I hate to say this but it's due in part of religion. Religion was opposed to the idea of the earth revolving around the sun. It took several hundred years and several near-deaths of prominent scientists but eventually we reached the point where it is no longer debatable (ie we built telescopes and went into space).

Evolution is still a touchy subject because the core principles of many religion is that a higher power created us in the higher power's image. Once someone starts to disprove this, naturally defenders of religion will leap to discredit it. The problem for creationists and religion is that evidence supporting the theory of evolution continue to surface as predicted by the theory. For some it can be difficult to take when the fundamental pillars of your existence is being questioned by mathematical values and fossils dug up from the ground.

Einstein's theory was questioned many times (still are) when it was first published in 1915. He predicted things based mathematical calculation results (note the difference from prophets that predicted the end of days with no scientific basis) that could not be independently verified until 1919. Even then, debate continued to rage. It was not until the 1970s that more accurate verifications could be made, in fact a recent discovery in 2003 solidly confirmed it.

Many of us who have accepted evolution because, as someone mentioned; it's a theory that has supporting evidence. It is also the best theory so far, until the next one comes along. For us, to deny the theory of evolution also means to deny the other branches of science that leads to it. It is not as if the theory of evolution sprouted over night with no prior foundations. Yes, there are many assumptions still but even the pope himself had said the theory of evolution can no longer be disproved.

In fact, mapping out science to show how each branch is dependent on each other is a science itself.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/mapofscience/
http://scimaps.org/maps/browse/
http://mapofscience.com/wat.html#

As I mention, I view it as a possibility, not as the final answer. Because if we accept it as a final answer, then we won't be any different from those who reject TOE. Once we accept something as final, it would be very difficult to change our thinking even if someone else proved it false.

Also, another thing I would like to mention is, I believe evolution happen, and this happen is beyond doubt. However, the question that arise is, does macro evolution happen (as Darwin's TOE suggested)? Or only micro evolution have occurred?

"I hate to say this but it's due in part of religion. Religion was opposed to the idea of the earth revolving around the sun. It took several hundred years and several near-deaths of prominent scientists but eventually we reached the point where it is no longer debatable (ie we built telescopes and went into space).
"
That's why I mean, until it can reach a point where it is no longer debatable, there exist other possibilities, no?

This post has been edited by Searingmage: Oct 19 2010, 09:33 AM

True, we have to question science, but in a scientific manner. And not, because the bible says that we came from Adam and Eve, etc etc.

Look at Galileo, the europeans at that time simply disbelieved and shunned him, simply because his idea (that the earth revolves around the sun) was against church belief.

About TOE, it was disbelieved for so long, but now even the papalcy has acknowledge it's plausibility, so why are people still denying it, based on their belief alone?

p.s. Actually there are still a bunch of people who can until today say that the world is flat, look up the flat earth society. Nothing in this world is certain, but how we derive our information is what ensures we are right most of the time.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Oct 19 2010, 09:41 AM

@Searingmage
I might have misunderstood u. Sorry.

I say TOE and Big Bang is the same with the science behind the internet is because both uses the same "comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigourous observation, experimentation and logic"
Thats why I say by rejecting TOE and Big Bang and at the same time accepting the science behind the Internet as being selective. And also think about the science in medicine that u rely on every time u get sick. It uses the same principle.

Of course everything (not only theories) are disputable BUT there is no dispute unless u can bring about something to dispute about.

For example -

Why do you say Evolution is wrong? Why do you say Big Bang is wrong? Do you have evidence to back up your claims?
Why it is only TOE and Big Bang?
Is it because u believe in the Bible and it is going against ur faith? Are u rejecting a theory that has a huge body of evidence and study put onto it and expecting people to accept our biblical argument that has no solid evidence wutsoeva?

Just examples.

That is not accurate. Science thrives on controversy, even einstein theory of relativity. There are areas of scientific development that challenge the core ideas in relativity, like the speed of light is variable and time is not relative. Based on my understanding, TOE is firmly established as mainstream science, more so than the big bang theory. It has a lot more evidence and supported by cross science disciplines. That said, no scientists I read will stop questioning TOE or any scientific theory and regarded them as the final TOE (theory of everything).

So why particularly TOE is singled out as a highly doubtful science theory and many people are reluctant to accept it's findings? The reason may well lie in religious belief. There are some who find that the ideas we come from "chance" and "monkey" are simply disgusting.
No, in science an established theory means much more than the layman quip " It's just a theory". Yes, a theory can still be proven to be false or inaccurate. But there is a big difference between the false and inaccurate. Let's take an analogy. If you start with a theory, say by looking at the sky the sun appears to run around the earth, so stating that sun rotates around the earth. This of course is proven to be false. So the theory is abandoned and replaced by a new theory supported by some observations that earth rotates in a circular orbit around the sun. When more observations pour in, more data is acquired, more accurately we understand the law of gravitation, we found that it is not exactly in a circular orbit. It's in an elliptical orbit. You may then ask how true is this elliptical orbit if we were to take into account slight perturbation due to relativistic effects and so on.

Hence, TOE is correct to conclude human and monkeys shared some ancient ancestor some millions years but controversies that are raging within the scientific community are mainly the details like how each humanoid fossil is linked, what causes speciation, what were the environment etc ...

debatable need to mean debatable with scientific evidence and study, not like the creationist argument that did not produce evidence but demand to be treated as am legitimate theory.

just a video to share

might be related....

The birth of science and philosophy is regarded to have sprang in 585 BC, for about that era, a pre-Socratic philosopher named Thales made a profound impact of assumption that broke with the world view of his day. He was the first to postulate that all things were made of a single substance “water” and that the processes of advancement might arise from within the search of testable explanations and predictions about the substance itself. Thus, he was dubbed the “Father of Science.”

And thanks to the sciences, today we have volumes of encyclopedias about all these disciplines and subjects, that each of us can use to expound the larger implications of the subject matter and to clarify how we think the meaning of all the facts taken together. Now imagine the fact that most of these informative reference works were accumulated during the lifetime of many great scientists and philosophers, which they shared with us of what they have researched and pondered in the largest possible perspective, and is now available to all of us, PhDs. We are already living in a whole new world unimagined by our great grand ancestors.