Im FREAKING out!

[Kuan]

So today I got hit by something completley unexpected.

I was talking with some of my friends (all mormon) and for some reason we were talking about our science class. And I mentioned evolution....What I got surprised me more than anything. They all claimed it was false and a bunch of crap!

Then they challenged me to prove it was right, and I thought I was set from my experience and time on here.

I pointed out the vestigial structures, the 99.7% amount of DNA we share in common with some species. All they replied was, so?

They claimed that just because we are close like this that it doesnt matter, the evidence proves nothing except god used the same materials and a similar design when making us.



How can you prove anything if someone discards the evidence like that? Every piece of evidence I pointed out, they just said the same thing. I have no clue what to do now...

Sorry...kind of a rant but I had to tell someone and there is no one to talk to out here in mormon land....

[Furrowed Brow]

Ah that’s what it kind of feels like debating some folk here. The reality is I don’t think there is much you can do if they are entrenched. If they are entrenched I’d not try to prove evolution to them. That’s asking for a game of debate ping pong. Maybe try and discuss what is the most honest and rigorous way to approach the evidence. You could ask them for a clear statement of what exactly they do believe regarding their preferred theory that replaces evolution, and exactly what evidence would falsify this belief. If they give you a coherent and reasonable answer the evidence is probably already there somewhere, and at least you will have an agreed arena. But if they are evasive you have two options. Tear into them and point out they are being intellectually lazy and evasive or forget it and go for a soda and at least whilst in their presence let go any of any any concerns you have about what counts as rigorous critical thought. Not all friendships are intellectual. You have plenty of other stuff you can share.

[Kuan]

Ah that’s what it kind of feels like debating some folk here. The reality is I don’t think there is much you can do if they are entrenched. If they are entrenched I’d not try to prove evolution to them. That’s asking for a game of debate ping pong. Maybe try and discuss what is the most honest and rigorous way to approach the evidence. You could ask them for a clear statement of what exactly they do believe regarding their preferred theory that replaces evolution, and exactly what evidence would falsify this belief. If they give you a coherent and reasonable answer the evidence is probably already there somewhere, and at least you will have an agreed arena. But if they are evasive you have two options. Tear into them and point out they are being intellectually lazy and evasive or forget it and go for a soda and at least whilst in their presence let go any of any any concerns you have about what counts as rigorous critical thought. Not all friendships are intellectual. You have plenty of other stuff you can share.

Maybe, we just left the discussion and ordered a pizza.

Anyways your right I should just let it go...although if it does come up ill be prepared next time.

[Question Everything]

Ah that’s what it kind of feels like debating some folk here. The reality is I don’t think there is much you can do if they are entrenched. If they are entrenched I’d not try to prove evolution to them. That’s asking for a game of debate ping pong. Maybe try and discuss what is the most honest and rigorous way to approach the evidence. You could ask them for a clear statement of what exactly they do believe regarding their preferred theory that replaces evolution, and exactly what evidence would falsify this belief. If they give you a coherent and reasonable answer the evidence is probably already there somewhere, and at least you will have an agreed arena. But if they are evasive you have two options. Tear into them and point out they are being intellectually lazy and evasive or forget it and go for a soda and at least whilst in their presence let go any of any any concerns you have about what counts as rigorous critical thought. Not all friendships are intellectual. You have plenty of other stuff you can share.

Maybe, we just left the discussion and ordered a pizza.

Anyways your right I should just let it go...although if it does come up ill be prepared next time.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight= is a thread on this forum which has some very useful insights into how to approach evidence and form beliefs.

[LiamOS]

I guess the first thing to ask is what evidence they would accept.

When they say something along the lines of "beneficial mutations" or evolution in general, show them this.

Perhaps don't be too aggressive on the subject. A few of my friends believe in things like telepathy and distance healing, so I just leave the room when that comes up.

[Zzyzx]

.

I was talking with some of my friends (all mormon) and for some reason we were talking about our science class. And I mentioned evolution....What I got surprised me more than anything. They all claimed it was false and a bunch of crap!

MB,

Do you really care what those people think about evolution?

I decided long ago that it makes no difference to me what people think about such things. Their mind is made up; don't confuse them with facts.

I feel no need to defend science or my convictions or to "spread the word" particularly in one-to-one or small group situations. Why would I bother?

In debate here one puts forth ideas for the consideration of hundreds or thousands of readers, some of whom have NOT locked their mind, and some of whom are willing to realistically evaluate the merits of what is said.

I know from what people have said in private communication and in threads that it is possible to present ideas that reasoning people find useful or convincing. If we talk to a thousand and one comes to agree, that is worth something. If we talk to ten who have made up their mind the chance of having our words accepted is approximately zero.

No matter how well prepared we are with substantiation, locked minds will reject anything that conflicts with their a priori beliefs.

[Question Everything]

I guess the first thing to ask is what evidence they would accept.

When they say something along the lines of "beneficial mutations" or evolution in general, show them this.

You can also show them this. There is a lot of stuff like this out there, because there are a lot of evolutionary bologists out there who are busy doing experiments on how evolution works, because evolution is the foundation of biology. The more we understand evolution the more we understand biology.

However, first you must determine what is the best way to approach evidence. It all starts with understanding how science itself works, and WHY the scientific method is the only way to get the truth of things.

Most importantly, science MUST be objective, with no preconceived ideas. This of course is very hard to do. People love their pet ideas and are reluctant to give them up. That's where publishing in peer review journals comes in. You publish a report and other researchers have a duty to tear it apart. Is your methodology sound? Did you use proper controls? Were you getting accurate measurments? Are you interpeting the results correctly? Were you avoiding contamination? Do other people who do the same thing the same way get results consistant with theirs?

I really wish your Mormon friends understood what lies behind our understanding of evolutionary biology, as well as all of the knowledge we get from science.

Perhaps don't be too aggressive on the subject. A few of my friends believe in things like telepathy and distance healing, so I just leave the room when that comes up.

Aki, have you ever told them about James Randi and the million dollar challenge?

[Question Everything]

I decided long ago that it makes no difference to me what people think about such things. Their mind is made up; don't confuse them with facts.

I feel no need to defend science or my convictions or to "spread the word" particularly in one-to-one or small group situations. Why would I bother?

I disagree. I think it is vital that people understand science. Just look at what happens when they don't. Look at the mess the world is in now. We have an economy which collapsed because people were not looking at it in a logical and reasonable fashion. We are running out of oil. We are putting to much CO2 into the atmosphere. Our food supply is being produced in a way where disaster is imminent. (Mostly because of large scale monoculture.) Our world could be devastated at any time from a variety of disasters from asteroids to bird flu.

We need science more than ever, and we will not be able to properly apply what we learn from science if we don't understand how science itself works.

[flitzerbiest]

I decided long ago that it makes no difference to me what people think about such things. Their mind is made up; don't confuse them with facts.

I feel no need to defend science or my convictions or to "spread the word" particularly in one-to-one or small group situations. Why would I bother?

I disagree. I think it is vital that people understand science. Just look at what happens when they don't. Look at the mess the world is in now. We have an economy which collapsed because people were not looking at it in a logical and reasonable fashion. We are running out of oil. We are putting to much CO2 into the atmosphere. Our food supply is being produced in a way where disaster is imminent. (Mostly because of large scale monoculture.) Our world could be devastated at any time from a variety of disasters from asteroids to bird flu.

We need science more than ever, and we will not be able to properly apply what we learn from science if we don't understand how science itself works.

Excellent point. MormonBoy is obviously a very open-minded and intellectually apt theist, but I think he now has to face the fact that once you assume supernaturalism, you have adopted a stance where anything whatsoever can be believed, and empirically verifiable knowledge can be rejected. Welcome to the consequences of your assumptions.

[Kuan]

I think science and religion can work together, the problem is when you deny evidence in front of yours eyes.

Ive always thought of it like this, religion is the study of the creator, science is the study of the creation.

I probably am going to let this go but I dont think that should be the answer all the time. You really do need to address the issue sooner or later. Evolution isn't that big of a deal but when people are careless in the government about co2, or resources than its a big issue.