Do you believe in evolution?

[Kodos]

In Entertainment Weekly, they quote Sarah Palin's book as saying "I [don't] believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea." Is that really her conception of what the theory of evolution says? At least be bright enough to use the more popular misconception which says that evolution claims we descended from apes. Sheesh. Anyhow, it gave me the idea for a poll. :)

[ISiddiqui]

Yes... btw, where is the poll?

[Mustang]

Yes... btw, where is the poll?

Sooner or later, the thread will evolve into a poll. Patience.

[ISiddiqui]

Well done :D

[sabotai]

Sooner or later, the thread will evolve into a poll. Patience.

No, you heathen, an intelligent being will design the poll.......Kodos must have left to go find one.

[Cringer]

I believe it more then the bible or other religious text.

[Kodos]

Sooner or later, the thread will evolve into a poll. Patience.

Nice work. Clearly you came from a particularly clever brand of walking fish.

[Kodos]

No, you heathen, an intelligent being will design the poll.......Kodos must have left to go find one.

Equally well done. :D

[Mustang]

Nice work. Clearly you came from a particularly clever brand of walking fish.

Yes. My ancestors helped in WWII... perhaps you have heard of him?

http://www.sondrak.com/archive/skpics/limpet.JPG

[lungs]

I don't care what no liberal says, I didn't come from no monkey!

[Lathum]

OK, so I hit the wrong damn button. I firmly believe in evolution.

I was on campus the other day and there was a guy preaching on top of a soapbox, literally.

He had all sorts of bumper stickers on it that had statements like "evolution is science fiction."

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

[Calis]

I'm finding it much more difficult to decide what my political designation would be than what my answer would be(Yes).

Such decisions.

[Kodos]

I almost put in a trout option for just that scenario, but then I held firm on my no trout pledge.

[TCY Junkie]

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.

[JediKooter]

I found it odd that political affiliation was attached to the poll. I don't subscribe to any political party and just vote for who I think is the lesser of two evils. I voted yes due to the overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is indeed the 'how' we got to be what we are today.

[cartman]

<embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:155351" width="480" height="400" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" flashVars="autoPlay=false&dist=www.southparkstudios.com&orig=" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed>

[Kodos]

I was just trying to see what differences in belief there might be across the political spectrum.

[Lathum]

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.

awesome comparison.

[Dr. Sak]

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

Isn't this the basis of Scientology?

[Shkspr]

I don't believe in evolution.

To me the idea of belief assumes faith in the truth of a concept regardless of the underlying correctness of the concept. If the idea of evolution were completely and utterly debunked by a reputable, plausible, rational argument using verifiable evidence, then to continue to support evolution would be a form of sincere "belief".

Contrariwise, if I were to suspect that evolution was a false knowledge, and that there was some other mechanism that more completely and correctly described what was happening in the universe to produce the effects attributed to evolutionary forces, despite the lack of any scientific evidence, that would also be a "belief".

But evolution is, right now, the most credible, observable, evidentiary mechanism found to which we can attribute changes in speciation. As such, supporting it isn't belief. It's knowledge.

I know evolution to be the most true form of arguments in this area that we've uncovered so far. I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise. I'm doubtful it will happen, though - and it won't be ID or creationism in its present form that does the trick.

[Peregrine]

I'm not sure why there is a political affiliation attached to the poll - seems like a straight up yay/nay vote would have been better.

[panerd]

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.


Please tell me that you are just trying to come up with a sports analogy on the fly and this doesn't seem logical to you. Please?

[JediKooter]

OK, so I hit the wrong damn button. I firmly believe in evolution.

I was on campus the other day and there was a guy preaching on top of a soapbox, literally.

He had all sorts of bumper stickers on it that had statements like "evolution is science fiction."

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

I think it can be put simply in one of three ways and a probably a combination of the three...

1. Complete blind zombie drone devotion to their religion
2. They are not being truthful and purposly ignoring the evidence
3. They were dropped on their heads when they were a baby

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are classic examples of 1 and 2 with Comfort just completly lying most of the time.

[Calis]

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.

This is either the most hilarious post I've read on here in a long time or the saddest. You make the call.

[Mustang]

I'm not sure why there is a political affiliation attached to the poll - seems like a straight up yay/nay vote would have been better.

Palin is a Republican and doesn't believe in evolution so, therefore, let's see how many don't believe in evolution and are Republican. Therefore, we can turn this into a religious and political discussion all in one.

[ISiddiqui]

Two for one!

[Abe Sargent]

I don't believe in evolution.

To me the idea of belief assumes faith in the truth of a concept regardless of the underlying correctness of the concept. If the idea of evolution were completely and utterly debunked by a reputable, plausible, rational argument using verifiable evidence, then to continue to support evolution would be a form of sincere "belief".

Contrariwise, if I were to suspect that evolution was a false knowledge, and that there was some other mechanism that more completely and correctly described what was happening in the universe to produce the effects attributed to evolutionary forces, despite the lack of any scientific evidence, that would also be a "belief".

But evolution is, right now, the most credible, observable, evidentiary mechanism found to which we can attribute changes in speciation. As such, supporting it isn't belief. It's knowledge.

I know evolution to be the most true form of arguments in this area that we've uncovered so far. I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise. I'm doubtful it will happen, though - and it won't be ID or creationism in its present form that does the trick.

Most philosophers would severely question your use of know in this context.

It is simply the best guess we have based on the information at hand. To say that you know it would be that you know it is a theory, and it certainly is knowledge in the definition of "This is the body of knowledge" but it is not possible to Know as true, therefore believe is very appropriate, and more exact.

[Kodos]

Palin is a Republican and doesn't believe in evolution so, therefore, let's see how many don't believe in evolution and are Republican. Therefore, we can turn this into a religious and political discussion all in one.


Double your pleasure!

[RainMaker]

Palin is a Republican and doesn't believe in evolution so, therefore, let's see how many don't believe in evolution and are Republican. Therefore, we can turn this into a religious and political discussion all in one.
It's not necessary but there is a strong correlation between political affiliation and belief in evolution.

[JediKooter]

I don't believe in evolution.

To me the idea of belief assumes faith in the truth of a concept regardless of the underlying correctness of the concept. If the idea of evolution were completely and utterly debunked by a reputable, plausible, rational argument using verifiable evidence, then to continue to support evolution would be a form of sincere "belief".

Contrariwise, if I were to suspect that evolution was a false knowledge, and that there was some other mechanism that more completely and correctly described what was happening in the universe to produce the effects attributed to evolutionary forces, despite the lack of any scientific evidence, that would also be a "belief".

But evolution is, right now, the most credible, observable, evidentiary mechanism found to which we can attribute changes in speciation. As such, supporting it isn't belief. It's knowledge.

I know evolution to be the most true form of arguments in this area that we've uncovered so far. I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise. I'm doubtful it will happen, though - and it won't be ID or creationism in its present form that does the trick.

I agree with Shkspr on this.

I wish there was a better word to use other than believe when asking someone if that's what they agree with as opposed to some other way. Perhaps a better way to ask would be: "Do you agree with the Theory of Evolution?"

[RainMaker]

And I still believe that those who say No still believe in evolution subconciously in one way or another.

For those who say no, if you came down with cancer, would you pass on cancer treatment? Do you avoid having your children get flu shots? What about all the other medicines that are derived from the evolutionary science? I have a feeling your belief isn't as strong when your life is on the line.

[JediKooter]

Most philosophers would severely question your use of know in this context.

It is simply the best guess we have based on the information at hand. To say that you know it would be that you know it is a theory, and it certainly is knowledge in the definition of "This is the body of knowledge" but it is not possible to Know as true, therefore believe is very appropriate, and more exact.

The problem though, the Theory of Evolution is not a philosophy. It's not like existentialism or some other philosophy that are mostly comprised of intangibles.

Evolution, at this point in time, is far beyond a best guess status. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is a fact. Don't let the word theory throw you off. There's a huge huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

[Shkspr]

Most philosophers would severely question your use of know in this context.


Most philosophers, in my experience, also have trouble showing up on time for a seven hour shift, can't manage to perform more than fifteen minutes of actual labor at a go, and are pathologically incapable of actively listening to the needs of others and acting to fill those needs. I'm willing to court their scorn.


It is simply the best guess we have based on the information at hand. To say that you know it would be that you know it is a theory, and it certainly is knowledge in the definition of "This is the body of knowledge" but it is not possible to Know as true, therefore believe is very appropriate, and more exact.

The issue here, I suppose, is the question of "belief" as a synonym for "religious faith". Palin says, "I do not believe in evolution", and will maintain that stance, despite all evidence to the contrary, because of her faith. In this discussion, then, for me to state "I believe in evolution" implies, to me, the same level of faith. It places scientific inquiry on the same level as religious fantabulation. The double duty of the word "belief" to mean both religious faith and scientific opinion is vaguely abhorrent. I don't find it at all exact.

Now, from what I'm picking up, I can't actually epistemologically say "I know evolution to be true" unless it actually is. I am certain, however, that I don't "believe in evolution" the same way Sarah Palin "doesn't believe in evolution", that is to say, with a deeply held opinion unswayable by future events.

[Abe Sargent]

The problem though, the Theory of Evolution is not a philosophy. It's not like existentialism or some other philosophy that are mostly comprised of intangibles.

Evolution, at this point in time, is far beyond a best guess status. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is a fact. Don't let the word theory throw you off. There's a huge huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.


You'll note that Shkspr makes a much batter claim in teh post below yours about what he meant, and is much more exact.

[BrianD]

I always like to use the word "accept" in discussions like this. I don't "believe" in evolution, but based on the available scientific evidence, I accept the theory of evolution. If scientific evidence points elsewhere in the future, my acceptance will change as well.

[rowech]

The problem though, the Theory of Evolution is not a philosophy. It's not like existentialism or some other philosophy that are mostly comprised of intangibles.

Evolution, at this point in time, is far beyond a best guess status. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is a fact. Don't let the word theory throw you off. There's a huge huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Explain the difference between humans and the next highest species. (your choice as to whatever you want that to be) I believe in some sort of aspect to evolution...I think you all but have to given the evidence.

That said, humans are so far ahead from the other creatures. To me, there simply is no explanation as to why we are so much more advanced compared to others. To me, there would be more of a chain between us and other species. If you tell me we're 99.4% the same as whatever species you choose to make your argument, I'll simply say that must be one hell of a .6% to make us so far above whatever species you choose for that argument.

I can't say what type of God it is but I fully believe some sort of being spurred the universe and don't have a problem making the leap that this being spurred humans to a completely other level compared to the rest of the animal kingdom or in some way just flat out created humans differently than other animals. For me anyway...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.

[stevew]

I guess I really don't care? I really don't feel like taking the time to actually figure out what the difference is between evolution and adaptation. And I can't form an accurate position on the subject.

[JediKooter]

You'll note that Shkspr makes a much batter claim in teh post below yours about what he meant, and is much more exact.

I don't think I'm quite following you here. You were looking for a specific answer?

[Ryan S]

This poll has not gone the way I expected.

It may change in time, but after 64 votes, the no votes are not in the categories I expected them to be.

[JediKooter]

Explain the difference between humans and the next highest species. (your choice as to whatever you want that to be) I believe in some sort of aspect to evolution...I think you all but have to given the evidence.

You need to define what 'next highest species' means. However, it is my opinion that it means little to nothing when it comes to evolution. Evolution affects every living thing, so it doesn't matter what 'level' a species may be on.

That said, humans are so far ahead from the other creatures. To me, there simply is no explanation as to why we are so much more advanced compared to others. To me, there would be more of a chain between us and other species. If you tell me we're 99.4% the same as whatever species you choose to make your argument, I'll simply say that must be one hell of a .6% to make us so far above whatever species you choose for that argument.

There is one theory that it is our ability to talk (beyond warning others and mating rituals), our brain size and the use of tools (there are just a few things), that has led us on the evolutionary path humans are on. There is a chain between us and other 'species'. For example, humans decended from the same common ancestor as the other hominids (monkeys, apes, etc).

From what I have read, it actually doesn't take much to make huge differences in species. *Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. There is no exact reason known as to why our cousins went extinct and we didn't. I don't think it was because we posessed a different .5% of DNA though. I'm not choosing anything here other than giving you an example that it doesn't take much to make us 'different'.

I can't say what type of God it is but I fully believe some sort of being spurred the universe and don't have a problem making the leap that this being spurred humans to a completely other level compared to the rest of the animal kingdom or in some way just flat out created humans differently than other animals. For me anyway...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.

I think it's rather conceted of us to think that we are 'better' than other species (if that's what you are implying). Different than other species, most definitely yes. What works way too perfectly? For example, the human body is shoddy at best in quality. If it was designed by a 'maker' I'd have to question that designers ability big time.



*Wikipedia

[RendeR]

...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.

I think I disagree with your acceptance of what "Too Perfectly" stands for then, because nothing on this planet works "too perfectly" most things are lucky to exist at all given their histories and developments. This is an argument from the religious side of the aisle that I've always found just wacked.

I guess I really don't care? I really don't feel like taking the time to actually figure out what the difference is between evolution and adaptation. And I can't form an accurate position on the subject.

Evolution is adaptation of a species to its environment to facilitate survival. And just to remind the universe at large, Evolution is called a theory because thats the title its always had and while it still cannot point out the precise timing, causality etc etc for a speciaes to trigger an evolutionary change, Evolution as the act and ability of all life has been proven to exist.

The biggest argument between science and religion gets twisted by the religious side.

Evolution is not the definition of "This is how everything began", it is simply the description of how everything "exists, survives and develops over time"

Someday humanity will realize there doesn't have to be this huge debate over evolution and creation because they are not and can never be solutions for the same thing. Creation can never be the answer to how and why everything changes and develops over time and Evolution can never be the "how did everything start"

Hopefully everyone will get this tiny but monumental point one day.

[RainMaker]

There is one theory that it is our ability to talk (beyond warning others and mating rituals), our brain size and the use of tools (there are just a few things), that has led us on the evolutionary path humans are on. There is a chain between us and other 'species'. For example, humans decended from the same common ancestor as the other hominids (monkeys, apes, etc).

From what I have read, it actually doesn't take much to make huge differences in species. *Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. There is no exact reason known as to why our cousins went extinct and we didn't. I don't think it was because we posessed a different .5% of DNA though. I'm not choosing anything here other than giving you an example that it doesn't take much to make us 'different'.


Behavioral modernity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity)

Lot of theories behind how we made such a big leap from our ancestors. Ultimately it comes down to brain size and sophistication ours has over our ancestors. The ironic thing is that our brains probably grew due to our inadequecies in other areas. We were not strong enough to take on huge animals on our own so our brains had to evolve to survive.

The DNA doesn't lie. We know who we descended from and are able in some ways to put relative timeframes on when we split from some species. If some people believe that a God sprinkled magic into our DNA at certain times across the last 10 million years to make us smarter, sweat, and interact, then so be it. But there is no evidence of that at all in our DNA or the fossil records.

[RainMaker]

Explain the difference between humans and the next highest species. (your choice as to whatever you want that to be) I believe in some sort of aspect to evolution...I think you all but have to given the evidence.

That said, humans are so far ahead from the other creatures. To me, there simply is no explanation as to why we are so much more advanced compared to others. To me, there would be more of a chain between us and other species. If you tell me we're 99.4% the same as whatever species you choose to make your argument, I'll simply say that must be one hell of a .6% to make us so far above whatever species you choose for that argument.

I can't say what type of God it is but I fully believe some sort of being spurred the universe and don't have a problem making the leap that this being spurred humans to a completely other level compared to the rest of the animal kingdom or in some way just flat out created humans differently than other animals. For me anyway...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.
What you are saying though is that if you can't figure out why something happened, it must be a supernatural force. Would be like watching a boiling pot of water on the stove and saying "I don't understand why it bubbles, so it must be done by some Water God".

We are ahead intellectually from other species. That does have an exponential effect on our world but doesn't mean we are better at everything. A lion or bear is superior to us in fighting. Some animals are superior to us in hearing, eyesight, or smell. Some animals can live much longer than us under controlled circumstances. Others run faster and farther than we can.

We have been able to control the planet because we are smarter than other species. It was something that came because of the factors in the world that necessitated our species to get smarter. Just as there were factors that helped other species become superior to us in other areas.

[rowech]

What you are saying though is that if you can't figure out why something happened, it must be a supernatural force. Would be like watching a boiling pot of water on the stove and saying "I don't understand why it bubbles, so it must be done by some Water God".

We are ahead intellectually from other species. That does have an exponential effect on our world but doesn't mean we are better at everything. A lion or bear is superior to us in fighting. Some animals are superior to us in hearing, eyesight, or smell. Some animals can live much longer than us under controlled circumstances. Others run faster and farther than we can.

We have been able to control the planet because we are smarter than other species. It was something that came because of the factors in the world that necessitated our species to get smarter. Just as there were factors that helped other species become superior to us in other areas.

I'm not going to get into a big debate over stuff. Not worth the time and effort as everyone has their own beliefs and they aren't likely to change which is fine.

All I can say is I have a firm belief that there is a Creator of some sort that helped to bring us to the point we are. I have no clue if any of the religions of today are the "true" religion.

Furthermore, there is no way any of us will ever know the truth in our lifetimes about evolution, creation, or some other place on the spectrum between these two. We may all think we have ideas and know but none of us will ever know for certain. It's that simple and that complex. Each person has to make their own way through all of it and reach the conclusions they feel comfortable with for their own life because in the end, that's what it's all about.

[RainMaker]

I'm not going to get into a big debate over stuff. Not worth the time and effort as everyone has their own beliefs and they aren't likely to change which is fine.

All I can say is I have a firm belief that there is a Creator of some sort that helped to bring us to the point we are. I have no clue if any of the religions of today are the "true" religion.

Furthermore, there is no way any of us will ever know the truth in our lifetimes about evolution, creation, or some other place on the spectrum between these two. We may all think we have ideas and know but none of us will ever know for certain. It's that simple and that complex. Each person has to make their own way through all of it and reach the conclusions they feel comfortable with for their own life because in the end, that's what it's all about.
You try and minimize the belief in evolution by putting in the same belief system as creationism. The problem is that evolution has countless scientific evidence to backup its claim. The belief in a supernatural force doing all this has zero. Yes people believe in different things, but there is a huge difference in believing in something that has evidence to back it up and someone believing in something because they like the story better.

We do know the truth in evolution. It's been studied and used in your everyday life. If you tryly don't believe in it, don't take any medicine your doctor prescribes. Don't listen to your doctor when he tells you that you may be predisposed to a health factor because your parents will. Buy a cheap horse and pretend he can win the Kentucky Derby because it has nothing to do with evolution.

If you don't believe in evolution, don't take cancer drugs because the science behind it is unproven and bullshit. But when life is on the line, convictions about fairy tales tend to get much weaker.

[rowech]

You try and minimize the belief in evolution by putting in the same belief system as creationism. The problem is that evolution has countless scientific evidence to backup its claim. The belief in a supernatural force doing all this has zero. Yes people believe in different things, but there is a huge difference in believing in something that has evidence to back it up and someone believing in something because they like the story better.

We do know the truth in evolution. It's been studied and used in your everyday life. If you tryly don't believe in it, don't take any medicine your doctor prescribes. Don't listen to your doctor when he tells you that you may be predisposed to a health factor because your parents will. Buy a cheap horse and pretend he can win the Kentucky Derby because it has nothing to do with evolution.

If you don't believe in evolution, don't take cancer drugs because the science behind it is unproven and bullshit. But when life is on the line, convictions about fairy tales tend to get much weaker.

Like I said...don't care to debate it and your post is why. You've clearly made up your mind...I've made up my mind...we aren't going to change each others views by pissing at each other for three pages of this thread.

[RendeR]

Like I said...don't care to debate it and your post is why. You've clearly made up your mind...I've made up my mind...we aren't going to change each others views by pissing at each other for three pages of this thread.


The difference is your mind is made up, but your facts are wrong.

Evolution is a fact, the act of any single species changing at the genetic level and adapting itself to its environment is not a theory its a proven fact of our existence.

The "Theory" you seem to be equating so inaccurately to creation is a misrepresentation that Evolution somehow negates or decries Creation.

You can sit there and say "I believe w3hat I believe" but when you blatantly espouse a belief based on known inaccuracies, well that kinda kills your whole position to begin with.

[Edward64]

At least be bright enough to use the more popular misconception which says that evolution claims we descended from apes. Sheesh. Anyhow, it gave me the idea for a poll. :)

Haven't read an book on evolution lately but when I was studying it, it was "apes and humans descended from a common ancestor". The branch that went ape didn't quite have the 'spark' as our branch. I don't think this changes the argument substantially either way.

[Edward64]

I forget the documentary (either PBS, Discovery or History) but a theory was how human ancestors could walk upright as a defining characteristic. This gave us the ability to forage and bring food back to 'home' and take care of the family.

Sorry, didn't do it justice but it was tied to us walking upright in our ability to grow, prosper etc. as a species.

[AENeuman]

You can sit there and say "I believe w3hat I believe" but when you blatantly espouse a belief based on known inaccuracies, well that kinda kills your whole position to begin with.

In order to have a belief it must be based on known accuracies?

[Kodos]

Haven't read an book on evolution lately but when I was studying it, it was "apes and humans descended from a common ancestor". The branch that went ape didn't quite have the 'spark' as our branch. I don't think this changes the argument substantially either way.

I know. I was just saying that most people who miscast what evolution tells us use the "we evolved from apes" explanation. Many people don't grasp the common ancestor part of it.

[Edward64]

I know. I was just saying that most people who miscast what evolution tells us use the "we evolved from apes" explanation. Many people don't grasp the common ancestor part of it.
My fault. Too involved in the Healthcare thread right now. Sorry.

[TCY Junkie]

If I was God letting people know I existed would take all the fun out of it. I just don't trust anything since I was 5 and on a road trip I told my dad I had to pee. He told me to go to sleep and everything would be fine.

[CamEdwards]

You try and minimize the belief in evolution by putting in the same belief system as creationism. The problem is that evolution has countless scientific evidence to backup its claim. The belief in a supernatural force doing all this has zero. Yes people believe in different things, but there is a huge difference in believing in something that has evidence to back it up and someone believing in something because they like the story better.

We do know the truth in evolution. It's been studied and used in your everyday life. If you tryly don't believe in it, don't take any medicine your doctor prescribes. Don't listen to your doctor when he tells you that you may be predisposed to a health factor because your parents will. Buy a cheap horse and pretend he can win the Kentucky Derby because it has nothing to do with evolution.

If you don't believe in evolution, don't take cancer drugs because the science behind it is unproven and bullshit. But when life is on the line, convictions about fairy tales tend to get much weaker.

You know, if we just passed a law making hypocrisy illegal, we could take care of these evolution-denying cancer patients.

Also, I'd note that the prevalence throughout history of battlefield and deathbed conversions would indicate that when life is on the line, convictions about "fairy tales" can also tend to get much stronger. I think the commonality between what you bring up and what I bring up is the instinctual desire to prolong our own unique existence, in this world or the next.

[Edward64]

For background, I do believe in evolution as the general theory. Sure we see genectic mutuation, adaptation etc.

I think most creationists are truly not opposed to the idea of evolution. It is the evolution of man from a lower species that they have an issue with.

The creationists that believe Earth is approx 5,000 years old by counting the bible genealogy do not fall into this group but there are large number of southern baptists that concede that the bible "days" may not be the same as current "days".

With that said, as a non-practicing Catholic who believes in God, I don't have a problem with evolving from a common ancestor with apes. I do struggle with believing that we ultimately come from the primordial soup without help. I do not discount that the "spark" (whatever it was) was divinely inspired etc.

A little off topic, but on the big bang theory where all of this came from super dense whatever that blew up etc. Sure, our current science supports this based on astronomy, physics etc but it is a hard concept for me to appreciate. It is so much easier (and elegant) to believe that God created the Universe in one form or another.

[Warhammer]

Regarding the Big Bang, how did that point singularity get there?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That is most likely unknowable.

[DaddyTorgo]

It is so much easierto believe that God created the Universe in one form or another.

just because something is easy doesn't mean it's correct, or even the best option

[Neon_Chaos]

I believe in Evolution.

http://i13.tinypic.com/89jxhzc.jpg
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Kodos]

just because something is easy doesn't mean it's correct, or even the best option

I find the existence an all-powerful, all-knowing being is not all that easy to believe. ;)

[DaddyTorgo]

I find the existence an all-powerful, all-knowing being is not all that easy to believe. ;)

well i was trying to be nice and say "easy" (deleted "smarm" to keep thread going on-topic and not turn into flame-fest)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Hey, I think we made it 60 posts until the smarm kicked in, good job this time guys.

[DaddyTorgo]

i told my brother when i die he can take my body down to ecuador and have the Shuar make a tsantsa out of my head

[Neon_Chaos]

Hey, I think we made it 60 posts until the smarm kicked in, good job this time guys.

I'm actually surprised it took so long. :D

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[DanGarion]

Shit people, you know what the question means, WTF are we picking it apart?

[Passacaglia]

Evolution is love.

[Kodos]

Creationism is not.

[Passacaglia]

Anyway, this morning I was doing some recruiting in the FOFC BBCF league, and I saw that there was a Defensive Tackle named Darwin Fish. I really want to sign him, although it's looking pretty unlikely.

[Kodos]

That is awesome.

[Mustang]

Shit people, you know what the question means, WTF are we picking it apart?

You feeling ok Dan? Just wanted to make sure that you didn't hit your head or anything given your apparent loss of memory about the board. :)

[JediKooter]

Anyway, this morning I was doing some recruiting in the FOFC BBCF league, and I saw that there was a Defensive Tackle named Darwin Fish. I really want to sign him, although it's looking pretty unlikely.

He could evolve into a pretty decent player.

[Kodos]

Just don't put him in a 3-4. He'd be a real fish out of water.

[cartman]

Regarding the Big Bang, how did that point singularity get there?

A divide by zero error

[RainMaker]

You know, if we just passed a law making hypocrisy illegal, we could take care of these evolution-denying cancer patients.

Also, I'd note that the prevalence throughout history of battlefield and deathbed conversions would indicate that when life is on the line, convictions about "fairy tales" can also tend to get much stronger. I think the commonality between what you bring up and what I bring up is the instinctual desire to prolong our own unique existence, in this world or the next.

I guess the difference for me is that if you believe evolution is junk science, why would you risk your life taking drugs that were based on that science? I personally believe a witch doctor is no more likely to cure me of an illness than a dog. So if I came down with cancer and was told to see a witch doctor, I wouldn't. The reason would be is that I think it's junk science and detrimental to my health. So I'm not sure why people who don't believe in evolution take drugs that are based on this "junk science" in their opinion.

The other analogy you give is Pascal's Wager. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain when believing in a God. When it comes to science though, you have a lot to lose (your life) if you put your faith in something you believe to be bad science.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

[RainMaker]

For background, I do believe in evolution as the general theory. Sure we see genectic mutuation, adaptation etc.

I think most creationists are truly not opposed to the idea of evolution. It is the evolution of man from a lower species that they have an issue with.

The creationists that believe Earth is approx 5,000 years old by counting the bible genealogy do not fall into this group but there are large number of southern baptists that concede that the bible "days" may not be the same as current "days".

With that said, as a non-practicing Catholic who believes in God, I don't have a problem with evolving from a common ancestor with apes. I do struggle with believing that we ultimately come from the primordial soup without help. I do not discount that the "spark" (whatever it was) was divinely inspired etc.

A little off topic, but on the big bang theory where all of this came from super dense whatever that blew up etc. Sure, our current science supports this based on astronomy, physics etc but it is a hard concept for me to appreciate. It is so much easier (and elegant) to believe that God created the Universe in one form or another.
I can see your point there. I think there is an element of supernatural aura to the Big Bang and the spark that gave this planet life. We don't have many solid answers regarding it and it seems we may never truly know.

I guess I have an issue when people make that argument and then say they believe in the God of the Bible that had us created in his image. I just don't get why God would waste billions of years fooling around with sludges, snowball Earths, dinosaurs, etc. I mean if he is the true Creator and in our form, why the hell would he wait this long to evolve us? Why would he put neanderthals and other hominids out there?

[Abe Sargent]

I can see your point there. I think there is an element of supernatural aura to the Big Bang and the spark that gave this planet life. We don't have many solid answers regarding it and it seems we may never truly know.

I guess I have an issue when people make that argument and then say they believe in the God of the Bible that had us created in his image. I just don't get why God would waste billions of years fooling around with sludges, snowball Earths, dinosaurs, etc. I mean if he is the true Creator and in our form, why the hell would he wait this long to evolve us? Why would he put neanderthals and other hominids out there?

My interpretation of "In His Image" is not physical, biped form, but with a soul, with the ability to choose right and wrong. It is very possible that might take a while to develop.

[CamEdwards]

I guess the difference for me is that if you believe evolution is junk science, why would you risk your life taking drugs that were based on that science? I personally believe a witch doctor is no more likely to cure me of an illness than a dog. So if I came down with cancer and was told to see a witch doctor, I wouldn't. The reason would be is that I think it's junk science and detrimental to my health. So I'm not sure why people who don't believe in evolution take drugs that are based on this "junk science" in their opinion.

The other analogy you give is Pascal's Wager. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain when believing in a God. When it comes to science though, you have a lot to lose (your life) if you put your faith in something you believe to be bad science.

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

In answer to your first question, I wasn't kidding when I said if we just made hypocrisy illegal, we could stop that from taking place. People are hypocrites... I'm not sure why this is so surprising to you. And the more serious the chances of death, the more hypocritical we can become. You said if you had cancer you wouldn't go to a witch doctor. What if the standard medical treatment failed you, but you heard about some weird homeopathic treatment from Asia that supposedly has cured cancer? You might not try it, but there are plenty of cancer patients who do go outside the realm of standard Western medicine, even if they don't necessarily believe wholeheartedly that the cure is going to work. It may be hypocritical, but I think it's also human nature.

And not to continue the threadjack, but you ca't really just blithely dismiss every deathbed or battlefield conversion as an example of Pascal's Wager. I mean, Pascal's Wager at it's simplest level is about how you live your life, not in what frame of mind you want to die. Also, it's a philosophical construct, not an observable reaction to external forces (in this case, impending death).

[digamma]

"Believing" in evolution connotes that it is a world view akin to a religion. I'd encourage you not to think that way. It is a biological process.

There may be some groups who craft their world view based on evolution, but I would still maintain that is a distinct belief.

[Kodos]

My interpretation of "In His Image" is not physical, biped form, but with a soul, with the ability to choose right and wrong. It is very possible that might take a while to develop.

Surely God could create that sort of thing instantly if he wanted to. Right?

[Edward64]

I can see your point there. I think there is an element of supernatural aura to the Big Bang and the spark that gave this planet life. We don't have many solid answers regarding it and it seems we may never truly know.

I guess I have an issue when people make that argument and then say they believe in the God of the Bible that had us created in his image. I just don't get why God would waste billions of years fooling around with sludges, snowball Earths, dinosaurs, etc. I mean if he is the true Creator and in our form, why the hell would he wait this long to evolve us? Why would he put neanderthals and other hominids out there?

I have not made a study of this, do not have wholly formed beliefs, and do not claim that my beliefs align perfectly with the below definition ... but when I was in HS, I read about deism.
Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism)
Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which deists regard with caution if not scepticism.

My simplistic view is that God created the Universe (whatever the origin is), put some stuff into motion, and let it run. The analogy that I remember is that God was a watch maker of a fine Swiss watch, wound it up, let it run, and once in a while comes back and winds it up again. Essentially, putting things into play and coming back once in a while.

I believe in God. I believe that miracles happen. I believe God, for the most part, is hands off. I want desparately to believe in heaven.

This is my "unifying theory of everything" and allows me to rationalize why bad things happen to good people (especially babies, young children), why there is bad in the world, why once in a while miracles happen etc.

[Passacaglia]

Darwin Fish is now a Bruin.

[Kodos]

Bravo!

[Groundhog]

My simplistic view is that God created the Universe (whatever the origin is), put some stuff into motion, and let it run.

I'm an Atheist when it comes to any kind of organised religion, but I'm at least open to this possibility.

The analogy that I remember is that God was a watch maker of a fine Swiss watch, wound it up, let it run, and once in a while comes back and winds it up again. Essentially, putting things into play and coming back once in a while.

I believe in God. I believe that miracles happen. I believe God, for the most part, is hands off. I want desparately to believe in heaven.

This is my "unifying theory of everything" and allows me to rationalize why bad things happen to good people (especially babies, young children), why there is bad in the world, why once in a while miracles happen etc.

Not so much this part though. :)

Which miracles are you referring to? I can't think of a single miracle that ever happened, outside of very difficult or unlikely things that have happened and get called "miracles" out of hyperbole.

[MJ4H]

The only thing I have gotten from this thread is that South Park is still the worst thing I've ever seen on television.

[Kodos]

Telletubbies?

[Marc Vaughan]

I believe in evolution - even within fairly recent human history there is proof of huge changes in how humans look.

If you ever get the chance to go around a medieval castle look at the armour on display - you'll notice that compared to people these days most humans were much smaller than we are today (heightwise).

This is down to diet, nutricion and other things - but it shows the drastic changes which can occur in a relatively short period of time, let along the periods involved in evolution.

(similar things have been displayed with species changing colour when local fauna does etc. - animals really are incredible)

[Abe Sargent]

Surely God could create that sort of thing instantly if he wanted to. Right?

God cannot do the impossible

[Kodos]

Not trying to badger you, but my impression was that God is viewed as all-powerful, and that he created everything, including whatever rules there are for all of creation. As such, nothing is impossible for God. Is it commonly viewed that there are limits to God's power?

[Passacaglia]

Darwin Fish is now a Bruin.

Bravo!

I was actually hoping he would become a Wolverine. Props go to Marcus for making him a Bruin. Too bad (although I won't complain too much since I signed a better DT).

[Kodos]

Ah... I forgot which team you ran from my days as Indiana's coach.

[Abe Sargent]

Not trying to badger you, but my impression was that God is viewed as all-powerful, and that he created everything, including whatever rules there are for all of creation. As such, nothing is impossible for God. Is it commonly viewed that there are limits to God's power?

God can bring about any possible condition. That's why the old question, "Can God make a rock so big he can;t move it?" comes into play with the "He can do anything" issue. It's very oversimplified. Would we expect God to make 2+2 suddenly equal five everywhere? What about making x not equal x? What about making a frog that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time and place? If something is not possible, God could not do it, but it's not much of a limitation.

Oh, and God's creation of existence certainly would have created some laws, like gravity (which could have been stronger or weaker), but God would be bound by rules of math and logic. They exist without being made, just like God. Many Christians would disagree with me but I would also argue that right and wrong exist without being made by God. Otherwise, it just makes doing right meaningless. Why do what's good? Because God will punish you if you don't. Is a cosmic Might makes Right argument. On the other hand, if ethics exists outside of God, then the statement God is Good has actual meaning, and there are real reasons to follow the law of ethics.

[Marc Vaughan]

;2173482What about making a frog that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time and place?

I blame someone asking that question as to the reason for those pesky physicists having to try and understand quantum mechanics ...

(who says God doesn't have a sense of humour ;))

[JediKooter]

Not trying to badger you, but my impression was that God is viewed as all-powerful, and that he created everything, including whatever rules there are for all of creation. As such, nothing is impossible for God. Is it commonly viewed that there are limits to God's power?

You have a very valid question Kodos. I've heard from countless christians that, "god can do anything". This seems to be more prevelant than the christians that waver (and by waver, I mean the response of: 'god works in mysterious ways')when asked that question. I don't think there is any symantics at play when answering that question. But, when it comes to myths, there usually are several different interpretations of that myth.

[kenparker23]

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.

Whoever said the human body is a poor design has never studied the body. I would tell you to spend half your life in an operating room, study gross anatomy and then you would see how ridiculous that statement is.

For instance the femur (thigh bone) cannot be duplicated by any material in terms of relative weight to strength.
We are not even close to realizing how the brain works.
There are more than five hundred separate muscles in the body, with an equal number of nerves and blood-vessels.
The weight of the heart is about 12-14 ounces and it provides the power to run this machine.

In terms of engineering NOTHING comes close to the human body.

[JediKooter]

Whoever said the human body is a poor design has never studied the body. I would tell you to spend half your life in an operating room, study gross anatomy and then you would see how ridiculous that statement is.

For instance the femur (thigh bone) cannot be duplicated by any material in terms of relative weight to strength.
We are not even close to realizing how the brain works.
There are more than five hundred separate muscles in the body, with an equal number of nerves and blood-vessels.
The weight of the heart is about 12-14 ounces and it provides the power to run this machine.

In terms of engineering NOTHING comes close to the human body.

I disagree with you on the human body, but in the context that it was created by some mysterious designer. If it was designed by something (god or gods), he/she/they/it did a piss poor job in my opinion.

However, I am not amazed by the human body at all in general. I don't think it's any less or more amazing than an ameoba or an elephant or a cat.

For what humans can do in the way we are able to manipulate our environment (good or bad) and adapt to changes, I think is the amazing part.

[AENeuman]

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.

Whoever said the human body is a poor design has never studied the body. I would tell you to spend half your life in an operating room, study gross anatomy and then you would see how ridiculous that statement is.

In terms of engineering NOTHING comes close to the human body.

This seems akin to saying because man has the ability to identify and (temporarily) defy gravity we are not affected by it the same way all other things are.

[kenparker23]

Not saying humans are superior to other animals, just a response to a statement on the "poor design" of humans.

I agree that all living things are unique and have truly amazing characteristics.

[Autumn]

In terms of engineering NOTHING comes close to the human body.

Nothing humans can engineer, perhaps (though not true in some ways I suspect). But looked at as something designed by a being infinitely times more intelligent than us? Much of the "engineering" of organisms, including humans, is pretty piss poor. Many things work just barely enough to allow us to survive long enough to reproduce, which makes sense if evolution is the explanation, but pretty much sucks if a loving, intelligent God created us.

[RendeR]

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.




I'm sorry, are you privy to some data that the rest of the scientific world is not? Please prove this.

[Marc Vaughan]

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.
But if you met a man from the 1600's today you might be surprised at him and wonder somewhat why he looks 'strange' compared to modern man - exaggerate that over a thousand years and I'd expect you'd consider the man from the future another species.

I listened to a talk a long time ago about how peoples facial features are changing over time because humans spend less and less time outside incidentally - was largely conjecture with some basis in fact but I found it a compelling and interesting argument.

To me evolution is just a long series of these small changes which result in what would be considered a 'new species'.

Its a bit like when you bring up a child, they change over time on a day to day basis - you don't notice as you're in the same house as them until you look back over a large period of time in one go.

[RendeR]

A study of Finches in the Galapagos islands might well be good reading for this as well. As the development of several distinct species of finch across the islands chain pretty much proves that evolutions of one species into another and in fact several HAS happened.

[RendeR]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Darwin%27s_finches_cropped.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Darwin%27s_finches_cropped.jpeg) Geographical isolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_isolation) of finches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches) on the Galápagos Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1pagos_Islands) produced over a dozen new species.

[Pumpy Tudors]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Darwin%27s_finches_cropped.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Darwin%27s_finches_cropped.jpeg) Geographical isolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_isolation) of finches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches) on the Galápagos Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%C3%A1pagos_Islands) produced over a dozen new species.
What's this? The evolution of Louisville's helmet decal?

[Groundhog]

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.

I think you're forgetting how long a time period we are talking about here. Hundreds of thousands of "mini evolutions" over an unimaginable period of time.

Whoever said the human body is a poor design has never studied the body. I would tell you to spend half your life in an operating room, study gross anatomy and then you would see how ridiculous that statement is.

You could spend half your life in an operating room, and still choke to death on a piece of a food at dinner time.

[Groundhog]

What's this? The evolution of Louisville's helmet decal?

Louisville's decal never evolved! It was created each time from nothing! HERETIC.

[RendeR]

Louisville's decal never evolved! It was created each time from nothing! HERETIC.


Ok I laughed.

[JediKooter]

Michael Jackson evolved before our very eyes...




too soon?

[RendeR]

Michael Jackson evolved before our very eyes...




too soon?


Not too soon, but evolving from circus freak to child molester I'm not sure equates to what we're discussing....

[JediKooter]

Not too soon, but evolving from circus freak to child molester I'm not sure equates to what we're discussing....

Well, no one ever said that mutations always resulted in something useful. ;)

[RendeR]

Well, no one ever said that mutations always resulted in something useful. ;)



Platypus.

[Mac Howard]

A point that may be worth mentioning here: both the Catholic and Anglican Churches accept that evolution, in its entirety, is an accurate description of the mechanism that has produced the range of life forms we see today. The evidence is simply too overwhelming to deny it any longer (only last year the Anglican church made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated). What they insist on, however, is that this refers to the biology of life forms but that man also has a soul put there by God.

That's the latest escape clause in their dogma ;)

They have argued, though this is another idea that has become somewhat flimsy, that God created the evolutionary mechanism. The problem for Christian churches in particular however is that the Christian God of love, compassion etc sits very uncomfortably with the vicious, dog-eat-dog, one creature's survival is another's extinction process. It's difficult to argue that that is a process that would be created by the Christian God.

[Coder]

ok, that option was not what I intended..

[Dutch]

I love the way this poll is presented, btw. It's about damn time a liberal actually took the time to figure out that the TV people are over-generalising the evolution=liberal and creationism=conservative crap. So good for you, Kodos!

[RainMaker]

I love the way this poll is presented, btw. It's about damn time a liberal actually took the time to figure out that the TV people are over-generalising the evolution=liberal and creationism=conservative crap. So good for you, Kodos!
Virtually every poll shows a large gap between party affiliation and belief in evolution. Almost all the organizations pushing to get creationism into schools are convservative. It has been an issue pushed by those on the right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

Don't try and re-write reality because an unscientific poll from a message board points a different way.

[RainMaker]

Evolution does occur within species (see the average height of man in 1890 versus 2000). But never, ever, never has evolution occurred where one species evolved into another. That my friends is a fact.

Whoever said the human body is a poor design has never studied the body. I would tell you to spend half your life in an operating room, study gross anatomy and then you would see how ridiculous that statement is.

For instance the femur (thigh bone) cannot be duplicated by any material in terms of relative weight to strength.
We are not even close to realizing how the brain works.
There are more than five hundred separate muscles in the body, with an equal number of nerves and blood-vessels.
The weight of the heart is about 12-14 ounces and it provides the power to run this machine.

In terms of engineering NOTHING comes close to the human body.
The sheer fact that we age would seem to contradict your belief. If we are designed so perfectly, why do we replicate our cells so poorly?

Facts are based on evidence. There is an immense amount of evidence from fossils to DNA that show species evolving from one to another. Closing your eyes to it and believing in fairy tales and pixie dust doesn't change reality. Although I won't blame you for missing it as I'm sure ignorance is an evolved trait.

[Dutch]

Virtually every poll shows a large gap between party affiliation and belief in evolution. Almost all the organizations pushing to get creationism into schools are convservative. It has been an issue pushed by those on the right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

Don't try and re-write reality because an unscientific poll from a message board points a different way.

40% of Democrats believe in Creationism and 60% of Republicans??? Holy hell! Based on the last election that's like what? 60 million Democrats and 60 million Republicans???? :D

[RainMaker]

40% of Democrats believe in Creationism and 60% of Republicans??? Holy hell! Based on the last election that's like what? 60 million Democrats and 60 million Republicans???? :D
Not even close. But if altering reality makes you feel better about having half your Presidential candidates raising their hand and stating they did not believe in basic science, then so be it.

I honestly don't care what people believe or what party they are behind. When it comes down to it, their beliefs aren't strong enough to be their life on it. I just have an issue with teaching fairy tale science like creationism in schools. Pressure to have that done is not coming from the left, it's coming from the right.

[Dutch]

Um, I took those #'s from your link. As for "Presidential candidates", McCain believes in evolution as well. :)

[gstelmack]

Platypus.

They don't really do much of anything.

[Mac Howard]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx.

Wow! Is it something in the water? :eek:

[RendeR]

Wow! Is it something in the water? :eek:


His name is rainmaker, he MAKES his own water.

[Mac Howard]

His name is rainmaker, he MAKES his own water.

:)

The astonishment I expressed, though, was not at Rainmaker but at the poll results - that approximately 40% of Americans reject the validity of evolution.

A week ago, as part of the dccumentary celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, I watched a documentary by a English Anglican priest titled "Did Darwin kill God?". The program began with the statement "to hear the arguments against evolution we have to go to America" and from then on the documentary interviewed Americans at various institutions both for and against the thesis.

There is no worthwhile objection to evolutionary theory in first world countries outside America. As I pointed out earlier both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church - and that, I suspect, means the dogma of a significant majority of the world's christians - have dropped their objections to the theory. The Anglican Church has even made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated. Here (and I can speak reasonably for Britain and Australia) objecting to evolution is like insisting the world is flat.

So it surprises me that around 40% of Americans still do. Such similarities in the cultures yet such differences.

[JediKooter]

:)

The astonishment I expressed, though, was not at Rainmaker but at the poll results - that approximately 40% of Americans reject the validity of evolution.

A week ago, as part of the dccumentary celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, I watched a documentary by a English Anglican priest titled "Did Darwin kill God?". The program began with the statement "to hear the arguments against evolution we have to go to America" and from then on the documentary interviewed Americans at various institutions both for and against the thesis.

There is no worthwhile objection to evolutionary theory in first world countries outside America. As I pointed out earlier both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church - and that, I suspect, means the dogma of a significant majority of the world's christians - have dropped their objections to the theory. The Anglican Church has even made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated. Here (and I can speak reasonably for Britain and Australia) objecting to evolution is like insisting the world is flat.

So it surprises me that around 40% of Americans still do. Such similarities in the cultures yet such differences.

Oh, I don't think you realize the half of it on how bad it is here and it doesn't stop with evolution. The Discovery Institute being the biggest of the offenders in my opinion of spreading complete non science and lies. Look at the Dover vs Kitzmiller case, classic example of desperation of these people trying to get their crap taught in science classes in public schools here. The Discovery Institute also likes to regurgitate that there is a 'controversy' in the science community regarding evolution, when in truth, the only 'controversy' is the one that the D.I. and others of their ilk are making up. You also have the people here in America who don't have enough common since to know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

You mention the flat earth. Well, we have the Young Earth Creationists to deal with too. They believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs.

Of course, then there's this 'war' on christianity that's being waged here that always starts to pick up steam this time of year. In reality, the only 'war' is in the minds of the people making the acusation.

We also have to deal with the tripe that a lot of people think that America was founded on christian principles or is a 'christian' nation, which is bullshit too. A good portion of the founding fathers here were diests and and it is quite evident by how the constitution was written and in their personal writtings and a few of them actually were quite critical of the bible and its teachings.

I think America is a great country and even though it may be home of the free and the land of the brave, it is also home of many many stupid people who blindly follow their preacher, minister, World Nut Daily, etc, without questioning them or doing some research.

So with all of that, I'm actually surprised the percentage of people who reject evolution is not higher here.

The chart is from 2005 and it shows that America ranks second to last (in the countries surveyed) in the percentage of people that accept evolution.

[RainMaker]

I was surprised by the numbers as well. I guess I just don't know a ton of people who don't believe in evolution so I assumed it wasn't that bad.

The whole thing is sad and I'm not sure what can be done. I already think it's a travesty that science teachers have to tip-toe around this topic in class. It would be an even bigger one if we started teaching our students this. Just allows other countries to continue to gain and surpass us in science and technology.

[Kodos]

I love the way this poll is presented, btw. It's about damn time a liberal actually took the time to figure out that the TV people are over-generalising the evolution=liberal and creationism=conservative crap. So good for you, Kodos!

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. ;) Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

[Coder]

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. ;) Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

I fall into this category as well.. I believe in Evolution but clicked the wrong radiobutton.

[DaddyTorgo]

:)

The astonishment I expressed, though, was not at Rainmaker but at the poll results - that approximately 40% of Americans reject the validity of evolution.

A week ago, as part of the dccumentary celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, I watched a documentary by a English Anglican priest titled "Did Darwin kill God?". The program began with the statement "to hear the arguments against evolution we have to go to America" and from then on the documentary interviewed Americans at various institutions both for and against the thesis.

There is no worthwhile objection to evolutionary theory in first world countries outside America. As I pointed out earlier both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church - and that, I suspect, means the dogma of a significant majority of the world's christians - have dropped their objections to the theory. The Anglican Church has even made an official apology to Darwin for the way he was treated. Here (and I can speak reasonably for Britain and Australia) objecting to evolution is like insisting the world is flat.

So it surprises me that around 40% of Americans still do. Such similarities in the cultures yet such differences.

40% of this country is ignorant (to be polite)...does seem a bit shocking - until you spend a significant amount of time here.

[revrew]

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. ;) Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

I voted. But I am choosing to refrain from debating the minority position in an openly hostile environment. Sorry, guys, I just don't have the time right now.

(Although the reference to World Nut Daily did just about draw me in - snicker, snicker - but I still refrain)

[DaddyTorgo]

I voted. But I am choosing to refrain from debating the minority position in an openly hostile environment. Sorry, guys, I just don't have the time right now.

(Although the reference to World Nut Daily did just about draw me in - snicker, snicker - but I still refrain)

i'm not sure the environment is hostilet hough revrew. i think the environment would be hostile if you came to the discussion in an aggressive stance...but if you came in with thoughtful points in a civil manner I think by-and-large everyone would respond in a civil fashion.

we tend to have an okay track record discussing these "hot button" issues with the exception of a few folks on either side who tend to "go off the deep end" and should just be ignored or not responded to or whatever.

if you don't have the time right now though that is a different matter entirely.

[Abe Sargent]

Notably, some of our conservative guys have abstained from voting. I think, perhaps, that is not an accident. ;) Also, some of the "No" votes really should have been yes (Shkspr, for instance - he didn't like the wording, but clearly believes in evolution as fact).

I believe Evolution is the recipe, but it will never be able to tell us if there was or was not a chef, and I'm libertarian mostly, so I was a libertarian yes. I really consider myself a classsic conservative, but since teh modern conservativism has moved faaaaaar away from that.....

[Kodos]

FWIW, I was thinking of JonInMiddleGA, not Rev. Since he voted already anyhow. :)

[JediKooter]

I believe Evolution is the recipe, but it will never be able to tell us if there was or was not a chef.....

Two different things. Abiogenesis is the study on how life could have come to be here on earth and would be closer to the 'recipe' that you speak of. Attributing evolution to how life began is a very common misconception, just like when people try to attribute evolution to how the universe began.

[kenparker23]

Facts are based on evidence. There is an immense amount of evidence from fossils to DNA that show species evolving from one to another. Closing your eyes to it and believing in fairy tales and pixie dust doesn't change reality. Although I won't blame you for missing it as I'm sure ignorance is an evolved trait.

Please,give me evidence. Show me this "immense amount of evidence". I stand by my statement. The finch populations that were previously mentioned are not groundbreaking. Taxonomists are still debating classification these birds. There are proteins that result in different skeletal features of the beak.

Like I said, I DO believe in evolution within species. It is based on environment and natural selection.

However, I do not believe that every living animal in this world evolved from a single cell.

You can criticize the "fairy tale" all you want and you have made it very clear where you stand on this issue. Yes, I am a Christian and I believe in God. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it. I will take my chances.

[DaddyTorgo]

Please,give me evidence. Show me this "immense amount of evidence". I stand by my statement. The finch populations that were previously mentioned are not groundbreaking. Taxonomists are still debating classification these birds. There are proteins that result in different skeletal features of the beak.

Like I said, I DO believe in evolution within species. It is based on environment and natural selection.

However, I do not believe that every living animal in this world evolved from a single cell.

You can criticize the "fairy tale" all you want and you have made it very clear where you stand on this issue. Yes, I am a Christian and I believe in God. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it. I will take my chances.

isn't part of the problem with what you're asking for though is that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, if not longer. millions even.

look at all the discussion surrounding early hominids - at what point do they go from "chimp" to "human?" Because clearly those are two different species, right? What's the definining characteristic? is it brain-casing? Walking upright? Speech? Because it's there. You won't find it in one skelaton, but you can see the evolution of the skeletal-shape over hundreds of thousands of years evolving to a bipedal form. You can see it in the evolution of the skulls to support the development of the Broca speech-center of the brain.

[Kodos]

WE DIDN'T COME FROM CHIMPS!

[DaddyTorgo]

WE DIDN'T COME FROM CHIMPS!

okay...fair enough...you're right. i should have been more specific in my post and said that we clearly diverged from a common ancestor at some point in the past.

saw something the other night that was interesting about how human head lice and human pubic lice are different. human head lice are unique to humans but human pubic lice are essentially ape-lice. saying that when we lost the hair covering all of our bodies the two species of lice on our bodies diverged evolutionally.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I believe Evolution is the recipe, but it will never be able to tell us if there was or was not a chef...

It's that next leap that's always baffled me. How one gets from "a chef" who put all of this in motion to the notion of the Chrisitan/Islamic or what-have-you God that favors a certain people, gives people very strict rules as how to live their lives, etc.

[RainMaker]

Please,give me evidence. Show me this "immense amount of evidence". I stand by my statement. The finch populations that were previously mentioned are not groundbreaking. Taxonomists are still debating classification these birds. There are proteins that result in different skeletal features of the beak.

Like I said, I DO believe in evolution within species. It is based on environment and natural selection.

However, I do not believe that every living animal in this world evolved from a single cell.

You can criticize the "fairy tale" all you want and you have made it very clear where you stand on this issue. Yes, I am a Christian and I believe in God. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it. I will take my chances.
I don't even know where to start. We have both intermediate fossils for lots of species and DNA evidence. There are countless books and studies on it. This information is hard to find and if you have a particular question I'll be happy to look it up for you.

I'm not criticizing the fairy tale, I'm saying it's ignorant to substitute it in the place of reality. There are a lot of people who believe in religion and accept basic scientific fact.

But like I said earlier, if you were to come down with something like cancer, you won't be demanding evidence from your doctor on evolution when he prescribes you with medicine based off that science.

[JediKooter]

I think species is an overused/misused word when it comes to evolution. I think of a species as no more than two like or similar entities being able to mate and have fertile offspring. Humans come from the same family that apes and monkees do. However, neither can mate and have fertile offspring, so in that sense we are different species, but, and the big but is, we ALL come from the same common ancestor.

Another issue with using the word species is, I think it was back in the 1700s before DNA and other means were developed regarding evolution, a classification system was developed and in widespread use by the time Darwin and his contemporaries came along and even today, it is hard to get away from that classification system which leads to a lot of confusion.

[Edward64]

Just another datapoint. Although the common belief is that evolution is slow, gradual changes from adaptation/mutation, Gould proposes that evolution may take 'leaps'.

A Darwinian leap / Stephen Jay Gould proposes that catastrophes triggered mass changes in species (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/14/RV119833.DTL)
Essential to Gould's thinking on evolution for the past 30 years is the concept he has called "punctuated equilibrium," the idea that evolution does not proceed along an infinitely slow course where, as Darwin saw it, individual organisms change and new species emerge in response to environmental pressures that weed out the unfit through a kind of Malthusian "survival of the fittest" and preserve the organisms best adapted to new environments.

But Darwin, ever the uniformitarian, conceded that huge gaps in the fossil record of his time posed the most crucial threat to his gradualist picture of natural selection. In 1972, Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge, now at New York's American Museum of Natural History, published an influential paper that in effect saw those gaps in the fossil record as what Gould calls "valuable information rather than frustrating failure."

Fossils in long-buried sediments of the Devonian period in Michigan, for example, established that primitive, clamlike brachiopods remained unchanged for countless thousands of years, and that in fact no intermediate fossil forms at all lay between those species and the new and very different brachiopod species that succeeded them after a major "mass extinction" killed off 90 percent of all living species some 367 million years ago.

Thus, Eldredge and Gould concluded that "stasis is data," and that instead of Darwin's minute adaptational changes in individual organisms, evolution must proceed by huge leaps and bounds, with species remaining unchanged for long periods of time until some major event, most probably environmental and quite possibly global, creates an opening for entirely new species to emerge in very brief bursts.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/evolution.jpg

[Kodos]

That's awesome. I just hope that chimp doesn't eat Kirk's banana. You behave, Grandpa!

[sterlingice]

I fall into this category as well.. I believe in Evolution but clicked the wrong radiobutton.

Clearly you need to evolve better poll taking skills? ;)

SI

[sterlingice]

Evolution is just not best accurately described as "survival of the fittest"- it's really "survival of the good enough".

Just to use a simple example of, say, a giraffe. The tallest giraffe only survives and the others die if, and only if, only the top branch has food available the shorter giraffes die before reproducing. So, the very shortest die out because they can't get any food, but it's not as if the tallest are the only to survive as many in the middle also survive.

Not only that, but with many traits, it's good to be in the middle- not at the top. Great: so you can reach the top branches but you can't escape as well from a predator because you don't have as good of maneuverability and are susceptible to back issues.

And, yeah, more realistically- you aren't going to see substantial changes in species until mass extinction events. A species can get along fat, dumb, and happy with all sorts of excess for quite a while until some disaster preens back its gene pool. At that point, only those with the traits required for survival and subsequent reproduction will survive and those traits will exists in all for that species until mutations start to crop up again.




(As an aside, big bang theory is another matter entirely, in my mind. "The laws of physics work great except for the first few small pieces of time where they bend in ways that don't make sense to balance out equations. Never mind those few moments happens to be the most pivotal moments of our theory." I don't know how long it's going to take us to get telescopes or instruments that will allow us to figure out the moment our universe winked into existence, if ever. But if we do, us and Big Bang are going to look like as we look upon those who thought the sun revolved around the Earth or thought the earth was flat.)

SI

[Abe Sargent]

Just another datapoint. Although the common belief is that evolution is slow, gradual changes from adaptation/mutation, Gould proposes that evolution may take 'leaps'.

A Darwinian leap / Stephen Jay Gould proposes that catastrophes triggered mass changes in species (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/14/RV119833.DTL)

I thought macro-evolution was pretty commonly accepted as true these days by most experts, since microevolution has some logical flaws.

[Edward64]

I thought macro-evolution was pretty commonly accepted as true these days by most experts, since microevolution has some logical flaws.
I do think macro evolution is pretty much accepted. However, I don't think this contradicts what Gould is proposes about rapid leaps in evolution.

Anyone major in biology?