Atheists, at what point did the theory of evolution transform from theory into your personal truth?

So science based on observable evidence and repeatable tests is equivalent to listening to an ancient fable and saying 'I think that's true'?

Massive fail.

Truth isn't personal. Reality isn't subjective. You're only supposed to star interesting questions.

Wow. Okay, you make some interesting points...but the major problem is that there has been no 'transformation', at least in my case.

I may evolve & grow, but deep down, I've always pretty much been this way, I just get a little older.

And by this way, I don't specifically mean atheist, I mean the whole package. Sure, I know more stuff than I did when I was a kid, but my beliefs haven't really changed.

I can't say big bang or evolution are personal truths any more than any other documentary topic is. As a matter of a fact, my eyes usually glaze over when the really technical folks on here get all, well, technical about it with words I couldn't even hope to pronounce, much less use properly.

The fact of the matter is in my own humble way I've figured out that every religion I've tried on doesn't fit me. I don't believe a god exists, I don't even fully understand the scientific theories about the origin of the universe - but that's not relevant to me. I really don't need to know how it all started or how its all gonna end, I just need to know how I'm gonna put milk in the fridge & a roof over my kids head.

I believe in evolution but I do not claim that it is beyond testing. As new discoveries are found, I feel that the theory of evolution should be tested against this new evidence. This practice has gone on for over 100 years and so far, evolution has held it's own. So far, there has not been a single piece of evidence that has cast material doubt on the theory. Theists have tried lies and misdirection to debunk the theory and have all failed because open minded people can spot a lie or test it to prove it a lie.

I believe, because it makes sense. It is rational and beautiful in it's simplicity. I started believing when I was about 7. This was without influence from my parents (my mother still does not accept evolution, because she has trouble understanding it) I went on to read the bible (which at a young age I thought was tosh) and I have since read "The origin of species". I have revisited the bible as an adult and still I find it tosh (I particularly like the bit in revelations where 144,000 Jews get saved and it's stinging locusts for everyone else regardless of faith). But I digress. I have come to the conclusion that the only people who do not accept evolution are those that do not understand it. I asked http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201007... looking to change this view and failed. I am left with the same view - People who do not accept evolution either do not understand it or have been misled by others with lies and misdirection. If anyone can come up with a sensible alternative to evolution that does not involve an imaginary "Judge Dredd" in the sky, I would be more than happy to look at it but the reality is that the scientific community have been seeking an alternative to Darwin's theory long before Darwin put pen to paper and have yet to come up with a viable one.

Please read the following completely...

There is no such thing as "The Theory of Evolution." There isn't now and there never has been. There are, however, theories that try to explain biological evolution…

Biological evolution is a conclusion based on FACTS. An individual fact of biological evolution is a single fossil or other artifact recovered, studied and reported in detail. There are over 100,000,000 "facts" of biological evolution. It is a fact that in the recent past (60 million years ago) there were no large mammals at all such as horses, bears, man, etc. Farther back it is a fact that there were no flowering plants of any kind. Still farther back it is a fact that there was no life on land- at all. Still farther back the fossils reveal that there were no fishes in the oceans. Still farther back it is a fact that there was no multicellular life on Earth, anywhere. These are a very few of the many, many facts that make biological evolution on Earth a fact.

The facts show unmistakably that life in the past was different from life today. The facts show unmistakably that life has changed (evolved) over time. Biological evolution is a FACT, not a theory. The question is: how can these facts from the fossil record be explained? How did biological evolution happen?

The theory of "Decent With Modification" (first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace - since improved) is the theory that currently best explains the mountain of FACTS showing how biological evolution proceeded. Without the theory of Decent With Modification the FACTS of biological evolution would still be there begging for an explanation. If a theory is proposed in the future that better explains the facts of biological evolution, we will discard the Darwin/Wallace theory as we have discarded Aristotle’s "Great Chain of Being" theory and the Bible’s “Creation Theory.” They were discarded because they couldn’t explain the FACTS.

Natural Selection is not a theory but is a proposed mechanism to explain how the theory of Decent With Modification would proceed. The theory of Decent With Modification does NOT need Natural Selection for the theory to be valid. If a better mechanism is found we will relegate that mechanism to the scrap heap as we have past mechanisms such as Lamarck's “Inheritance of Acquired Traits”...

“Survival Of The Fittest” is nothing but a catch phrase that is not even accurate. A more accurate representation of that poorly worded concept would be “Differential Reproduction.” That is, the favored survival of individuals and their progeny who posses variations that can better utilize the environment they currently live in.

There is no such thing as “Darwinism” any more than there is “Newtonism” or “Einsteinism.”

There is a general misunderstanding about just what constitutes a “theory.” The word "theory" has several meanings. The common meaning used by the general public is that of a "guess" or "opinion." You could say, "It is my theory that the CIA ordered Kennedy's assassination." or "It is my guess/opinion that the CIA ordered Kennedy's assassination. A scientific theory, however, is not a guess or opinion as the word “theory” is used by the general public.

A scientific “theory” is an overall unifying principal that seeks to explain seemingly disconnected observations (facts) under a single, simple concept. As such, a theory is the highest form of knowledge about the universe because it explains not just one isolated part of the natural world but it ties together many observations (facts), that may not seem to be connected, under a single unifying principle.

Facts, on the other hand, are single pieces of information about the world that usually come from controlled experiments. Lots and lots of facts are usually unified and explained by a single theory.

You can collect facts (measurements) about the motions of the planets. You can collect facts about the movement of projectiles and falling bodies. You can study the flow of rivers. The Theory of Gravity explains all of these observations and measurements. Without the Theory of Gravity the FACTS of the movements of objects remain and beg to be explained...

I can't remember the precise point in my life when I began to doubt scripture. I think I was quite young, around the age of sixteen. I must say my religion was never force fed as is so often the case. Until then I simply accepted the Bible as being a sacred book because people I respected, especially teachers at school seemed to accept it, miracles and all. It was only later that I began to make comparisons with the good compassionate God of the New Testament, and the vengeful cruel God of the Old. It was then my doubts began. When Jehovah's Witnesses tried to convert me, it only strengthened my disbelief, and it was at this time that I attempted to read the Bible cover to cover to see what it's all about. I failed to read it all managing only about half. Comparing the Bible with Darwin's Origin of Species converted me totally to my atheistic belief.

I think anyone who has an interest in science, must see the fallacy of simply accepting words without evidence, and yet not all scientists want to relinquish their faith, and that in itself is a mystery. Most scientists are atheists however, and even though I'm not a scientist my enormous interest in most things scientific makes the idea of a personal God as a final explanation for everything very fanciful, there simply is no evidence. I accept your argument that the origins of the universe and life itself still present great mysteries, but the evidence between then and now is compelling even if details change from time to time.

I wouldn't say that it's a question of being a "personal" truth. My acceptance of evolution is not based on simply a DESIRE to believe it, it's based on the evidence supporting it. It's not "personal", at all.

Usually, when an atheist accepts evolution, it's not because they think they "feel it in their hearts", it's because that's where the evidence points. It's not an emotional reaction. It's an acceptence that that is where 100% of the evidence points.

People who believe in creationism tend to do so for reasons that are entirely seperate and apart from it being where the evidence points. I think they have a different mode of thinking altogether...one that is based on their emotional reactions to information.

If I had no choice but to describe it as "my personal truth", then I would have to say that the more educated I became in science, the more apparent the truth behind the theory of evolution was to me.

This reminds me of a quote I read recently, “Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”

-- Dan Barker

Science makes no claim to truth, it is simply the most reasonable and responsible method for forming a belief. Evidence supports both the theory of evolution and that of the Big Bang. Even better, anyone free to try to find competing evidence. If it is strong enough, a new theory will replace one or both. This self correcting nature of science is one of the many things that makes it better than religion.

So what you are saying is that because scientists have developed a theory how the universe came to be, atheists have bought into this theory and have made themselves believe this is the truth. Whereas christians have read the Word and come to the conclusion that this is more feasible. So I would think it is more a matter of the heart searching for truth, than just blindly accepting each theory intellectually and then making yourself believe that the scientists hold the truth.

Science adapts to the "facts". No scientist continues to accept a theory or idea if it has been proved false. The big bang may not have actually happened, but it can be determined mathematically. God is simply a belief.

Your whole question, all three paragraphs of it, can be answered with the simple remark that some people require evidence for their beliefs. But what interests me more is that you seem to have mastered the English language--no small accomplishment--without acquiring the analytical skills that usually go with it. You seen not to recognize strains of post-modernism in your philosophy, and you certainly lack a basic understanding of the aims and methods of science, and, in particular, the definition of a scientific theory. Very odd how a person so obviously educated can be so obviously uneducated.

Just because religion became a deep personal truth for you doesn't mean it works the same way with me and evolution. As scientific phenomena I find evolution to be fascinating and convincing, but it's not like I use it as a pillar of my life. Yes I do defend evolution, but that is because I hate to see science education undermined by people with religious agendas who don't even know what the term "scientific theory" even means.