I don’t understand the resistance some conservatives have toward evolution. After all, we humans evolved from primitive cave dewllers into the advanced civilization we have today. Human history is a story of evolution.
Adaptation is not Evolution. Adaptation includes the loss of genetic information which just happens to include some aspect that yields greater survivability in a given environment. Sickle-Cell Anemia is an adaptation, it is not Evolution. Ditto frogs in the cave losing eyes and pigmentation.
If you start at a certain place on the evolutionary scale and for a half billion years keep subtracting genetic information, that is not Evolution (more accurate to call it. Evolution requires the amassing of new and advantageous information. Shredding a book is not the same thing as writing a book, whatever its short-term advantageous "adaptation" may be (chinking holes in the cabin or paper-mache making).
Thought Question: "Do you believe in Devolution? Or are 'evolution' and 'devolution' synonyms in your vocabulary?"
As to why conservatives are often "Evolution-o-phobic", it's because Evolution claims to be all-encompassing, yet it begins by postulating that anything outside nature could not possibly occur. It's a philosophical and theological problem. I am aware that there are smart people who somehow believe in evolution and in the existence of God, but frankly I have never heard a compelling argument for that inherently contradictory viewpoint. Please direct me to a couple of your favorite arguments on this score.
Adaptation is NOT what causes organisms to evolve. A new genetic change occurs which allows an organism to survive in a different environment. For example the WHITE GENE that occurred in african origen humans perhaps 40 thousand years ago allowed them to move north in Europe and compete successfully with the Neanderthal. The sickle-cell GENE confers some protection from malaria. These were not adaptations. Cave frogs probably have had loss of genes for eyes and pigmentation as such defects would quickly kill in the lighted world. I have made a conscious choice to adapt to eating yogurt which I initially disliked because I knew it was good for me. Certain groups eat mostly yogurt which is a cultural adaptation which also confers greater survivability. One has to make a clear distinction between cultural adaptation and genetic change which confers adaptability.
Regarding the conflict between beliefs in God and in Evolution. Scientists base their “beliefs” on testable, verifiable, reproducible information. True belief, is simply belief because one chooses to believe, not because anything has been proven in a reproducible way. Scientists also tend to have an open mind willing to see things in a new way if the evidence is there. Believers tend to have a closed mind which often can protect them from disturbing real world realities. I realize there are also plenty of people who do not fit in either of these descriptions.
I have interesting arguments with an athiest friend who does not believe certain things I have experienced are real. These include transmission of fear and visual images to someone close to me, and wishing very hard (prayer?) for me to find someone/something important that I need. I do not ascribe these experiences to a God, but rather tell my friend that they may be due to some transfer of energy that has not yet been identified or studied. There is a lot about subatomic physics that yet needs to be learned. It is only recently that we have discovered things like black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. With or without God it is a wonderous and awe inspiring world out there. And there is so much more to learn and know. If God is ever found through science, as opposed to belief, it will probably be unlike the God of current believers.