What evidence would convince you of evolution?

[DeMotts]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by DeMotts]

For some people I think it would require changing their beliefs before they can even look at any evidence. When there is a deep seeded belief that the evidence being presented is not even science in the first place, it become moot to present evidence.

[dianaiad]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

Oh my, my, my, my. Doesn't this OP raise the irony flags? Acquit me, please, of being a YEC...I'm not. Cross my heart and everything, it seems obvious to me that the process of evolution is very real.

That's not why I chimed in here. What caught my attention was...well...substitute the word "God," for 'evolution," in your OP, and you'll see, I think, why I am bemused.

[Bust Nak]

What caught my attention was...well...substitute the word "God," for 'evolution," in your OP, and you'll see, I think, why I am bemused.

I don't think we demand an impossible level of evidence for God. I would argue that expecting things like a personal revelation or statistically significant results with prayer is very reasonable, especially from an omnipotent being who wishes the best for us.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Fair enough, I'll play along!

The level of evidence I would require to change my belief in God would go something along the lines of:

- a personal experience wherein God reveals himself to me, beyond any doubt that it may be a hallucination or otherwise conjuring of my mind

- an interaction with God that could validate that he is indeed the Christian God (or any particular god) and not Zeus, Allah, etc.

- some type of demonstration of power would be nice too

The lack of any sort of personal interaction with God or any type of answered prayer is one of the reasons I drifted away from the church in the first place.

I don't think it's an unfair or ironic question to ask someone "what would or could change your mind". I generally don't argue with anyone without agreeing at the outset that there is at least the possibility that one or both of us is wrong.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by dianaiad]

I would love to believe in a God. In fact, I hope there is indeed something more to this reality than a mere freak accident as many secularists believe.

But at the same time I see no reason to believe in the Biblical dogma of God. For one thing, that dogma basically demands that God is an absolutely insensitive character that I would certainly hope doesn't describe the creator of our reality (if we actually have a creator).

The very idea that some God would do all the nasty things in the Bible from cursing Eve to have greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth, to supporting social misogyny, slavery, male chauvinism, and extreme bigotry associated with sexual preferences, not to mention religious bigotries.

It makes no sense.

Moreover any "God" who is so utterly inept that the only way he could "save" his pathetic creation is by having his very own corrupt priests demand that his only begotten son be beaten and crucified on a pole on charges of blaspheme no less, is something I wouldn't even want to believe if it were true.

In fact, it if was true it would be the most pathetic thing I know. And any God who might be associated with it would be seriously sick and or utterly helpless to do any better. I could never respect such a God. At best I would feel extremely sorry for it, and sorry for myself for having been created by such a pathetic God.

Reality as a pure secular accident would actually be more respectable, albeit less promising in the long haul. But then again, I'm not convinced that I would want to spend eternity with a Creator God who is as inept as the God described in the Bible.

For me it's not so much asking for "proof of God". I don't think anyone could produce that. But if someone wants to claim that the Hebrew Bible is the "Word of God", then they had better have some rock solid proof. And I haven't seen even remotely vague evidence for that, much less any convincing evidence.

I also can't imagine why anyone would want for the Biblical picture of God to be true. If it is true, then not only are we screwed up, but so is our creator.

Prove that a "God" might possibly exist is one thing. Proof that the Bible is "God's Word" is something entirely different.

I don't even see where there is any "evidence" that any God exists at all. I can see where the Eastern Mystical picture of God can't be ruled out. But just because it can't be ruled out doesn't mean it needs to be ruled in either.

But the Biblical picture of God? As far as I'm concerned the Bible has already ruled itself out. It simply describes an entity that would be far beneath the supreme omnipotence and wisdom that any supreme being should have. It has already proven itself to be clearly false.

[Danmark]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

Thanks for the laugh due to the performance what may be the most smug, self assured person I've ever seen recorded regarding evolution skepticism. Hilarious!
The next video in the list,

was entitled, "Nut at the Museum."

Based on her, I'd say there is no amount of evidence. Evidence isn't the issue. The issue is suspending disbelief long enough to learn.

[Danmark]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

Oh my, my, my, my. Doesn't this OP raise the irony flags? Acquit me, please, of being a YEC...I'm not. Cross my heart and everything, it seems obvious to me that the process of evolution is very real.

That's not why I chimed in here. What caught my attention was...well...substitute the word "God," for 'evolution," in your OP, and you'll see, I think, why I am bemused.

Then the pertinent portion would read:

I’ve noticed that sometimes when debating the merits of God with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.
….
Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding God? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

It's hard to compare since the by definition "God" is supposed to be beyond nature; invisible, undetectable, an X of undefined nature other than it is a "spirit," also undefined and beyond the limits of nature.

Putting that aside, I'd suggest no more evidence of God need be supplied than the evidence that exists for the process we call evolution. That evidence is overwhelming in scope and variety.

Or, as others have put it:
Richard Lewontin wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is fact, not theory.

Douglas J. Futuyma writes in Evolutionary Biology (1998), "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."

Richard Dawkins says, "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."

Neil Campbell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook, "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."*

In contrast, huge numbers of Christians, including famous ones, have been plagued by grave doubts about the existence of God. Frequently these doubts come from what they call 'The silence of God.'

Like DI says in effect, "Why wouldn't anyone want to believe in God?"
What is so painful or frightening or against my interest to believe in the promise of an unimaginable paradise after death? Not to mention living forever as a kind of God myself. I can't imagine a motive for not believing, except this crazy idea I have that the truth should triumph over what I want.

_____________________
*Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia, footnotes omitted.

[FarWanderer]

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution?

Any of the following would do it:

1. Spontaneous generation of complex organisms.
2. A refutation of the premise that offspring inherit traits of their ancestors.
3. A refutation of the premise that random variation occurs.
4. A clearly defined and evidentially supported limit on random variation that rules out speciation.

[Danmark]

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution?

Any of the following would do it:

1. Spontaneous generation of complex organisms.
2. A refutation of the premise that offspring inherit traits of their ancestors.
3. A refutation of the premise that random variation occurs.
4. A clearly defined and evidentially supported limit on random variation that rules out speciation.

Good one! I didn't think of question from the point of view of NOT believing in evolution.
I'd add:
Refutation of radiometric dating

Absence of the wealth of fossils of extinct animals, particularly transitional fossils.

Animals would have to look WAY different than they do. Vertebrates not only have spinal cords, they are bilaterally symmetrical and the more complex ones have 2 eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one mouth, and four limbs.

Also, I know too many people who look too much like gorillas, or chimps, or orangutans and act like them too. And I have a friend who looks like a neanderthal.
Hey, I'll even admit I like to monkey around.