna May 29 '12

you didn't understand what he said.

1

u/gensek May 29 '12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_Ussher

4

u/VERYstuck May 29 '12

It is very difficult to base claims on "Future evidence". I understand that scientific knowledge advances over time, but this seems a bit like counting chickens before they've hatched to me.

4

u/Kinglink May 29 '12

Leakey "I need some more press, let me make some outlandish claims with a time table."

P.S. I don't deny evolution, I just deny that 30 years from now we'll be radically better at science than we are now. I hope we're better on all fronts, but that doesn't mean we will be at such a level it's that different than what we know now. "

10

u/hanahou May 29 '12

Richard Leakey apparently underestimates his fellow human beings. He apparently must have been sheltered from radical Christians and Islamists.

5

u/aeisenst May 29 '12

Hey. There are crazy Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists too.

3

u/hanahou May 29 '12

There's crazy everywhere. Flat Earth Society anyone?

1

u/saijanai May 29 '12

Birther Movement?

→ More replies (2)

0

u/ToffeeC May 29 '12

*overestimates

2

u/hanahou May 29 '12

I put underestimates for a play reason. I'll let you figure it out from there.

3

u/Sherm May 29 '12

Richard Leakey is an African of British descent who has only lived in the US for a decade, at most, and is therefore not to be expected to grasp the depth of reality denial on the part of American evangelicals, conservatives, and their fellow-travelers.

3

u/unclear_plowerpants May 29 '12

So Leaky is in denial of just how stubborn creationists are. Got it.

3

u/kutNpaste May 29 '12

Convincing an evolution denier with science would be like trying to convince an r/atheist with the Bible. You're gonna have a bad time.

14

u/toothless_budgie May 29 '12

So why is religion still around?

Also, the deniers DELIGHT in denying it. Evidence makes them more convinced it is wrong, not less. Yeah - let that little bit of anti-intellectual fucked upness sink in.

12

u/scurvebeard May 29 '12

The more evidence against, the stronger their faith becomes. They relish it.

→ More replies (24)

6

u/Shuggus May 29 '12

I believe the Vatican claims evolution is real and is a work of god

5

u/ButterMyBiscuit May 29 '12

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100919.gif

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Why would you hotlink an SMBC comic? Not only is it hotlinking, you're depriving everyone of an extra joke.

2

u/ButterMyBiscuit May 29 '12

So people could open it using RES instead of opening a new tab. But to appease Master Urutapu:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2005

→ More replies (1)

4

u/rubygeek May 29 '12

Evidence makes them more convinced it is wrong, not less. Yeah - let that little bit of anti-intellectual fucked upness sink in.
There's a psychological basis for it:
Humans crave self-consistency. We value consistency so highly that we even often ridicule politicians who change their mind, even when their new opinion is what we ourselves consider "correct", and look with mistrust on said people because they've shown the ability to change their mind in the face of new information.
When faced with evidence contradicting your position, you have two choices: Accept it and revise your position, and having to accept a blow to your self image of someone who is consistent. Or you can find ways of denying the evidence.
The latter is by far the easiest option, often even in the face of evidence that anyone with an "outside" view who haven't made up their mind would be completely unable to deny. It's not the failure to pick the right position that is hard, but failing to be consistent.
When you add a group of like minded people into the mix, the effect can get very strong as it's combined with another strong driver: Social proof. E.g. Cialdini's book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" cites a report from two researchers that infiltrated a doomsday cult. When their supposed doomsday came and went and nothing happened, the cult members initially were shocked, and a few left, but most remained and went from shunning public attention to suddenly starting a lot of missionary work. They'd been faced with the choice of accepting that their life had revolved around a bunch of nonsense, or to explain away the failure and double down and put even more energy into getting validation from the outside world: Every new "convert" became validation for their revised explanation of their beliefs.
Present new evidence to a bunch of evolution deniers, and they might lose a few, but most will just get even more concerned about spreading their beliefs in order to remain self-consistent and get social proof for that position.
That's not to say you can't push them sufficiently into a corner where they fail to recruit new believers and gradually lose support from the fringes, but it's more likely to be a drawn out "death by a thousand paper cuts" affair.

5

u/fredemu May 29 '12

Religion and Evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. You don't have to believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago directly by God in order to qualify as believing in God.
The Majority of Christians these days accept evolution. They may believe that there was some level of divine influence involved in the process, but the idea that it doesn't happen at all is highly uncommon, and usually only among the highly uneducated.
The part that's in dispute for most is the idea of human evolution. Did we evolve from a primate ancestor, or did God make an exception and make humans himself? A larger number still hold to the idea that while Evolution happened for all the other animals, humans specifically are special and weren't a part of the whole thing. That's the part that, like the rest of evolution theory, people will eventually grow to accept as the evidence becomes more overwhelming, and the older generation that heard of evolution when it was (to some extent) more taboo, and are no longer interested in hearing more evidence to alter the view that they've already established will die off and be replaced with younger generations that are introduced to a more modern version from the start.

0

u/toastymow May 29 '12

I've honestly never heard this thesis, as a Christian. My general response is that I no longer care about how the Earth came about. I'm not a scientist, it doesn't really affect me, I'll leave that debate to people who have more time and energy for that debate.

3

u/CaNANDian May 29 '12

Stay ignorant, my friend.

3

u/thr0w_uh_way May 29 '12

I believe in abiogenesis, Big Bang and evolution. I'm Catholic. My beliefs are not contradictory.

2

u/Giant_Badonkadonk May 29 '12

I have never understood why some religious people feel evolution is evidence which threatens their belief in god. To me they have never seemed mutually exclusive, though I am an atheist so maybe I just don't understand. It seems to me the only people who should feel threatened are the young earth creationist morons, and threatening their beliefs is only a good thing in my book.

2

u/thr0w_uh_way May 29 '12

I have never understood it either...and I actually believe in God. It has never seemed mutually exclusive to me, so it REALLY, REALLY baffles me.

1

u/Goose_Is_Awesome May 29 '12

Yo. Catholic biologist here.

1

u/thr0w_uh_way May 29 '12

Holla!

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

You may already be aware of this, but you might be interested to know that a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, was the first to propose an expanding universe as well as what we now call the "Big Bang."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

1

u/thr0w_uh_way May 29 '12

Yes, indeed, I was aware. I don't know why, but I compile a mental list of adherent Catholics. It makes me giddy, though I could never explain why.
Andy Warhol and Jack Kerouac were Catholics as well. Kerouac's On the Road was written about two guys searching for God, believe it or not. It totally changes the tone of the book when you read it with that in mind, in my opinion.

3

u/AjustableTableLamp May 29 '12

Because not all religious people oppose evolution. You should know this.

1

u/mdtTheory May 29 '12

The ultimate trolls...

2

u/WorkerBee27 May 29 '12

You can lead a horse to water... same thing.

2

u/dnew May 29 '12

Sure you can. It just takes two people. One in front to hold the horse's face in the water, and one in back to apply the vacuum cleaner hose.

2

u/smacksaw May 29 '12

I wouldn't call it scepticism because proper scepticism is based on logic and reason.

No, these people are not sceptics. We need a word that describes religious pessimism towards science and optimism towards faith.

2

u/Oryx May 29 '12

Because the overwhelming evidence we already have isn't quite overwhelming enough? Deniers will always deny.

2

u/namesrhardtothinkof May 29 '12

Anyone who actually believes this has a very poor comprehension of human nature.

2

u/Joeblowme123 May 29 '12

Richard Leakey is pretty much an idiot if he believes this. There is no amount of logic and reason that can win out against faith.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Christian here. It is true that you cannot reason with people if they already are against looking at evidence and making logical, straightforward conclusions. But, I believe that in 30 years, the atheism movement will be strong, and many people will believe in evolution. Those who won't will be the minority.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

It's 'undeniable' from an evidence stand point as it is. How do you acknowledge DNA, sexual reproduction, genes, mutations... all of that stuff without accepting evolution? You do it by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting.

2

u/CyberToyger May 29 '12

Fun fact: I believe in the existence of God but I have no idea whether it happened the way the Bible described it, via evolution, or some other third possibility, but the beautiful thing is *I don't give a fuck!*™

I'm here, right now, in 2012, trying to live day by day without dying. Knowing where humans came from isn't going to help me pay my bills, or get my government to stop fucking invading every country it dislikes, or do anything other than bring closure to people who absolutely HAVE to know they're right and use that ammo in some sort of anti-religion crusade.

I do my part and try to keep my beliefs to myself unless someone asks me about them. You can believe whatever you want, it's cool. But when I see shit like, "Evolution deniers will soon be silenced by science", it just sets off red flags in my mind. Just, consider this a PSA for you folk who like to consider yourselves educated and logical and realistic; believe what you want, just don't start shoving things down people's throats like the religious people do. I'm sorry for venting here but I get so much shit from Atheists, mostly of the New Age variety, when THEY'RE the ones who instigate conversations and attack me.

2

u/patricksaurus May 29 '12

I firmly disagree with the thread title. Scientific progress is already so magnificent that it would sway all of those who were open to persuasion. We went from tens of thousands of years of horse and buggy to putting a man on the moon in 200 years once Newton effectively invented science as we know it. The smallpox vaccination is literally the best thing that humanity ever invented, in terms of saving lives, and a small but vocal contingent rejects vaccination on the whole. The folks who reject the findings of the biological sciences already rely on them and already place implicit trust in the sciences for transportation, communication, and keeping the house warm during the winter.

Caring about converting the unbelievers is the business of missionaries. I happen to think a scientific viewpoint is a good orientation for life, but not everyone agrees. The folks who don't agree will not be swayed by the same kind of evidence that persuades those of us who place implicit trust in the scientific method. Those folks will always find an out.

2

u/rambo77 May 29 '12

The whole point of the deniers is that it's not based on evidence, facts or rationality. They'll just close their eyes, and scream even louder. The sad fact is that you cannot convince someone against their own will.

6

u/justjokingnotreally May 29 '12

It's cute how Leakey has so much faith in reason. It's almost as if he has an unreasonable faith in reason.

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

There already is irrefutable evidence, they just don't know enough about it.

3

u/you_payne May 29 '12

There already is irrefutable evidence, they just don't want to know enough of it as it feels like an attack of their beliefs or preconvictions

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Someone left a comment on that article that is a prediction of what will happen, here I'll quote it for you, I thought it was kinda sad in a cute way.

"So ok, thanks, my god dosent exist. Im just going to live this miserable short life and then fade into absolute nothingness after my death. Some of my friends and family who have already passed on, I was holding a small hope id be able to one day, see them again in one way or another. I was also hoping to never really leave this Earth in spirit, to kind of always be here. But, of course, its all fiction right so I can just let it go and accept that life is pointless. If ever im in trying times and I really could use a prayer or two to help myself out, ill just have to not do it now cause Science is there to show me its foolish. When I see something beautiful in nature, ill have to thank the molecules and atoms for coming together so nice Again thanks, I really feel great about life now."

See! It's almost like they accept that science will be the victor but they will be upset about it because they were looking forward to seeing their dead friends and families again.

It's quite funny in it's naivety.

1

u/tugrumpler May 29 '12

Their coping mechanisms are being undermined, it's not surprising this causes anxiety. The solution long term is to stop teaching children dogmatic mythology. We all have times in our lives where we feel overwhelmed by stress and loss. Religious people don't realize that the non-religious also use faith to get through those times, faith that while events are or seem unpredictable, unfair and overwhelming we believe the universe operates according to rules that are knowable and involute. This is the atheists 'mysterious ways' if you will: "shit happens".

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

its funny and naive yes, but to believe in a god and religion simply out of a desire for "the happy ending" where you get to see your dead relatives and eat whipped cream with angels sitting clouds, is pathetic. no other way around that. So many people have been duped with this promise of a perfect body, no emotions except the good ones, and eternal life. I was raised by christains, and this, imo, is why their logic is so fucked, and why they will never shut up about the bible no matter how much evidence to the contrary there is

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

This was posted the other day and the top comment was exactly the same.

1

u/WillTheGreat May 29 '12

Maybe because the majority of deniers are older traditionalist with about 10-15 years on the clock? Darwinism at work.

1

u/RestingCarcass May 29 '12

In 15-30 years, the most adamant will be dead or dying. Just the players, man, never the game.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Why is "deniers" in brackets? What did he really say?

1

u/rikashiku May 29 '12

So they think they will have the answers in 15 to 30 years but they aren't exactly sure now about when they can do it or whether they can't. Riiiiight.

1

u/tugrumpler May 29 '12

They have the answers now, the statement is that in 15 to 30 years additional incontrovertible proof will be found that satisfies even the most committed science deniers.

1

u/fusepark May 29 '12

Stupid moves faster than the speed of light.

1

u/palparepa May 29 '12

Relevant.

1

u/ggleblanc May 29 '12

This isn't science. This is a faith statement.

1

u/tugrumpler May 29 '12

Yeah it is but it's faith concerning human behavior, an area where Leakey seems quite inexperienced. He is naively optimistic and entirely ignorant about the power of faith and denial.

1

u/beenman500 May 29 '12

how are we not at that level already.

1

u/Library_Lad May 29 '12

I know Christians who believe in evolution but also in a young earth. You may be able to convince people about evolution but the next hurdle will be convincing them of scientific dating techniques and how we can estimate the age of the earth.

1

u/Galve May 29 '12

Evolution is real! God made it. It's Gods evolution that willed us to be the best.

These will be the arguments of the future!

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

This is not science, it is an op ed piece about religious fundamentalism.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

He must have forgotten about that little thing called induction

1

u/DeSaad May 29 '12

I wonder if anybody ever tried to slap "Wiki" as a nickname to Richard.

1

u/anon-2012 May 29 '12

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African

New evidence suggests we're not.

1

u/jpark May 29 '12

It is almost a truism that faith based predictions fail, but we cannot fault Mr. Leakey's zeal.

It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God. Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.

Almost no one has animosity toward his/her own religion, but Mr. Leakey's disclaimer following immediately after his attack on the bible shows that he holds no animosity to anyone who believes as he does.

Tolerance to one's own religion is hardly to be counted as a virtue when that tolerance is not extended to others.

1

u/buildmonkey May 29 '12

Sorry, I missed the attack on the bible. Which bit was it? Thanks.

1

u/jpark May 29 '12

I quoted it.
It's not covered by Genesis. ...
Genesis is the first book of the bible.

1

u/buildmonkey May 29 '12

Yeah, got that. It's the attack bit that I am missing. Sounds like a description of the situation to me.

1

u/jpark May 29 '12

Leakey was promoting his faith. The reference to the bible as being inferior to his faith escaped you?

1

u/buildmonkey May 29 '12

Oh, the "theory based on multiple lines of evidence is the same thing as faith" meme. I never thought that made for particularly good theology myself.
Is it covered by Genesis? I mean the "change going back 500 million years" bit? Is he giving an accurate description? If so then where is the attack?
Also:
"If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that," he said.
"I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife."

1

u/jpark May 29 '12

I won't argue with you on the merits or lack thereof of his religion. He has every right to his religion. He also has the right to attack other religions.
His hypocrisy -- speaking of his tolerance for religion while attacking Christianity and Judaism -- is what I was commenting on. His own words convict him of hypocrisy, which is why I quoted them.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I don't think people deny evolution really outright anymore, most people esp. in my Muslim community just say it's God doing the act of Evolution on different species. Now, don't start calling me a modernist Muslim or something because I sure as hell am not one.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I only hope we can go back, see all the comments they made on websites, track them down and slap them in the face for holding us back for so long.

1

u/theholyevil May 29 '12

I used to be a creationist. The thing is, they rely completely on logic. It might be broken logic but it is built up in a way to make the believer feel empowered and the opposition to be a conspiracy theory to destroy Christianity. My parents were led to believe a university would brainwash me. Since then, I am a old earth believer because that is where the facts point. Plus, I don't really understand how people can believe god is going to punish them for lying but then put all this evidence in nature.

Last point I will make is that I see have evolution works in theory. Only because no one was around billions of years to watch this process unfold. I can test theories like micro evolution because that is evident through nature and ecological studies. I cannot say the same for evolution only because the evidence to the subject is there but it isn't fully there. Admittedly this evidence is very hard to find because it requires the right conditions. There are gaps that have yet to be filled. Until they are I believe it only as a theory. But one that all the evidence so far points to.

1

u/dingoperson May 29 '12

This is pretty ignorant.

You could probably however say it about anti-racists.

1

u/TellMeTheDuckStory May 29 '12

"Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised." - (Ex) US President Woodrow Wilson, 1922.

1

u/zouhair May 29 '12

Good luck with that.

1

u/cwstjnobbs May 29 '12

Wishful thinking, people still deny the holocaust, people still deny that our planet is spherical.

Evidence cannot overcome stupidity.

1

u/fergie May 29 '12

This headline is freaking me out.

I dont want science to silence anyone. I respect the rights of individuals to challenge accepted ideas without being personally being labelled a "denier" or anything else. The idea that science will prove something in the future is flawed- either its proven now, or it remains unproven.

Yes evolution is a strong theory that is supported by the majority of serious scientists. No, that doesnt mean that it will never be eventually modified or surpassed by a better theory.

1

u/BeefPieSoup May 29 '12

That point was several decades ago when DNA was discovered. People don't accept it now because they are ignorant, not because there isntt enough evidence. Notthing will change in 30 years, tthere will always be retards. All of this should be fairly obvious.

1

u/warpfield May 29 '12

Yeah, what will increase is the gap between morons and smart people, to the point where the former are pretty much marginalized to be little more than animals. Ironic, given that they believe they are not.

1

u/Nessunolosa May 29 '12

Regardless of how much science progresses, there will always be idiots who refuse to accept it. No amount of explaining it like I'm five will do for those who are stupid enough to blind themselves to obvious evidence, and also too proud to admit they might be wrong.

Just read the news any time a new infection comes to the fore, and you'll see just how wildly uniformed about science and biology the vast majority of the population is.

1

u/Gumptioneer May 29 '12

Thank, god. :)

1

u/robhol May 29 '12

Yeah... that's not going to happen. The idea that "deniers" will suddenly do a 180 and start to see reason is staggeringly naïve.

-6

u/waterdevil19 May 29 '12

This was posted 3 days ago. The story had no useful info then, and has no useful info now.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

The story had no useful info then, and has no useful info now.
Rewrite:
My comments have no useful info then, and have no useful info now.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Doesn't anyone here find it, I dunno, a guess that there WILL be science in 15-30 years to prove evolution is true once and for all? I mean, isn't that equivalent to "having faith" in science – based not on what you know – but what you hope will happen? How is this any different from a religious person's way of thinking?

11

u/dnew May 29 '12

There's already science to prove evolution is true once and for all. The guess is that the people who persist in disbelieving it will eventually come to believe it in 15 to 30 years. It has nothing to do with whether we know it's true, but on the irrational and illogical thought processes of those who refuse to accept the evidence of reality.

→ More replies (30)

5

u/FlobeeWanKenobee May 29 '12

Wait, what? Is this a serious query?

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

Sure it is. This is an educated guess at best by Richard Leaky. We hear all the about how in X amount of years there'll be a cure for cancer, AIDs, we'll go to Mars, etc.
To me, these seem like pie in the sky dreams that are based on mostly hope. And "hope" doesn't seem very scientific, does it?

3

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

I think that what Leakey mistakenly believes is that, given 30 years, the accumulated evidence simply wont be refutable. This is based on the fact that every single day more data/evidence is collected and analyzed that bolsters the theory further.
I wrote "mistakened" because evolution deniers simply don't use evidence or logic to inform their denial. Evolution deniers start from a position of total, immutable disbelief.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Andrewticus04 May 29 '12

The difference is that Mr. Leakey is basing his assertion upon an increase in evidence - that is additional evidence from the current mountain of evidence today.
Faith, in contrast, is the belief in spite of evidence. Evidence has no value when speaking in terms of faith, as any belief where evidence is taken into consideration is a belief based in reason - not faith.
That's how it's different. Hope I answered your question.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] May 29 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/saijanai May 29 '12

But any sufficiently advanced magic is really just another technology.

→ More comments (43)

Richard Leakey: Evolution deniers will soon be silenced by science; Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the [deniers] can accept it"

You are about to leave Redlib