Beliefs About Evolution

[Lyric]

We're studying the scientific method (among other things) in my Biology 101 class right now. My professor (who is awesome) has made it a point to say numerous times that a "theory" in biology is akin to a "law" in physics. Nothing is ever 100% proven because there is no way for any human being to test every possible alternative explanation in the universe. However, a "Theory" is generally an assortment of related hypotheses that have been extensively studied, tested over and over again to the best of our ability, and generally accepted as the closest thing to an absolute truth that we can have.

A good example is Cell Theory. The basic premise of Cell Theory is that all living things are made of cells--either one cell, or more than one. Although it is not possible to examine literally EVERY individual living thing on the face of the planet that has ever existed, we have examined enough to be pretty sure that there isn't anything truly alive on Earth that doesn't have a cellular structure--either prokaryotic or eukaryotic. Even though we can't say that this has been "proven," Cell Theory is still accepted as a fact for all practical and research purposes.

The same applies to the Evolutionary Theory. My professor has impressed me greatly with her insistence on hammering home the idea that a "Theory" in science means something entirely different than it does in regular English. She does this because she's going to teach us about evolution, and she's trying to head off some of the more asinine objections that I'm sure she deals with every semester.

I usually take for granted that other lefties are solidly in the pro-evolution camp, but lately I've heard a few comments that have made me wonder. So...what are your beliefs about evolution?

[billyoc]

1. The nuns laughed at creationism when I was in Catholic school.

They taught me evolution as science. God "creating" evolution was implied, God being God and all. :hi:

[elshiva]

20. The nuns said the same thing at my college.

It was a Roman Catholic College, but they taught and still teach evolution as science and teach that creationism is WRONG. :hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

23. Yup. nt

[WA98070]

66. To say the Nuns "laughed at creationism" isn't fair. Simplistic 7 day creation yes, but ....

The Catholic Church has always taught that God created but he did so by putting things into motion quoting the Catholic Catechism:

"The universe was created 'in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it."

We accept creation but realize we can not possibly understand the "How".

Or to put it simply, God is the cause.

[iconicgnom]

73. God might be the formal and final cause, while not being a material cause.

I can understand the notion of God as formal and final cause, esp. in re. matters of ethics; but when I'm told to accept as literally true the "virgin birth" of "God the Son", I'm being told something which requires I stretch my credibility with respect material causation, and I see no reason why I should.

Regardless of the fact that I'm born of a practicing Catholic family.

[billyoc]

74. I mentioned that in the OP, did I not?

And *I* decide what's fair around here, not you.

[Aloha Spirit]

2. I would be more comfortable with "I agree with the theory" than "I believe"

[ColbertWatcher]

12. I agree. I prefer "understand evolution". n/t

[RoyGBiv]

29. Same here ...

The very word "believe" implies some level of faith.

Science is not a matter of faith, which is why it is science.

[Zhade]

31. "Accept/acknowledge the proven fact" also works.

And no, there's no evidence any gods exist that would have had any impact on evolutionary development.

[Sebastian Doyle]

109. Or as Chris Rock said in Dogma

"I have a pretty good idea".

[stray cat]

3. As a biologist my research findings must be accurate but my interpretation only approximates truth

[Lyric]

5. A biologist, eh? Tell me--which camp are you in?

The "Viruses are not really alive" camp, or the "Viruses are strange, but alive, because they contain DNA?"

As a simple Bio 101 student, I don't exactly have an enormous educational background from which to speak, but to me, they almost seem more like microscopic bits of rogue DNA and protein than anything else. I don't really think that qualifies as "life," but as I said, I am no expert. :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. While I read your OP, I was thinking "what about viruses"?

I didn't get as far as university-level biology (just the British 'O' level - exam taken around age 16), but I'd hope I'm reasonably up on it.

I'd say viruses are alive; they reproduce, they evolve, they use their environment to do so. They have a genome - it's not that it's DNA that is important (it can be RNA, after all), but it is an inheritable and copyable 'blueprint' for the virus - not just the genome itself, but the associated protein (which is why I don't think prions can be called 'alive' - their form may tend to get copied, but it's not a form that defines itself).

[Myrina]

4. hmmm ... I suppose there was a 'God' at some point ...

... although I'm guessing she was a 'little green (wo)man from Mars (or some such place)' who interbred with or experimented on the indigenous tribes ... ie, the Annunaki/Nephilim, resulting in 'us'.

Basically, we're the leftovers of a science experiment gone wrong, IMO. :shrug:

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. Agreed...

This is my theory and what I've been saying all along
on the "creation" and population of this planet in the beginning.

It's a combination of intelligent design AND evolution that was started by beings from another planet who were looking for somewhere else suitable to sustain life, much like our very own space exploration program today.

This other planet was possibly becoming overcrowded and was running out of natural resources, or it was quite possibly facing devastation from nuclear holocaust or world war. The government there was seeking somewhere else to start life, and found this planet (earth) in their explorations. They visited here and found the atmosphere suitable, plus we had air, water, light, etc. to sustain life.

They came back and brought plants, which they set out on different areas of the planet to see how they would grow, change and adapt to their surroundings. They saw how well the plants survived, grew, reproduced and thrived. It was good!

Next they brought insects and did the same thing, with the same results, and it was good... so they moved on to larger mammals... which also survived, grew, reproduced and thrived. It was all good!

Cavemen were an experiment of crossbreeding with primates, but they never developed intellectually the way they wanted them to, so they "made" man either by creating the dna, or by test tube babies and/or cloning. That's the reason scientists can't find the missing link between cavemen and modern man. There is no link in that chain. The experiment with the crossbreeding ended, and the cavemen eventually died off, and were quite possibly killed off to exterminate them from the face of the planet as an experiment gone awry.

"God" was the leader/top scientist of one part of the other planet and "Lucifer" was from a different part of that planet. God was a facsist and totalitarian who wished to use this new species (us) as slaves and he wanted us to bow before him. Lucifer was a liberal, and wanted us to be free. You can pick that out of the bible where it talks about adam & eve hiding from God because of their nakedness. God asked them "who TOLD you that you were naked"? .... what Lucifer did that was so wrong in the eyes of god was that he taught adam & eve to read and write. It pissed God off and he said "now they are like us, they have become gods". They learned to read, write and think for themselves.

**I'm still working on this theory, trying to fine tune it and everything, but it just seems to the most logical, and plausible, scenario to me...**

[Zhade]

32. Wow, that's an awfully complex theory based on no evidence whatsoever.

NT!

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. Which parts do you disagree with... and why? n/t

[Zhade]

39. Uh, where to start? Misuses of the word "theory" to describe wild guesses...

...the utter lack of evidence for any of the assertions - I mean, the whole thing is a complete fabrication.

Believe what you want, but let's be honest: this isn't a theory, it's just a story. Don't even try to pretend any of this is actually verified or true.

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the definition of 'theory' before you say anything else..

10 dictionary results for: theory
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Care for a do-over?

[Zhade]

43. Quite disingenuous, given that we're discussing scientific theory in this thread...

...which you don't seem to comprehend is quite different (as explained elsewhere in the thread).

As I said - there's no evidence supporting your assertions. Which is cool - there's none for Santa, and that's a nice story. As long as you don't try to fool others into thinking there's any basis for this belief, we're okay.

[Ghost in the Machine]

46. What *you* don't seem to comprehend is the fact that I responded

to another poster, NOT the OP....

"As long as you don't try to fool others into thinking there's any basis for this belief, we're okay."

:rofl: :rofl:

Do you honestly believe that I actuall give a fuck if "we're okay"?? First off, there is no "we" here. You're someone who has no impact on my life whatsoever.. someone I'll never meet. Your existence on this planet, and this message board, mean nothing to me in whole scheme of life. Your approval, or disapproval, does not affect my life in any way, shape or form. None. Nada. Zip.

Evolution is a fact, for sure, but I reject the notion that I came from a single celled organism, or a monkey, tadpole or any other creature... be sure to let the world know when you find your 'missing link'... how long have they been searching for something that isn't there??

[Zhade]

52. Ahhhh, touched a nerve.

If you knew the first thing about evolution, you'd know that scientists posit that we came from a common ancestor, NOT a monkey.

[Ghost in the Machine]

63. Now who's being disingenuous?

You pick one word out of ..."I reject the notion that I came from a single celled organism, or a monkey, tadpole or any other creature"... and try to run with it, huh? I happen to live right across the river from where the famous Scopes Monkey Trials were held..

So tell me... *who* was this common ancestor, and *where* did he/she come from??

You know in your heart & mind that you really have nothing, but you keep trying to argue your point anyways, don't you? Sounds kinda like a fundie to me...

[RainDog]

93. this displays your ignorance of science - and the SPECIFIC meaning of theory in science

The OP goes into this difference - Gravity is a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory. Gravity is the best possible explanation for a particular force.

Since no fundies (or others) seem to object to gravity, we don't see bullshit arguments about gravity only being a "theory." Fundies are content to let God put gravity into place since it doesn't require them to dispute a bullshit rendering of the age of earth based upon generations mentioned in the bible.

I know you won't be embarrassed by this display of ignorance, but you should be. You should know that everytime you try to make this argument you discredit yourself with anyone who is familiar with the facts surrounding evolutionary science for any other remark you may make on this board. that's just the truth.

please do yourself a favor and watch this pbs/nova show, Intelligent Design on Trial.

[Ghost in the Machine]

105. Your reply displays *your* ignorance...

Just like that other poster, you fail to comprehend the fact that I didn't reply to the OP, I replied to another poster about a slightly different, but not off topic, subject..

I know you won't be embarrassed about your own display of ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills, though. In fact, you'll probably even try to argue about it some more. Do your own self a favor and learn to read and pay attention before you spout off, or just keep your lip zipped.

[RainDog]

112. if you were being facetious, then, yes, I apologize n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. Here's a partial list of what I disagree with:

"beings from another planet " - you haven't specified what planet. That's a cop-out. You have no evidence whatsoever that these beings came from another planet.

"looking for somewhere else suitable to sustain life, much like our very own space exploration program today" - not what the space exploration program is. You've simply got this wrong.

"This other planet was possibly becoming overcrowded and was running out of natural resources, or it was quite possibly facing devastation from nuclear holocaust or world war." Sheer guesswork. Again, no evidence for these guesses whatsoever.

"The government there was seeking somewhere else to start life, and found this planet (earth) in their explorations" So now you've built a human concept (government) into this imaginary planet too. Still, no evidence for this at all. And are they running out of resources/facing devastation, or are they able to launch a huge expensive space program?

"They visited here and found the atmosphere suitable, plus we had air, water, light, etc. to sustain life." An atmosphere and air, eh? That's a good combination. OK, what atmosphere was suitable for them? Remember, the oxygen level in our atmosphere is due to photosynthesis, and it wasn't there when life started here. So, was the atmosphere they needed with or without oxygen?

More fundamentally, you paint this as a search for an alternative planet for them to live on. So where are they now? If you're trying to find a new planet to live on, you populate it yourself, along with the other life you need for existence - the plants you eat and so on. You don't create a whole new set of life.

"They came back and brought plants, which they set out on different areas of the planet to see how they would grow, change and adapt to their surroundings. They saw how well the plants survived, grew, reproduced and thrived. It was good!"

So you're saying that the plants now on earth developed on some other planet? What about the fossil evidence showing the ancestral forms on earth?

"Next they brought insects and did the same thing"

And what about the ancestral forms of insects?

" so they moved on to larger mammals"

And their ancestors too ...

"Cavemen were an experiment of crossbreeding with primates"

Crossbreeding what with them? Why does living in a cave single out some humans for being a completely different species?

"so they "made" man either by creating the dna, or by test tube babies and/or cloning. "

Cavemen had DNA too, you know - they've analysed some of it. Cloning just produces an exact copy of what you already have. That's the whole point of it. Test tube babies just come from normal eggs and sperm. They're not a different species, you know.

"That's the reason scientists can't find the missing link between cavemen and modern man."

What do you mean? What are you saying separates cavemen from modern humans, apart from their accommodation?

"The experiment with the crossbreeding ended, and the cavemen eventually died off, and were quite possibly killed off to exterminate them from the face of the planet as an experiment gone awry."

Again, you seem to think there was a species called 'caveman'. there wasn't. It describes where people lived; there are still a few people in the world you could apply it to.

""God" was the leader/top scientist of one part of the other planet and "Lucifer" was from a different part of that planet. God was a facsist and totalitarian who wished to use this new species (us) as slaves and he wanted us to bow before him. Lucifer was a liberal, and wanted us to be free. You can pick that out of the bible where it talks about adam & eve hiding from God because of their nakedness. God asked them "who TOLD you that you were naked"? .... what Lucifer did that was so wrong in the eyes of god was that he taught adam & eve to read and write. It pissed God off and he said "now they are like us, they have become gods". They learned to read, write and think for themselves."

OK, so your source for this is an Iron Age myth from the Middle East. Except you have decided to believe some bits of it, and then make up your own bits when you feel like it. Why do you feel that a 2500-3000 year old story is more worth believing than all the other creation myths there are, but that you can invert it when you want to?

[Two Americas]

62. it is not a theory

It is an outline for a film script - pretty good one, too.

[Myrina]

45. VERY plausible & logical!

:applause: I used to not-speak-outloud-too-much about my ideas on the subject :tinfoilhat: but it's always just seemed so obvious

that if WE can travel to other planets, do artificial inseminations, etc ... why couldn't some other 'species' travel here & do the same thing? Additionally, almost every religion/civilization's 'creation story' talks about 'God(s) from the sky' or God(s) traveling 'on beams of light' etc ...

:shrug: Sometimes the simplest explanation really is the right one! :shrug:

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. I actually told this to some Jehovah's Witnesses that came knocking on my door one day..

They sat and listened to me for a while, then asked if they could come back again to hear more... they came back once more, a few weeks later, and never mentioned *their* religion to me while they were here.. they wanted to discuss what I was telling them. I haven't seen them since.

I believe the bible is actually part of the history of Earth's beginnings, but much of it is written in metaphor & symbolism. We also have to remember that a lot of it has been either misinterpreted, or left out completely, as the 'King James Version' is just that.. the version that a ruler wanted his subjects to believe in, the version that King James himself approved of.

One question that no one has ever answered for me is: "If we evolved from slime, single celled organisms or any other life form, how come it still doesn't happen? Why hasn't my cat turned into a human yet?"

UFOS IN THE BIBLE?
Although many traditional Jews, Christians, and Muslims would probably reject this idea with little thought, it seems likely that similar phenomena were observed in biblical times. One can read the scriptures with only a little background knowledge and discover numerous examples of anomalous aerial craft appearing in the sky. We find dozens of shining clouds, balls of fire, wheels, and flaming chariots which bear a striking resemblance to modern UFOs.


Here are a few general quotes from the Torah which help to make this point:


"Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind..." (Jeremiah 4:13).
"Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud..." (Isaiah 19:1).
"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night..." (Isaiah 4:5).

There are also many specific cases described in both Testaments of the Bible in which strange objects appear in the sky. Let's look at a few:
Throughout their wanderings in the desert, the Elohim guide the Hebrews from above, riding ahead in various craft. Perhaps the best example takes place during the exodus from Egypt: "... the children of Israel went up and harnessed out of the land of Egypt. And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light..." (Exodus 13:18,21).

The story continues with a pursuit by the Egyptian army. "And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them... but it gave light by night to : so that the came not near the other all the night." (Exodus 14:19-20).

Since literal clouds don't have fiery pillars, one can reasonably conclude that the object was something very different -- perhaps a UFO with a descending beam of light. One is also forced to wonder how the Israelites got across the Red Sea. Could they have been flown across?

The prophet Ezekiel, a frequent recipient of extraterrestrial visitations, described a strange object in the sky: "And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it..." (Ezekiel 1:4).

This could very well be a modern-day account of a UFO sighting: A swirling wind accompanied a huge disk-shaped object surrounded by a bright glow. Ezekiel goes on to describe the strange craft descending from the sky, noting its resemblance to a spinning wheel and mentioning that it is piloted by a powerful-looking being.

In another incredible incident, the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, we find an excellent array of UFO-related phenomena (Matthew 17:2,5-6). First of all, Jesus Christ brought his disciples up on a mountain, where he showed himself as the glorious figure of a nordic-superhuman. "And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light...." Then a UFO appears, provoking intense fear in the onlookers. "... behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud.... And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid." Finally, we read in Luke's version of the story that "... they feared as they entered into the cloud." (Luke 9:34).

Yep... sometimes the answers are right in front of us, but too simple to understand...

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. "the simplest explanation"? That's not your one

To give you an idea of how complicated your 'explanation' us, you need to tell is where this species came from, if necessary describing how they managed interstellar flight, what the basis of their life is, how they evolved, why they decided to use DNA as the genetic basis for life on earth, rather than whatever they are based on, where they are now, and so on.

:popcorn: Remember, you're keeping this simpler than the current biological theory. Over to you.

[Myrina]

100. .

:eyes: I don't recall pissing on any of your opinions or ideas recently, so WTF is your problem with me having mine?

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. I'm not 'pissing' on anything

I'm pointing out the flaws in your post. That's a standard part of a discussion board. :shrug:

[Evoman]

122. Um...or maybe life arose on Earth, and what we see now

is the result of millions and billions of years of evolution.

Do you have any reason to think otherwise, besides idle speculation?

[gateley]

6. Other. I believe "God" IS evolution. And vice versa. nt

[Lyric]

8. Intriguing.

Do you mean that you think every living thing contains a little bit of "God," and that the "God" inside of our cells is the only real deity that exists?

I've considered something similar to this myself a few times--that there's some inherent force of deity inside all living things that ties us together, and makes us different from rocks and stardust. We find "God" when we look for what's different between the atoms that make up a cypress tree and the atoms that make up the average boulder.

[gateley]

24. Not really. I don't believe in a deity, except maybe like Myrina and Ghost in

the Machine talk about -- somebody who set themselves up as gods and we fell for it. (Republicans, obviously, ruling by fear.)

But beyond that, I think that the life force (for lack of a better word/phrase) is everything, and it is constantly expanding and changing. And it's/we are all interconnected. Kind of like they're fooling around with in quantum theory.

[melody]

10. I agree n/t

[Two Americas]

7. so they are competing belief systems?

Are you saying that evolution and creationism are competing belief systems?

That is what most IDers I have talked to object to. They have no issue with the science, but are resistant to the belief system.

[Lyric]

9. Well I don't *personally* think so, no.

I think *some* people insist that they must compete, and that only one can be true. But I also know a couple of very nice religious people who think that evolution is God go hand-in-hand, and that there's no conflict between them at all.

As for me personally, I think that it's comparing apples and oranges. God could exist and still have nothing to do with evolution, and vice versa. There's no way for anyone to really know.

[Two Americas]

14. that is how I see it

But the questions are framed as "do you believe..."

How would one go about believing that allele frequencies in a population change over time?

I my expereince, there are ten people who say (in effect) that "allele frequencies in a population change over time, so therfore your religion is a crock" for every one person who says (in effect) "I believe in the Bible so therefore allele frequencies in a population do not change over time."

[Zhade]

33. Well, given that science and thus evolutionary science are not belief systems... no.

NT!

[Two Americas]

51. right

That is what I am getting at.

[Zhade]

54. And well-done!

: )

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Other: TRICK QUESTION! No one "believes" in evolution ...

... you either understand it or you don't.

It's that simple.

[HereSince1628]

34. I think a person could understand it without accepting it.

I think the exact same thing is true for the biblical creation story. I understand it fine. I even understand a lot about what "experts" in creation say about it. But, I don't accept the biblical creation story as an accurate account.

[ColbertWatcher]

47. One can understand the Biblical stories without accepting them, however ...

... I find it hard to believe that someone could understand evolution without accepting it.

[HereSince1628]

69. Yes, and because that is your belief that is a statement about you

and not a statment about someone else.

I've worked with a dozen or so PHDs in biology still believed that it's all the handiwork of God. All of them could carry on a perfectly coherent lecture on evolution.

Really. That's about 20% of the total folks I've had as colleagues. And with only 1 exception they taught at state universities.

Seemed rather sad to me. But that too is a statement about me, not them.

[ColbertWatcher]

70. The word "believe" is being used incorrectly.

Believe has to do with faith, which is based not on reproducible results, but on the lack of them.

If a person truly understands evolution, no faith is needed to accept it. If a person believes in creationism, no understanding of evolution is possible.

[HereSince1628]

78. That's interesting because many who accept evolution don't understand it

And that's based on 30 years of teaching. Generally students come into college accepting it or not. Teaching units on evolution do little to change their opinions.

Among students who accept evolution, many can't pass an elementary unit exam about it. Much of their acceptance seems based on a general faith in the authority of television documentaries, teachers and a willingness of people to believe that if a claim is related to science it is good enough to believe. Potentially dangerous stuff that.

How does one measure understanding? As I said, I've had a fairly large fraction of my colleagues in Biology at Public Universities who clearly understood the arguments and evidence and they were able to use them make the argument supporting evolution that runs through elementary and advanced biology texts used in their courses. I am convinced they understood evolution as well as most biologists teaching in undergraduate programs. Yet, when away from their roles as sage on the stage they admitted that they believe that "God did it" sometimes with an apology to science saying that God set evolution in motion, and sometimes not.

I agree that their positions weren't rational. With some of them I asked how as dualists they knew when to apply scientific explanation and when to relied on revealled truth. The answer I got was that when they were at work as scientists they thought like scientists, and outside of their jobs they were free to think anyway they wanted. It was almost like their two perspectives were different sizes of socket wrench that they could pop on or off as desired. Strange but true, just like real people.

[ColbertWatcher]

82. Which is not what I said in #47. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

37. Yep.

"I don't believe that the Earth is spherical."

"I don't believe that gravity exists."

Those statements are similar to saying "I don't believe in evolution."

[skepticscott]

48. And all of those are misstated

science is not, and has never been about "belief" You don't "believe" in evolution...you are convinced by evidence that it is the best and most likely explanation for the way life is on earth. Or not. Either way, to speak of it as a matter of belief bespeaks a complete lack of understanding about how science works.

[BlooInBloo]

13. The basic problem is people who know nothing about science and its history....

feel qualified to talk about science and its history.

Stupid people really do believe that no-one is any smarter than they are.

[opihimoimoi]

15. No shit....so true your words....

[Zhade]

36. Like Palin - who believes not only in creationism but that man walked with dinosaurs.

She actually said she's seen fossils with human footprints IN them. As in, embedded in the bone.

Sooooooo stupid it hurts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. For those that believe in God and evolution, what did God evolve from?

My guess is it evolved from a fusion of sardines and beer ingested near midnight by schizophrenic shepherd.

But, that's only one theory.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Believers - at least in God as seen in the monotheistic religions of today

would simply say God is and always has been.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Well, that qualifies as just another theory.

No more, and no less, provable than the sardines and beer theory.

"We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away." Chuang-tzu

[Zhade]

40. It's not even a theory. It's a bald assertion lacking any evidence.

It's a cop-out.

[Two Americas]

59. exactly

They didn't even HAVE beer and sardines back then.

[JerseygirlCT]

84. Does it make you feel better to be

disparaging?

Seriously, what skin is it off your nose?

It's not something that requires "evidence" of the kind you'd like. That doesn't make it any less true for those who do believe.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. Of course. Faith isn't something to be "proved" with scientific

means. That's sort of the point...

[holybarcode]

18. What is known about gravity is a theory. Anyone who doubts it can jump off a bridge to disprove it.

:-)

[baldguy]

19. God still hasn't decided if he's going to have to clean out this particular petri dish & start over

[Marnieworld]

21. I believe in evolution

And I don't believe in God so there wasn't a choice for me in your poll. On edit I agree with someone that believe is the wrong word too. Evolution seems to be the most likely explanation. And yes I realize that I am being a pain in the ass. ;)

[JerseygirlCT]

22. I do believe in God, and I do believe there's a creator's hand

at work in every act of creation in the universe - current, past, etc.

That doesn't in any way mean I don't think the *means* of that work is evolutionary science. I don't find faith and science in conflict at all. In simple terms, science looks at the how and faith at the why. And I see no reason at all that a creator could not have wanted this wonderful, complex system of life that we can study.

[skepticscott]

56. Science doesn't just look at how

it explains how. Faith, on the other hand, never explains the whys that it purports to address. It just makes up unprovable stories to make people feel better. In thousands of years, faith has never increased our knowledge of the world one iota.

[JerseygirlCT]

85. Of course it does, Scott

It just doesn't explain them to *your* satisfaction.

[skepticscott]

86. Please then

give us some examples of the many "whys" that faith has provided universal explanations for. And let's be clear...if you're going to claim (as you did) that faith should be according equal (though complimentary) status with science as an explanatory mechanism, universal explanations are required, because that's what science does and that's what makes it so useful and so powerful. To say that faith provides different answers to everyone fails to elevate it to that status.

[JerseygirlCT]

90. First

I never claimed it offered explanations to everyone. Never.

Second, I simply said that for those who do believe, it offers answers to the why questions: why are we here, what is our purpose, where do we fit in the bigger picture.

You'd like to make my statements absolute ones to match your own. I don't play that.

[skepticscott]

103. And what are those answers to the "why" questions?

And what does faith do to address them other than to allow people to purge themselves of the need for evidence or reason in trying to answer them?

A system of thought that lets you explain anything simply by saying "I believe this because I believe it" is nothing more than a security blanket. But then, I guess some people need that.

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Boy you're a pleasant one

I'm not even going to try to explain it to you. I don't think you'd really be capable of grasping something outside your carefully defined "rational" view.

I do hope you allow that to stretch enough to encompass odd things, unexplainable by rationality, like love, though. For your own sake.

[skepticscott]

111. Pleasant?

I’ve seen what the obnoxious infiltration of “faith” into every aspect of society has done to our country. I’ve seen the effects of the most destructive delusion in human history. You have too. Why would any rational person choose to be “pleasant” about that any more?

Yeah, yeah, I know…you’re different. The people in your faith community are different. You would never push your beliefs on anyone else. You’re not fundamentalists. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. The fact that you peddle the “faith is a virtue” and “faith provides answers” memes with a smile and open arms instead of fire and brimstone doesn’t matter. In many ways, people like you are equally as dangerous as the Bible-thumping literalists. Liberal Christians who have done everything they could to make the abandonment of reason, logic and evidence in answering serious questions respectable, admirable and even desirable are every bit as much to blame. And once you've instilled that in people, it's not as if you can keep it from spreading beyond Sunday morning.

And as far as love goes, it exists. It's a fact, even if it can't be explained rationally. The same can't be said for any supernatural buddy that anyone has ever believed in. Choosing to believe things without reason or evidence when it isn't necessary is never a virtue.

[JerseygirlCT]

114. So, stereotyping and bigotry are fine by you, so long as they're

YOUR stereotyping and bigotry?

Got it.

[ismnotwasm]

26. Evolution is Science. God is not

I leave deities out of evolution, they simply aren't necessary, and with just a cursory glance at all the creation myths as well as all the mystery and unanswered questions (may we never "know" all the answers so we always learn)of science, they only confuse and polarize the matter.

For people of faith, who believe or need to believe in deity or deities they can "augment" evolution all they want with unprovable and untestable speculation of loving, hip creator gods, mad scientist and very mistaken gods, (gnosticism-- my personal favorite-- makes a kind of Bogey man out of that Old testament hard-ass and vicious cruel God) Creator Gods who just move along kind of detached(deists) or in the surety of faith, the God(s) that give life meaning to many. Just keep that meaning in one's personal home. Or church, or charity, or whatever. I don't care.

Faith is great. Just don't call it science.

[JerseygirlCT]

96. Faith is most certainly not science

And confusing the two is problemmatic on both sides of that.

[fascisthunter]

107. thank you for Such an Eloquent and Well Written Response

I notice too many trying real hard to level the playing field by misinterpreting science as another "belief".

[foxfeet]

28. Other. I agree with the theory of evolution, but have a different "creation story"

We're not all Abrahamic monotheists, you know. In my creation story the Goddess gave and continues to give birth to all things. And before those of the atheistic persuasion get revved up, please think: poetry and metaphor. No revealed, inerrant, holy book here. And I don't give a hoot whether you agree with me or not-- I'm not out to convert anybody. Find your own path (including atheism, if you want).

[Zhade]

30. The poll is flawed. There's no belief about it; evolution is an observed fact.

It's been demonstrated in labs countless times.

(I know you know this, but using the word belief is wrong wrt scientific findings.)

[HereSince1628]

38. Which lab demonstration of evolution did you find most convincing?

Just curious if that demonstration was on the micro- or the macro- side of evolution.

[Zhade]

41. Obviously the micro in the lab, the fossil record for the macro.

Duh.

[HereSince1628]

68. I regularly muse on how DU'ers talk about demonstrating evolution

because I am a population biologist of parasitic disease (a discipline that is a major part of evolutionary science) and I teach undergraduate biology courses that frequently initiate conversations about evolution.

I am impressed on how many variations are possible in what people from varying backgrounds call evolution and how these variations influence, at least semantically, what can be called "observing" evolution. For that matter it is interesting in noting how many people do and don't even know a distinction between micro and macroevolution.

To my personal knowledge, evidence has been shown in the fossil record which is consistent with and best interpreted as a signal that macro-evolutionary events took place. I really do think that the non-random order of types of fossils in time throughout the geologic record is quite convincing evidence that evolution took place in the geologic past. I think that especially so because similar patterns can be found in other forms of biotic recording.

But here is where I push getting philosophical about my vocation...I question whether noting that pattern in the fossil record is the same thing as witnessing or demonstrating evolution. It's something of a semantic problem, perhaps a meddlesome linguistic "thang" that interrupts and drags down conversation, yet it is something that haunts me as it seems to also be a meaningful distinction.

I think I can illustrate that by considering the meaning of witnessing an event and witnessing evidence of an event that we both more than likely would assert really did take place.

I was in Arkansas on "9/11." Did I witness the fall of the World Trade Center towers or did I see/witness video?. Were we folks in Arkansas witnesses to the event, or were we witnesses to a video of an event? When my grandson watches the same videos, will he witness the event or will he witness a video record of an event? Maybe this seems insignificant, maybe it is not. I suspect that distinctions in the difference between my experience and those of people in lower Manhattan on that day would be deemed as significant. I am pretty sure that the difference between my grandson's experience (when it happens, he is only 10 months old) and the experience of those who were in lower Manhattan will not be considered to be the same at all. Do such distinctions make sense in terms of "witnessing" evolution? I think yes.

Lets make the 9/11 experience somewhat more akin to the fossil record. Imagine we went out to Fresh Kills landfill in the months after 9/11 and found the remains of squashed firetrucks, pulverized office equipment, smashed concrete etc. these things are evidence of the destruction associated with the fall of the WTC towers. The items were present at the event, but we only observe the conditions of the artifacts and then imagine/interpret the meaning of the artifacts relative to that day. The artifacts are no longer involved in "the event," they exist in time outside of the event. That's what "records" do. They outlast events yet provide evidence of events.

Are fossils actually the thing that is evolution or is the fossil record _evidence_ of the thing that is evolution? I think the later. Do we observe or demonstrate evolution by noting the non-random patterns in the fossil record, or in more accurate language do we interpret a demonstrated sequence in the fossil record as evidence of past events of evolution carried thru the ages to our present? I think the later.

I know it's in part a semantic thing. But as someone who piddles around the edges of the philosophy of science in trying to introduce students to the ideas of empirical science, I think it is a distinction with some difference.

I also know that for most people that it is just plain piddling around with words.












There is a difference between evidence suggesting evolution took place and a direct observation of

[skepticscott]

87. Despite being a biologist

you seem to lack a basic understanding of how science works. Science does not "demonstrate" things like evolution. Science does not prove things. Demonstration requires a deductive process, while science is an inductive process. Science is about finding the best and most likely explanations for things based on the available evidence, and based on fossil evidence, genetic evidence and the biological interrelatedness of living organisms, evolution is, by far, the best explanation for how life got to be the way it is. Nevertheless, it cannot be considered "proven" or "demonstrated" in the way that a mathematical theorem is, and it never will be.

[HereSince1628]

125. When someone says they can demonstrate evolution

they generally mean that they can demonstrate evidence of an evolutionary event. That distinction is what brought me into this thread.

As far as I've looked no one around this thread seems to be suggesting that the demonstration of a phenomenon is equivalent to proving a theory. No one has suggested that science proves anything.


Evolutionary science is empirical. An empirical evolutionary event must in one manner or another be an observable (thus demonstrable) or at least detectable, manifestation of some aspect of the processes of evolution.

Definitions of evolution CAN and have been constructed in such a way as to make evolutionary mechanisms and processes very observable and very demonstrable.

Microevolution is quite literally defined as a shift in allelic frequency within a population. Shifts in allelic frequency are so easily demonstrated in cultures of populations of short generation-time organisms that it can be done inside a one semester lab course. I would say that microevolution processes _can_ in a practical way be demonstrated on demand.

Microevolution by definition doesn't require speciation or other processes that change the taxonomic richness of the array of life on the planet (the definition doesn't expressly exclude taxa generation, either).

Macroevolution does require a change the taxonomic richness of the array of life. The change can occur by either generating new taxa or by extinction.

Causing a taxa generating event either through cladogenesis or anagenesis on demand is pretty hard. Generation of new taxa is often considered to develop over many generations as the various mechanisms that indicate a new taxa develop and spread through a population, although some folks argue evidence strongly suggesting the process can be very quick. On the other side of macroevolution...demonstrating evidence of extinction in action is relatively easy (Although morally repulsive extinctions could probably be caused/demonstrated on demand).

I find it interesting that, both the notion of taxa generating processes and extinction met great resistance from religious authorities in the 1800's. Of these, only the taxa generating processes remain controversial in American religious communities. Probably for two reasons...1) because contemporary religious authorities don't readily admit that extinction is an evolutionary process and this is probably because 2) evidence of extinction has been so readily demonstrable.

[Arugula Latte]

49. I like the classic pepper moth example -- undeniable evidence of evolution at work

From Wikipedia:

"The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light coloration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-colored trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, due to widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees which peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-colored moths, or typica, to die off due to predation. At the same time, the dark-colored, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees.<4>

Since then, with improved environmental standards, light-colored peppered moths have again become common, but the dramatic change in the peppered moth's population has remained a subject of much interest and study, and has led to the coining of the term "industrial melanism" to refer to the genetic darkening of species in response to pollutants. As a result of the relatively simple and easy-to-understand circumstances of the adaptation, the peppered moth has become a common example used in explaining or demonstrating natural selection to laypeople and classroom students.<5>"

[Posteritatis]

50. That's a stupid distinction in the first place

"Macroevolution" is what you get when you have "microevolution" take place over a few zillion generations. Believing otherwise is in pretty much the same league as thinking a modern human fell out of an "ape"'s womb one day.

[Zhade]

55. I think it was a poor attempt to trip me up (that utterly failed).

NT!

[HereSince1628]

76. I don't think evolutionary theorists actually agree with your position

The notion that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution recorded on a larger scale of generations isn't really satisfactory to theorists. Although it is true that it is a common fallback position for lots of evolution enthusiasts.

If you consider macro-evolution as changes in the array of living types, then shifts in allele-frequencies are inadequate to explain all the patterns of change known to have occurred in the array of life. Thats particularly true if, like Gould, you consider interpretations of phenomena to be indications of mechanisms, yet not understood, that seem to introduce non-random patterns in speciation rates and extinction rates above the level of population (the level at which microevolution proceeds) or possibly even species. In these circumstances the interpretive power of traditional applications of "mechanisms of micro-evolution" begin to breakdown.

Some fairly well known circumstances should open the case for the need to consider other than micro-evolutionary events in macroevolution...

Granted some of the bias in macroevolutinoary rates may ultimately explained by phenomena at the level of allelic variation (such as horizontal gene transfer among many species occupying an eco-zone, as has been suggested for organisms during the Ediacarian). But you've got to admit that sort of thing is quite odd within the framework of microevolutionary thinking where mutations originating _within_ one generation of a species are the ultimate source of all allelic variation within the descendant populations of that population.

Consider the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria. That interspecific event of ecological causation was a transformingly important macroevolutionary event. It was an event that truly split the pattern of evolution of life on this planet into two divergent paths. But that event is far outside the familiar notions of microevolutionary change though the mechanisms of Hardy-Wienberg.

[Posteritatis]

106. Of course it isn't satisfactory; the two are a false creationist dichotomy in the first place. (nt)

[Evoman]

120. Evolution is evolution is evolution.

There is no difference between the two except the passage of time and the extent of changes. It may have been a useful concept in biology to distinguish between lab studies and things like fossil records, but it has been completely co-opted by moron creationists so they can argue that there is no such thing as macroevolution and everything we see in the lab is microevolution.

It's bullshit, and you should know better.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. I think Richard Lenski's E. coli experiment is particularly convincing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It that micro or macro? I'm tending towards the latter, because being able to use a new energy source is a fairly major bit of evolution.

[HereSince1628]

116. When there are species-defining changes it's going to be seen as macro-

That work shows several interesting phenomena including the emergence of bias in mutation rates and mustation sites. The citrate uptake appears to be part of an exaptive complex that biases the mutation within that strain which has been a postulated mechanism of macroevolution.

[TahitiNut]

44. "The Alpha and the Omega ... the Beginning and the End..."

I think it's ridiculous for someone to claim a belief in God ... Who (supposedly) Authored ALL of 'Creation" (including TIME itself) ... and then pretend She's some kind of Cosmic bowler, only responsible for setting things in motion at the beginning of some 'Time' which She is then Subject to (rather than the Creator of) but alos able to 'see' some 'future.' The Bible even says otherwise ... that Creation is the ENTIRETY ... from start to finish, beginning to end, alpha to omega.

Personally, I don't think of some anthropomorphic God ... but more of Something which is Existence itself, the very essence of "is-ness" ... the Grand "I Am" within which ALL exists, no matter "when."

[and-justice-for-all]

53. I can not answer the poll...

because facts are facts and empirical evidence is empirical evidence, things religion will never have. I do not need 'belief' to know Evolution, which has the evidence, is a fact.

As far as I am concerned, it is the LAW of Evolution; just there is a LAW of Gravity and Relativity.

[Zhade]

58. I think you meant to type "do NOT need belief"

:p

[and-justice-for-all]

60. Oops...all better...thanks..LOL

[BlueIris]

57. Evolution is a fact (fossil record). Natural Selection is a "theory" about how evolution occurred.

That's more or less how I would describe my view. My last anthropology and geology classes were a loooong time ago.

[GreenEyedLefty]

64. My views on evolution are evolving...

I used to think God created us, then I thought God created evolution, then I thought evolution was guided somehow, now I don't believe any religious explanations pertaining to evolution. I rather like Richard Dawkins' explanation regarding natural selection. It makes the most sense to me.

[El Pinko]

65. Nice poll, but not crazy about use of the word "belief".

It's like asking if someone believes in gravity. It's a fact, not a theory or an article of faith. The evolutionary process has been scientifically proven ad infinitum without any shadow of a doubt.

Whether or not a person believes a deity had something to do with designing the whole thing is their business, but evolution is fact. Adam and Eve are myth. Period.

I don't believe it, I know it.

[cynatnite]

67. Other: I agree with the theory of evolution. There is no god. n/t

[Iggo]

71. "...believe in..."

Those are powerful words. They mean different things to different people. I had a fundy ask me once if I believed in evolution. I said yes. Then she started to go off on what she thought the words "...believe in..." meant. Her conclusion was along the lines of "Since I believe in God and you believe in evolution, then you believe evolution is the same as God and blah blah blah..."

I wanted to lobotomize myself with a pickle fork.

Now my answer is "I don't believe in anything."

[RagAss]

72. and it's my opinion and that of many others that there is no one here

to take your little poll......

http://www.weiwuwei.8k.com/ppxxxi.html

[qwlauren35]

75. Other - I make no pretense of knowing.

The one thing I do believe is that matter and energy have always existed in the infinite past, and in that regard, there is neither beginning nor end.

Other than that, I have a very open mind. It is possible that there is a being that I don't understand that is made of matter and/or energy that can "create". It is possible that "creation" was a function of some form of evolution.

But I have too many other things to deal with to spend pondering something that ends up having no impact on my life.

Like winning this $%^&*( election.

[dropkickpa]

77. I accept the evidence of evolution

and there is no such thing as god.

[Lucian]

79. The first one.

[Greyhound]

80. Never mind, Zhade already said it. n/t

Enjoy the pic, click it and give Dennis a hand.

[timtom]

81. Totally a non-issue

Fun to speculate on but non-provable either way. It is intellectual arrogance to say anything other than, "Hmmm...could be."

[Posteritatis]

108. Love the claim of non-provenness in a thread full of same (nt)

[timtom]

110. I'm not sure I understand fully

your oblique statement.

Is my comment redundant?

The final sentence of the OP is the question, "So...what are your beliefs about evolution?"

Did I not answer the question to your satisfaction? Do you dispute my belief?

[Posteritatis]

113. If you say evolution's nonprovable, then I do, because your belief is wrong. (nt)

[timtom]

115. Hence, the "arrogance" part of my statement

I do not care what level of scientist you are. You can only construct the most likely theory to explain any particular thing. Regardless of repeatability of any series of events in a theory, you only have a construct that seems to work.

[Posteritatis]

117. Have fun ignoring observed reality! (nt)

[timtom]

118. Why are you so fucking snarky????

The OP asked me for my opinion.

Well GODDAMN! It doesn't match up with yours!

So you have taken the role of evangelist to mock me and tell me how wrong I am to doubt things beyond my ken.

You are so fucking arrogant you probably think you have a handle on reality and how it works.

I know I don't. But you're special; very, very special.

End of discussion. I don't like blatherskites. Especially negative, mocking ones.

[JustAnotherGen]

88. Just my thoughts - Since you asked . . .

I do agree with the theory/idea (call it whatever you want) of evolution. The spirit path says - the big bang was instigated by something . . . you can have an infinite end but not an infinite beginning.

What disturbs me about these discussions is that they are always wrapped up in the bible. Be it King James, The Book, Roman Catholic, yada yada yada.

I have to preface this with the fact that I'm a Practicing Unitarian (humanist), raised by a Baptist and Methodist, who attend a Parochial (Catholic) high school and Catholic University.

However, as a little girl I learned an oral version of the Cherokee Creation story and was rewarded with Fried Apple Pie for repeating it back to my dad's mother. My parternal Grandmother was part Cherokee. She learned it from her mother, who learned it from her mother, who learned it from hers, and so on and so forth. She taught it to all of us. It's in TEN PARTS. Those of you who study numerology in the context of unorthodox Christianity, Celtic traditions, and African Tribal religions will understand that significance.

I'll paraphrase the TEN points:

1. Before there were people the earth was just covered with a lot of water.

2. The 'dirt' aka 'earth' was suspended by straps of leather (can't remember the word she used but it was a Cherokee word) which held it up over the water. On the earth lived all kinds of animals, bugs, flora, etc. etc. There was a beautiful sun, a rainbow. It was a beautiful place up there.

3. The animals decided to come down to the water but they needed someplace to put the 'earth'. The Water Beetle Lady was sent down into the water to see what she could find. She creates a place to put down the 'earth' by rustling up some mud. But heavy animals would just sink down into the mud.

4. The Old Man (a bird -again can't remember the Cherokee word she used - but it's a word for a bird) goes out after some time to see if the mud is sturdy enough for other animals. As he's flying over this 'mud' he stirs up the dirt and this is why we have hills and dales. :-) The mountains are so big that they touch the end of the rainbow. He rests on the mountain, and discovers that it is definately sturdy enough for all of the animals.

5. The animals come down to the new 'earth' via the rainbow. But they discover it's dark and cold.

6. They decided to pull their sun down to this new earth and to have it go back and forth from east to west so that all the new creatures on earth can enjoy the sun.

7. Then they decided to bring down their trees, grass, flowers, plants.

8. This is the good part - pay attention! Why? It's people far far away from the Passion Death Resurrection witht no influence of Isis, Mithra, Abraham, Moses, or Jesus:rofl:

***The Creator tells the everything to stay awake for seven days and nights . ******

9. Only a few animals were actually able to do this. Like for example owls, and bats - and that's why they have the ability to see so well at night. And the pine trees and their 'type' - they got to keep their 'needles and leaves' in the winter because they did as the Creator told them.

10. Finally The Creator looks around and says, "What the heck. Let's have some people." The creator lets women have babies every seven days!:-) But we were WORSE :omg: than the rabbits (I can still hear my Grandmama laughing at that bit). We had so many PEOPLE that The Creator feared we'd trample everything and hurt all of the animals. So then The Creator said, "Women - you have this power to create. But you can only do it once a year."

So from a Cherokee perspective - we came not from "Out of the Deep". . . But from up above. And we've always placed The Creators beautiful wonderful work of art in jeopardy! :rofl:


My point? I wasn't there at the beginning of time. I might have come from the deep. I might have come from above.

But I find it significant that human beings at one time all resided on one land mass. As the earth changed and split into the continents - there was something imprinted on those on 'this Western Hemisphere side of the world' that was ALSO imprinted on those in the Eastern side of the world.

Take Jesus and the Torah out of it. In the spectrum of Spiritual Paths - these are very very YOUNG and NEW ideas/paths. But these seven days/seven nights, up from above, man/woman created and falling into disfavor with 'The God/Creator' are common themes.

So do I think evolution is valid and logical? Again, I'll say yes. Do I think that as part of the Human Experience we seek a beginning? Yes to that too.

[AngryAmish]

92. Read Karl Popper on science

It is the philosophy that modern scientific thoght is based on.

Only take philosophy courses on logic (this is manditory). Do not become a philosophy major - it hurts your head.

[callous taoboy]

95. Those who vote for the second choice, a question:

Who created God?

[JerseygirlCT]

97. God was, is and always will be

So the short answer: no one. God existed before anything else.

And a caveat: this is a *religious* opinion, not intended as science, or objective fact. Not intended to imply that one could or should have to "prove" it.

(Added to forestall the usual flood of insults, etc.)

[LWolf]

99. Other:

I don't "believe" in evolution. It just is, regardless of my beliefs. Whether or not human science understands and explains it accurately? An unanswered question. As someone who is ok with unanswered questions, with not putting a dot at the end of every answer, with the unending search for more answers, with the idea that there is not one correct answer for every question, I'm perfectly comfortable with our evolving understanding, and with the idea that what we understand now about evolution may be just as flawed, in its own way, as what we understood about how the world worked a thousand years ago. Or not.

Whether evolution is part of a larger driving force in the cosmos? Also an unanswered question. I "believe" it to be so.

[Avalux]

101. Please do not use the word "believe" when speaking of evolution.

There is no belief involved. A better word would be "accept". "Do you accept evolution as the explanation for life on this planet?".

Your post is good, but one of the things creationists do is try to confound evolution as an interchangeable belief with creationism, intelligent design, etc. It isn't.

[Sebastian Doyle]

119. Where's the option for the "Garrison theory"??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjqdLG5RNg

[Evoman]

121. Evolution is fact.

Belief of non-belief is irrelevant.

[Dukkha]

123. Willful stupidity is not a fact

evolution is a proven reality. religion is a myth and is not now, nor ever will be, an acceptable "opposing viewpoint"

[geek_sabre]

124. I voted "other"

I'm becoming more and more of a evolutionary theologist.

Creation isn't something that happened, and is done and over with. Its something that continues to happen. Evolution is Creationism, and Evolution is "God." Our perception of "God" is not necessarily accurate; he's not a literal old guy in the sky, but our perception of him is an attempt to rationalize and understand our world, and to cope with our primative instinctual urges in a modern world. Whether or not you want to call it "God" is not the point, some call it nature, some call it Cosmos, some don't call it anything. All it is is a proper name for the largest system in the universe that includes all other systems. "Science" and "Religion" are just different ways of describing the same phenomena.

I am a biology/chemistry teacher, and I teach "by the book," but I've become really fascinated in this as of late.