It must be hard to be religious and try to figure out which parts of science are true and which parts are out-and-out lies. In a comment to an article on The Economist, Why don’t Americans believe in global warming?, Polydamas wrote:
It seems to me that belief in creationism or Intelligent Design must effect the attitudes of many Americans to science in general. If you grow up being told by your parents that what you’re taught in school about evolution is wrong, or a deliberate lie, then it’s hardly surprising that you’d be quick to discount other uncomfortable scientific evidence. If your science teacher is already part of one liberal conspiracy, then why not two?
Many people who have trouble accepting evolution will go to their doctor at the drop of a hat if they don’t feel well. For some inexplicable reason, they are willing to accept the science behind medicine but rebel against evolution or global warming. The inconsistency is hard for me to understand as my viewpoint aligns well with Richard Dawkins who states in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution:
If the history-deniers who doubt the fact of evolution are ignorant of biology, those who think the world began less than ten thousand years ago are worse than ignorant, they are deluded to the point of perversity. They are denying not only the facts of biology but those of physics, geology, cosmology, archaeology, history and chemistry as well.
I think of myself as open-minded and willing to examine another’s point of view but Dawkins articulates my dilemma with trying to understand some of these other people’s viewpoints.
Assuming the science has gone through a reasonable, peer-reviewed process, I have to assume it is basically correct. This is the case with evolution and climate science. We can argue about details on the edge but the core propositions have been proven beyond any doubt.
As Dennis Miller would say, I don’t want to go off on a rant here but how can people sit at a computer which couldn’t be built without an in-depth understanding of physics (semi-conductors, quantum effects), chemistry, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, software engineering, etc., and then use that computer to post something on the Internet about evolution being false or global warming is just a hoax. The evidence is all around that science is an understood process.
As someone smarter than me said, “Luckily science is true whether you believe it or not.”
So, help me understand. Let me know why or how this conflict can continue to exist.
Captain Chaos's Blog 
The way you feel about your computer is how the religious feel about life. How could it have come into existance by chance? Should there not be an intelligent designer? Science thus becomes the study of this design.
One important facter left out of the evolutionary thery is the future. If one believes in a creator he can hopefully have an everlasting future. This is not possible with evolution. In my assesment most religious minded individuals focus on the future. They need this to be somewhat happy.
I’m not sure “how I feel about my computer” has anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a process that operates over millions (if not billions) of years. Natural selection shows that the best solution survives.
I don’t understand your comments about the future. Evolution continues and defines the future…
Good Morning,
“A computer which couldn’t be built without………” Is it possible a complex machine could come into existance by chance? I do not know. Is it possible much more complex life forms could come into existance by chance? I do not know. My understanding of evolution begins with……. all things coming into existance by chance and then continuing to grow and change. This idea is contrary to what I understand of creationism……..that all things came into existance by intelligent design. Is this view valid? I do not know.
How does one choose which idea to believe? The study of science? The study of scripture? Depending upon how one’s brain “works” one idea may seem more reasonable than the other. For most of my religious friends…….what happens after death is key to their belief. Not in general what happens but, specifically what happens to THEM. Unless I have missed something evolution does not allow for each INDIVIDUAL to continue on and on forever. So, they pick belief in God which, hopefully solidifies their future. Once belief in God is picked evolution becomes hard to explain because one no longer looks to science for answers. Answers come from scripture.
I my humble opinion scripture is not always logical. Once this choice is made though, logic may not matter. This allows one to selectively ignore seeming proven fact.
In his book, “The Greatest Show on Earth – The Evidence for Evolution”, Richard Dawkins address most of the Intelligent Design arguments and articulates how the complexity is perfectly understandable given the mechanisms and time periods involved and he does it much better than I can do here.
As to the “future” and the afterlife, in my opinion, that is orthogonal to evolution. Yes, we want to believe in an afterlife because it makes us feel good but that doesn’t make it true. Moreover, the story of the rewards in the afterlife were created by the people in power to keep the workers in line. “Sure your life is miserable now because you do grunt work for me but you will be rewarded in the next life.”
I hold the same opinion….just have to be carefull who I express it to. However, I am not sure if evolution and the afterlife can be measured at different angles. I do not think anyone can say for certain how we got here or where we are going.