[corkoman]

I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly non-dogmatic point of view.

How do you discount a theory other than with data and alternative hypotheses?

[nerdwithamachinegun]

Yep.

It’s a theory, not fact.

Creation vs. Evolution (to me) boils down to this: I can’t figure it out in 10 seconds or less so I don’t particularly care.
Whatever is true (unknowable IMO) won’t get me paid more, make me happier or sadder, make my Wife love me more or less or make an ounce of difference in any quantifiable way.

For the skimmers and other comprehension challenged I repeat: I don’t particularly care. Don’t try to convince me either way.

[hunter112]

I'm atheist, and I don't have any problem with evolution. Those who call it "Darwinism" like to freeze it in the mid-19th Century, and discount the idea that scientists the world over have modified Charles Darwin's findings. They want to saddle Charles Darwin with their own notions of "what was said long ago must never change" that they apply to their own old books.

Charles Darwin would have been happy for the scientists that went after him to find the exceptions and further explainations that his book did not forsee.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You need to define “evolution” here. Are you talking about the claim that absolutely nothing but spontaneous evolution accounts for the existence of the various life forms on earth? If so, sure, I discount that claim without subscribing to any religious dogma.

Put simply, the second law of thermodynamics is demonstrably false as a universal law asserted to have applied through all time and space. If it had always been in effect everywhere, there would be nothing but entropy. Evolutionary theory all falls under the second law of thermodynamics, but alas, requires a starting point which falsifies the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, evolution as an all-encompassing theory to explain life on earth is hopelessly flawed.

[Greysard]

I feel no need to judge evolution right now. Evolution, if true, was working for millions of years, but we look for its signs only in last 200 years. I’d give the scientists another 100,000 years to experimentally prove or disprove evolution. For the moment I personally have other issues to worry about.

[Soliton]

The argument is settled the Earth revolves around the Sun and Evolution is a fact:

“Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16136131

[VOA]

I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly
non-dogmatic point of view.

In honesty, I am like the chicken in the middle of the road...
battered by traffic from both directions
(materialist/evolutionist VERSUS creationist/ID).

Some days I consider the total materialistic approach that is
really what evolution is. Life started by a random co-mingling of
the right molecules in some pool of water at the right temp.
And proceeded via a nearly timeless chain of random chances.

Other days, I look at electron-microscopic images of certain
biological structures and say "Just the product of random chance...
and I'm going to hit the jackpot with one throw of the dice in Vegas!".

I suspect that this sort of struggle goes on in the mind of
millions of my fellow beings.

[dr_lew]

Do you discount the history of life on earth as it is taught? That is, do you discount the succession of the dominant flora and fauna in the great ages of earth history?

[Boagenes]

Yes. In fact, it's one of the reasons I returned to my Christian faith. Evolution doesn't add up. Variation within a species? Check. Macroevolution? Uh-h-h...no. Irreducible complexity is key, for me. I have read recent evolutionary proposals that supposedly "deal" with the issue of irreducible complexity, but it reads like desperation - desperate crap, that is.

There is no getting around the "privileged planet".

[valkyry1]

Are there any other "agnostic" types here who look at evolution as an extremely dubious theory?

I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly non-dogmatic point of view.

Yes that is the best way to look at it. Look at the evidence, each piece, & the story of the man behind it, and common themes emerge.

[Sun]

It’s a shame that some atheists/agnostics use evolution as a tool to support their beliefs.

It’s also a shame that when a theory gets too difficult, they simply change the theory.

Now when they are asked why did some apes become humans, but some remained apes, they say that we all have a common ancester.

But yet, there is no proof of that, either.

And so, it goes, a waste of time and money by the taxpayers paying for public schools, govt. grants, etc..