Should the, "Theory of Evolution" be Renamed, "The CULT of Evolution"?

Question

Since Evolutionists have become so 'Religiously' fanatical in their defence of the 'Theory' of Evolution, resisting all requests to simply and categorically, explain and produce their unequivocal proof, that the 'Theory', is in fact, a 'Fact' and also explain why it is inappropriate to use the word, "Proof". We, the general public, are finding it increasingly difficult to understand and, therefore, accept all the confusing 'scientific' jargon that has completely engulfed the Theory. The insults and sarcasm, from the 'evolutionists', because we haven't had time to do a PhD in the relevant science subject and, therefore, are obliged to ask simple questions, like, "where are ALL the missing links?", and, "How can a virus changeing itself to aviod a drug, be called 'Evolution', when it wouldn't have changed if the drug wasn't presented?" It all reeks of the beguiling, fanatical defence of a Faith, rather than a genuine, understandable, scientific topic. Imo, it's become a 'Cult'.

Answer 1

You obviously don't know the scientific definition of "theory".

Theory (noun): A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.

Answer 2

Interesting theory, but let's wait a bit to see how it evolves.

Answer 3

That's what science is for, to attempt answers to questions that appear to be unanswerable.  We'll probably never find all the answers, but those answers are not in the Bible either.  In the past century, we've accomplished more in science than in all the years since time began.  Be patient.  There are many discoveries yet to come.

Answer 4

Your argument is interesting, but the answer to your question is still, obviously, no.

A theory is still a theory, whether or not some people adhere to it fanatically.

Answer 5

thats why its called a theory and not a fact.

it is based on a lot more fact than 2000 year old fairy tales however.

Answer 6

In all fairness, if you insist on using that biased language, then  - in for a penny in for a pound - how about the add,

"The CULT of Creation" &  "The CULT of Spagetti Monster"

There is archelogical evidence to support Evolution, there is no solid evidence to support Creation - other than faith.

.

Answer 7

Let us take one of your points. " A virus changing itself to avoid a drug.....when it wouldn't have changed if the drug wasn't presented ". That is evolution, you ignoramus, a change in allele frequency in response to environment. I really love it when you creationist morons " host yourselves on your own petards ".

Answer 8

Things can 'evolve' along with religion, so why the cult thing?

Answer 9

The big and crucial difference is that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence. Just because it can be complicated is no reason to assume there's something fishy going on.

Most people would understand very little of any scientific theory yet you don't deny the validity of the Theory of Relativity. Why is this? Because with evolution many want to replace it with their own fantasy-based theory (i.e so-called creationism)

Answer 10

If you  would have learned "Logic" then you would not have said so. Evolution Theory is a science based on logical reasoning, whereas your so-called-religion is based on belief. It is same as Eskimos by seeing Polar Aura think that those are their ancestors' souls. So, first go and learn to think logically, then only you will be able see and understand what evolution is.

Answer 11

The reason it isn't a cult is that it is based on evidence and reason, not mindless belief in a leader.

Yes, it's hard to understand, as it's complex, and much of what it says is subtle. It's also really hard to grasp the amounts of time and of numbers individual critters and generations involved. Huge numbers, hard.

It's also hard to understand accurately because there are a lot of misconceptions floating around that get in the way.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

If you're really interested in understanding it (rather than saying that you don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong), there is a link that will help.

Being pretty complicated, there's no way I can explain it all in this space.

There are also a lot of books on the subject, written for the lay reader -- you don't need a PhD in science to read them. I give a couple of suggestions in Source.

As to your specific questions.

"ALL" the missing links?

Most critters die without leaving fossils behind -- unusual things have to happen to preserve their parts.

Also, we don't have all of the fossils that have ever existed, just the ones we've found so far.

Among these are a lot of transitional fossils ("missing links" is a misnomer; once we've found them, they aren't missing, are they?).

Unfortunately, people who want to reject evolution, every time a transitional fossil is found, they want the transitions between all FOUND fossils, so they keep moving the goal.

There's no way we're ever going to find every variation of every critter.

But, as I say, we have found a lot of transitional fossils.

Now that we have developed drugs that kill the tiny critters that make us sick, those drugs are part of those critters' total environment.

The individuals in each species vary from each other.

So, a drug kills off MOST of the individuals that are exposed to it; the remaining individuals have a mutation that saves them.

Those reproduce, and now there are more individuals with that mutation.

Over time, we kill off all the non-resistant individuals, and the resistant ones are left.

This is natural selection, which is the mechanism by which species evolve.

Now, I've seen a lot of questions here similar to yours; most of the time, the asker picks one of the answers that says "yes, evolution is dog-doo" rather than one of the one's that attempts to explain, and gives sources.

Not always, but usually.

If you are honest in wanting to understand, you'll pick one of the latter, rather than one of the former.

I've tried to answer your question as well as space allows, but I get tired of wasting my time trying to explain to people who don't really want to understand.

I'm not saying pick ME, just, please, choose an answer that is trying to help you.

That would give me some indication that your doubts are sincere, rather than just rejecting an idea simply because you don't like it.

Answer 12

No.

Answer 13

Evolution says:

1.  There is variation between members of each species.

2.  Some of these variations will improve survival rates in a particular environment.

3.  Therefore, variations which are "helpful" in an environment will become more common as those individuals survive longer and have a greater chance to reproduce.

That's it.  It's pretty much not up for debate.  Do you disagree with any of these statements?  Evolutionary theory does not seek to answer "Why are we here?" or "Does God exist"?  Those questions are up for debate in philosophy or religion, not science.

Answer 14

Should the Theory of Relativity be renamed the Cult of Relativity?  Should Quantum Theory be renamed Quantum Cult?

Answer 15

Ok.

Evolutionists defend the Theory of Evolution BECAUSE it is being attacked by its opponents. They wouldn't have the need to justify it all the time if their critics weren't as vocal.

Agressive action is met with an agressive reaction. Scientists are humans as well as anyone else and they can't be tactical all the time. And most of them are pretty passionate about their work and research. For example, your post shows that you're not educated on some basic aspects of evolution. I'm not going to call you stupid because of that, but I'd expect equal respect on you behalf - calling scientists cultists doesn't really help the issue of communication between scientists and laypeople and the popularization of science.

For example, I'd advise you to research the terms "proof" and "evidence" yourself before getting angry and throwing labels. There is no "Proof" for the scientific "Theory of Evolution." This is basic science 101 - there is no proof in science. Nothing is true, but only very very probable or very very improbable or mostly in between.

"Evolution" isn't a law written in stone, it's a scientific paradigm, a  series of biological theories and resulting models (note, there is more than one "Theory of Evolution"!) on how life occurs, develops, adapts and interacts. Scientists need a model as a starting point in all research they conduct. As more information is collected, more evidence to support, refute or modify the model is gathered.

You don't expect a physicist to explain the theory of relativity using high end mathematics and expect yourself to understand it fully, do you? Well, the issues and research concerning evolution are not easy to understand without some background. That's why scientists try to explain it in layman's terms - but it doesn't always make sense to the layman because it is so simplified. However, that doesn't mean there's an international conspiracy of scientists set out to deceive the public and set up a worldwide cult of Evolution Worshippers. Please.

Answer 16

they should be grouped with those people who believe in the cult of Gravity and the cult of Heliocentrism

Answer 17

YES and all the way Yes. Finally someone has the guts to actually admit what they've been teaching is wrong. This is why it's called a "theory" not a "law". It never was proven to be real.

Answer 18

science is about observing something the world, coming up with a theory as to why it is the way it is (using logic and reason), then proving (or disproving) that theory through experimentation and further investigation.

The theory of evolution has been subjected to this treatment for some time now, and has stood up to all of the scrutiny; nobody has found any way to disprove it, whereas masses of investigation has come out in it's favour.

Unfortunately religion isn't about logic and reason. it's about, as I think Dawkins said, "making stuff up and pretending it's true". This makes a religious zealot difficult to argue with, as no amount of proof or reason will ever convince them. That is why the debate has become very heated. I suppose scientists have become fanatical out of sheer frustration at trying to have a sensible debate with religious people, and just coming up against a wall of delusion and denial every time.

Incidentally, evolution is not a difficult subject to understand, and I'm often surprised that nobody had noticed it in nature earlier, when it's so obvious all around us. I suppose the fog of religious dogma must have gotten in the way.

Answer 19

I've never quite gotten over the change to Agricultural Cults from the Hunter-Gathering Cults. I mean, it's nice to say "I grew it", but there's a little more menace to "I slew it".

Well, that's my theory, anyway...

Answer 20

It is difficult understand.

Small change over 450,000,000 years is something we can not completely grasp.

If you are really interested, there are some good books on the subject.

You should read one, but be warned, it will change the way you see the world

Answer 21

I was once told that science is about theories and math is about fact.

Science is all about theories. Theories will always be fought against unless there is 100% proof that it's true. I do think some people go crazy over it because of dealing with fanatical religious folks. It's hard not to get fanatical over your own beliefs when someone who is arguing with you is insanely fanatical.

No one has ever forced evolution upon me. Religion has been forced upon me. I think you are trying to protect religion, but you don't see that you are hurting your own religion. It makes you look ignorant. Everyone has the right to believe what they want. You should never force your beliefs upon anyone. If there are people who force evolution on you then they are just as bad. Evolution isn't a religion though. I can be atheist and not believe in evolution. You can't really compare evolution to Christianity. One is a theory and one is a religion.

I believe that anything is possible. God, aliens, evolution, ghosts, reincarnation, ect. I do think that creationism should be taught is school. Not just from Christianity, but also from various other religions. I understand why it is a big deal, but it is something good to know. We learn all about math formulas we will never use, we learn all about history that we may never need to know, we learn about other science theories that aren't necessary. I think learning about different religions can give every student an open mind to chose what they want. It will also give them an understaning about other religions.

Answer 22

It should stay the Theory of Evolution, like as it has been through centuries. What we give are the theories and not some sort of cult stuff!