Do you believe in evolution? The dumbing down of America

[mudesi]

The fact that 51% of Americans dispute evolution is the perfect example of why things are in such a sorry state.

Link: 51% don't accept evolution

Another 30% believe "God" guided the evolutionary process.

It's no wonder that the politicians are a bunch of ignoramuses, look at who's electing them. Let me say it again: A little over half of all Americans dispute the theory of evolution, and another third think God guided evolution.

This, no doubt, must include a sizable chunk of DUers. To all of you who do not accept evolution as the currently held scientific consensus of how life on Earth developed, I have one thing to say to you: They are lying to you.

Nobody who would claim that "God" created humans or that "God" guided evolution is a legitimate, self respecting scientist. These "conclusions" are not based on any observable fact or any valid scientific evaluation. Yet as of Oct. 23, 2005, (when the above article came out), 51% have fallen for the lies, and 30% want to pretend like there is a compromise.

This entire issue exemplifies the dumbing down of America. The GOP and the religious right have successfully fooled 1 out of every 2 people. They play the ignorance up, because the ignorant are easily manipulated. They use these lies as wedge issues to keep the ignorant distracted from the real issues, such as health care (for example).

In this way, they can easily cut funding to essential social services and shift funding to the military, sell wars, take away freedom, give giant corporations welfare, and stay in power. Note that education is included in the services that they fail to adequately fund. An entire generation has been brainwashed.

I urge all of you who would consider yourselves to be in the 51%, and even you people in the 30%, to please educate yourselves. The Internet can be a great tool. Wikipedia, despite its user created content, gives the subject a good treatment. Give it a read. Stop believing the lies.

[Flatulo]

1. I've always been baffled by brilliant engineers who examine data all day...

... to draw conclusions, and then turn around and express a profound faith in mysticism.

Wierd. But different strokes...

[Critters2]

2. I used to live in a town with one doctor. He was deeply involved

with the most fundie church in town, one which VEHEMENTLY denied evolution. I went out of town to a doc, and people thought that was weird. But I couldn't feel good about being treated by a guy who surely must have believed in the basics of biology at work, but supported an organization that denied them in his spare time.

[Tesha]

15. A doctor who fails to believe in evolution can't accurately prescribe antibiotics...

A doctor who fails to believe in evolution can't accurately
prescribe antibiotics since the entire concept of antibiotic
resistance in germs requries a belief in evolution (well, or
magic, I suppose).

Tesha

[Critters2]

64. That's what I figured.

So, either he's a REALLY bad doctor, or he's dishonest. Either way, I'll trust my health to someone else.

[KittyWampus]

19. Maybe it's because their deep understanding of nature allows them to overcome philosophical BIAS

Perhaps their familiarity with the UNWRITTEN laws of nature allow them to expand their world view beyond Materialism which only values or recognizes what is "written" or physical.

[Odin2005]

38. Spare us the New Age BS.

[mr blur]

68. Are you being satirical?

I hope so, otherwise it would seem to be too late for you.

[firefox_fan]

60. Materialism and reductionism are hard on people...

Nothing secular has replaced religion in terms of giving people real hope about the future and themselves. So, not surprising that religion is still around. I'm an atheist, but I can see why many people might want to believe that some benign entity takes care of them and humanity. Of course, god does not seem like a benign entity these days, more like a fucked-up sadist. But that's irrelevant.

[ToeBot]

65. Engineering is not Evolutionary Biology, it's not even a life science,

except genetic engineering, but I'm unfamiliar with any creationist genetic engineers. If you want an explanation, I would say look to the individual. People that design things may find it impossible that something as complex and efficient as life could occur randomly. Particularly if they are unfamiliar with the mechanisms involved. As designers, they demand that life too, had a designer.

[karlrschneider]

3. Snake oil salesmen have always done well.

P. T. Barnum was wrong...there's a sucker born every -second-.

A lot of people will always be willing to fall for a con game...and trade personal treasure for either a get-rich-quick scheme or eternal paradise. It's the only real distinction between Western fundamentalists and those from the Middle East.
But maybe it isn't a distinction at all...
:eyes:

[MN ChimpH8R]

4. To believe in something for which there is no

extrinsic evidence and for which there can be no extrinsic evidence is to abandon your responsibility as a human being. Faith can never change and must deny that which does not fit in its dogmatic framework. Science, on the other hand is constantly self-correcting and self-examining.

Science wins 1000 times out of 1000 because it is verifiable.

The deliberate and systematic dumbing down of the populace began the day Raygun announced for the presidency and it has continued unabated since then. My guess is that about 30% of the population is functionally illiterate and incapable of finishing the classic syllogism: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is ______.

[Flatulo]

6. Your first paragraph is not only memorable, but quotable.

Thanks for articulating that.

[hfojvt]

8. what is the responsibility of a human being again?

In your religion, that is. Can you give me the extrinsic evidence that proves those things are the responsibility of a human being?

[NuttyFluffers]

14. i'm trying to reconcile how 'empathy' would be replaced by Boyle's Gas Law

i cannot 99.9% prove empathy, let alone prove its 99.9% continuous benefit to mankind, but i'm curious why i must discard belief in it for the sake of retaining scientific laws. i think people are getting carried away with another form of hysterical reactionism, but this time towards 'spiritual mysteries'. i think we can have both; they don't seem mutually exclusive in all areas. the mechanics of reality does not obviate the need of a world view (aka. guiding principle of direction).

[KittyWampus]

21. The mechanics of reality may not obviate a world view but they ALWAYS exist within in one.

Whether that philosophy is Materialism or Idealism.

All humans think and live within an acquired philsophical framework. Most humans are clueleess to this process and simply take on the predominent world view of their society. In the western world, and especially in the US, that framework is Materialism.

Most people posting here on DU are Materialists but don't have the self awareness to grasp that. They haven't taken the time to explore various philsophies or to accurately identify their own.

Thus, they argue from the Materialistic standpoint without even realising it.

Although I've run into a few DU'ers who actually claim they are the Idealists (which is bizarre).

[NuttyFluffers]

22. yay! someone who 'gets it'.

your an 'it' getter, aren't you? :D

it always saddens me when people deride the 'soft and squishy' side of education. the humanities and liberal studies do have quite a bit to contribute to the understanding of our world's problems. i wish, like you, people were more literate about them so that they could discuss at least a modicum more rationally. i always found it fascinating that people who desire control regularly and immediately attack this part of education in a culture first. there is a reason, several actually, and you just scratched the surface why such literacy in these matters are important.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive

You can be a "materialist" and still believe in the "soft and squishy" side of education. I am an English and communications teacher. I am very much a materialist. The humanities and liberal arts don't need to be materialistic, but the part that becomes tough is when you try to make the "soft and squishy" the basis for science, i.e. people not thinking evolution is real because they want to believe in Genesis because it makes them feel better. That is where the problem is.

[NuttyFluffers]

85. correct, as someone adequately noted, having apples define oranges tends to be bad

it works both ways, too. attempting to define the squishy stuff in terms of the hard stuff tends to benefit neither. it's a problem from both directions, and is often sourced to the manipulation by power to keep many distracted.

[KittyWampus]

34. And the weird thing is, a lot of DUers argue the Rationalist point irrationally!

:D

[Odin2005]

40. I am well read on Metaphysics and find Idealism and Dualism to be ridiculous.

I am a non-reductionist Materialist.

[NuttyFluffers]

86. that's nice dear!

:hug:

[MN ChimpH8R]

81. You need not have or lose faith in empathy

because it can scientifically be proven to exist. After my Asperger's DX I researched the condition extensively. I discovered that indicia of empathy on the person-to-person level are everywhere and that I am blind to many of them. But the actions themselves can be quantified and interpreted by a psychologist.

[NuttyFluffers]

88. well it's a bit more than that, but yes, good comment!

it's more than proof of existence (which at some point is a value judgment of the viewer on the viewed's response to stimuli, which gets into even more complexities, such as whether being masked, bias of interpreter, unrelated conception, etc... anyhoo), it's also mechanics, purpose, potential universality, etc. for scratching the surface example, when we see an animal 'care' for another, even from a different species, what do we make of it? when we see plants and fungi 'help' each other, even across vast networks spanning miles upon miles in the forest, and occasionally to the short-term detriment (nutrient loss, etc), is that related to the concept of empathy? or are these things completely unassociated because of the vast difference of these beings and the current impossibility of 'knowing' such motivation? and if they are associated, how can they be present in vastly different chemical/ecosystem/sentience situations? and on and on it can go. at some point the concept we name for an occurence starts to defy our capacity to quantify and define; where abstractions do not have concrete proofs of their existence w/o the general agreement of other accepted abstractions. this would be a self-reinforcing circle of logic at that point. one would have to be honest at that moment and realize how/why there is a leap of faith and agreed world view that comes in play.

but i'd love to see some of these studies of proof of empathy! :D sounds like a fun read!

[MN ChimpH8R]

80. No religion here

After reading and re-reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith I climbed down off the fence and admitted to myself that I was an atheist and probably had been since I was a teenager.

The responsibility of a human being is to have a rational reason for thinking what you think, at least about the big stuff and the things you learn through a rational process. Be able to use logic to explain why you think what you think. Human beings have one tool at their mental disposal that always works. It is called reason.

Reason, not faith, put man on the moon. Reason, not faith, vanquished polio. Reason, not faith, built the Petronas tower. If you start with a valid premise, reason will lead you in the right direction.

Carl Sagan said it better than I: "I'd rather know than believe."

[Tesha]

16. And even when science seems to lose...

> Science wins 1000 times out of 1000 because it is verifiable.

And even when science seems to lose, it recognizes that
it is incomplete or wrong and it *EVOLVES* (there's that
word again) until it eventually wins. That's how it
manages to eventually win 1000 out of 1000.

Tesha

[KittyWampus]

20. And who is more dogmatic than the Materialists? And "Science" is now beholden to Industry

and the Almighty dollar.

[Goblinmonger]

27. I find it interesting

that the response of the dogmatic, when called dogmatic, is to return the label. Initially my response is a chuckle because it is so "I know you are but what am I?" But the bigger question is why is that your plan of attack? Why can't you own your dogmatic worldview and explain how it is legit? Why do you attack with it? Especially when it is so clearly untrue (and before you say it isn't, please define the "dogma" that the scientist must follow).

[KittyWampus]

36. Just a friendly reply, my world view embraces both Materialism & Idealism. While I argue

the Idealist viewpoint, that doesn't mean I negate the value of Materialism. Thus, I am not dogmatic.

Both philopsophies are valid. And even necessary. As Male and Female are also necessary.

But Materialism has become too pervasive. It has calcified.

Things are out of balance.

The world is now suffering for a lack of Idealism.

[Goblinmonger]

48. I think more people should embrace both.

I tried to make that clear.

The problem I think many have it when you use idealism to make scientific decisions.

I can read Middlesex and teach my students about duality, acceptance, finding yourself, etc. None of that is about materialism. We can learn greatly from the idealism of literature. But to then turn to evolution and apply idealism and opt for the Genesis version because it makes you feel better is foolish. And to then make political decisions based on that idealistic version of science is even more foolish.

I think we are saying the same things?

[Odin2005]

41. No it is not.

That is a BS argument created by you anti-science New Age woo woos.

[regularguy]

28. Don't agree that science "wins", because I don't acknowledge the battle.

I think of this dichotomy as a right-wing construct. Does our "responsibility" as humans allow us to speculate about the unknowable?

[B3Nut]

39. Socrates is _____ .... a peanut butter and banana sandwich!!!

Do I win? :D

(yes, I know the correct answer is "mortal"...hehehehehehe)

+1 on the faith denying that which does not fit into its dogmatic framework...the cognitive dissonance caused by that very characteristic of faith started driving me away from it. I realized I could not square literal belief in Genesis with empirical evidence that I could readily observe and analyze (no death before the fall, the flood myth, no carnivores before the fall vs. the obvious evolution of bee/wasp ovipositors into hunting and defensive stings, etc.) Once the house of cards starts to collapse, there is little that can be done to shore it up while remaining logically consistent and coherent, I find.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[DarkTirade]

84. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is ______

Long dead? :)

[Naturyl]

5. Well put.

There is no legitimate debate over the reality of evolution. There is no "compromise," only a choice: to accept facts and evidence or to ignore them.

To ignore is to be ignorant, by definition.

[hfojvt]

7. so what are you saying?

That we must either
a) believe there is no God or gods, or
b) believe that any deity is necessarily powerless to affect events

And this is proven how?

I am sure there are plenty of legitimate, self-respecting and peer-respected scientists who believe in God. It's not a scientific belief, but they also believe that not all truths are decided by science.

However, is this line of argument really necessary? Which is your goal, getting people to believe in evolution, or getting them to vote for Democrats?

[Jack Sprat]

10. Agree with you., why is this necessary?

A person's beliefs should not be an object of ridicule nor respect. It is theirs. I don't think it was a legitimate question in the debate, either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. The two goals are compatible, and reinforce each other

Republicans like ignoring science, if it ever gets in the way of a profit (eg global warming). They're also happy for a hierarchy to encourage people to remain in ignorance - it generally furthers their aims of controlling everything.

For the long term good of the USA, people should understand evolution, since it's part of being properly educated. In the short term, they should vote for Democrats, who don't have goals of keeping the populace in ignorance.

Sure, it's possible to believe that a god guided evolution - just like it's possible to believe that someone who recovered from cancer did so because God willed it. But it's not necessary.

[NuttyFluffers]

17. but people always forget that these reactionaries also ignore 'faith'

it's not that the hardcore GOP backwash just ignores science, but that they also ignore faith. but, and this is key, they pander to both -- when it suits their needs, and only when it suits their needs. that is the hypocrisy, and the irony that people often forget; these cynical leaders use and abuse "both sides of the science/faith coin" (whatever that means...).

remember, they had to abandon their 'faith' first, which preaches a very different gospel, before they even attacked science. they use science (both social and hard) to gain power and abuse others in their way. remember gains in mass production technology? then they use social science to manipulate 'the herd,' who are adamantly ensconced in the trappings of 'faith abused'. thus 'science' is then used to dissect and destroy 'faith'.

these poor people of 'faith abused' are stuck in feedback loops of fanaticism (which is what many people really want to attack, and which is another spiritual mystery unto itself -- though negative). they are desperate, in a world rapidly changing and seemingly have no place for them. in this desire to be needed they give their organized power to those who validate them. so when tech innovations come to thwart the reins of power these 'faithful' are then used as an ablative wall. thus 'faith' is then used as a bludgeon to attack 'science.'

notice how it's a cyclical loop of selfishness (which is another spiritual mystery; the heirarchy of needs speaks nothing about the 'need' to cruelly abuse and harm others, sometimes even at one's own expense). everything is wielded as tools for gratification, regardless of the implications. there is no 'truth' of either science or faith that cannot be twisted into a 'lie' (this is allegorical, btw); they are both being attacked, often out of sheer expediency. ends justifying means, isn't it?

this is where it would be wise for people to learn and understand about spiritual mysteries, such as faith. they, like science, are merely the mechanics/concepts of their realities (one on "earth", one in "heaven"; physical universe, psychic universe). for example, "what is selfishness and how does it germinate?", "why does fanaticism occur and how can it be broken?' are all valuable questions we could be asking instead of alienating others for sheer details on how they worship/find inner peace. to begin the process of undoing this evil we need to understand fully what is being done, not just one side of the equation.

[KittyWampus]

24. Well written, very insightful and you should write a book. It's an important subject.

How the GOP uses Science AND Religion as it suits them.

[mudesi]

35. Nothing to do with God

This is about the scientific theory of evolution, nothing more, nothing less.

To ascribe God as the source of evolution is inherently unscientific and ignorant of the facts that lead scientists to their conclusions about evolution.

The biological process of random genetic mutation and the population growth associated with those changes has nothing to do with any "God" controlling things.

I said this in a post below: What if a so called scientist said God guided lightning? You know that's not true.

[hfojvt]

67. nothing to do with God

except that you are saying that science is more important.

What you are talking about is not the beliefs of scientists who are doing scientific research (at least not for the most part) but the beliefs of laymen who are doing other things.

I am not sure how facts have anything to do with it. If there was a scientific theory of bowling, that described how heavy balls rolled down a lane and knocked pins about in a stochastic way and then a sweeper reset them. It does not deny any of those facts to point out (or believe) that there is a purpose to these activities.

The first chapter of Darwin is about domestic animals and plants. If humans can guide evolution by producing different animal and plant breeds (and also by causing the extinction or virtual extinction of some species), then why can't God, if there is a God?

[Maru Kitteh]

9. I believe that evolution produced humanity. I also believe in God.

I'm not ashamed or apologetic for either belief.

[Jack Sprat]

11. Nor should you be.

[maine_raptor]

13. Man invented God, not the other way around. n/t

[KittyWampus]

18. Most Americans INCLUDING many DU'ers mistake Evolution for Darwinism

That is any poll on Evolution etc is going to be inaccurate.

And on this topic, the mistake is made by many, many liberals.

For instance, I've heard Randi Rhodes and Al Frankin mistake Evolution for Darwinism.

[alarimer]

What the fuck is Darwinism?

Natural Selection (Darwin's original idea) is the very backbone of biological theory. If you are talking about social Darwinism (something that actually had nothing to do with Darwin), it is simply an abuse of the theory.

Evolution is FACT, like gravity. The mechanism by which it happens is natural selection. Organisms pass on their genes to their offspring. Generally, traits that are unfavorable mean that the organism will not survive to pass on its genes and, thus, change occurs in populations. Sometimes changes happen fairly quickly, in human terms, such as drug resistance in bacteria, but other times it is much slower.

[genie_weenie]

45. By calling it Darwinism

anti-evolution proponents can claim no one else in the world ever came up with the idea of descent with modification.

It also allows them to dictate the terms of a debate. And if they can slander Darwin with all manner of lies (e.g. he's an atheist, he converted on his deathbed, he's a racist, his idea lead to Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler) then QED "his" theory must be wrong.

[alarimer]

30. What the fuck is Darwinism?

double post.

[Odin2005]

42. Your ignorance is showing.

I's called Darwinism (or sometimes Neo-Darwinism) to distingush modern Evolutionary Biology from Lamarkian and Saltationist notions that predominated before around 1920.

[EstimatedProphet]

23. You're comparing apples and oranges

Everyone is, and that's the problem. People 'believe' in articles of faith. People 'accept' facts. The press conflates the two constantly, to the point that people now don't understand the difference. Believing in evolution is like believing in Tuesday. Tuesday exists whatever beliefs we have. By the same token, there's no reason why a scientist coudn't 'believe' that God guides evolution, but to 'accept' it would be absurd, since there's no evidence for it. Scientists can believe whatever they want, but have to only accept proven facts.

[Selatius]

25. You hit the nail on the head.

With evolution, you either accept it or deny it. The evidence is already there.

With God, you can believe in God or not. The evidence is not there. That is an article of faith in the absence of evidence.

[mudesi]

37. There is a reason a scientist can NOT believe God guided evolution

The reason is because it's not true. The process of evolution is well defined and observed. There is no "God" guiding the random genetic mutations of a population - it's biochemistry.

It's like saying there is no reason a scientist can't believe God creates lighting. That would be dishonest and ignorant. We already know better that lighting is a discharge of static electricity.

[EstimatedProphet]

47. No, I disagree

It isn't that it is untrue, it is that the evidence does not indicate it. We have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. Science deals in reasons. Biochemistry is a reason. God is a cause. As such, God can be the cause of evolution or of lightning, or of anything. Science doesn't deal with the cause of the mechanism, it deals with the mechanism by which the process comes about.

[mudesi]

50. God is the cause of lightning?

Lightning happens from a discharge of electricity, not from some deity. We do know that that is true. Similar logic can be applied to many aspects of the theory of evolution.

I think you're splitting too many hairs when you differentiate between the definitions of "reason" and "cause" to make your point.

[EstimatedProphet]

56. No, I'm not

Lightning happens from a discharge of electricity. That is proven. Whether or not there is a deity which causes (through the creation of the laws of physics) the conditions where lightning can happen cannot be tested by science. It has no bearing on the mechanism of how lightning works whether God causes it or whether it just happens on its own. To say that the fact that the mechanism works and you know how it works proves that God doesn't exist is to say that you know god cannot cause it, simply because you know how the mechanism works. That's no more valid an answer than to say that you know God must cause it because it works. Science only studies how the mechanism works - God is explored in another medium, namely theology.

[skyblue]

82. What about a sick and twisted God who would allow things such as the plague killing 1/3 of Europe as

well as other sick and twisted things but also wanted some form of evolution as well as several mass extinctions of millions of living creatures. Just a sick, twisted kind of God.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. This is a REGRESSION

When I was in high school, we studied evolution in biology class and literally the ONLY people who objected were the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Two things happened:

1. American society has been steadily dumbed down since the Reagan administration. It was never really popular to be smart, but now it's a downright social liability.

2. The country suburbanized. Whatever you say about suburbs, they have no natural center, no natural social focus, nothing but anonymous chain stores. The fundamentalist megachurches came in and provided one-stop community for places where all the residents were new. While keeping their congregants busy with a full range of activities for all ages, they have been indoctrinating them in anti-science, anti-democracy ideologies.

[alarimer]

31. The only shows that 51% of the population are idiots

But we already knew that.

[TnDem]

32. The difference is macro and micro evolution....

And that is where most division is evident...

I believe that micro evolution occurs because we have seen direct evidence of it's existence...

However, we have NEVER seen macro-evolution nor any credible evidence therof. In other words, a species/genus may adapt a certain trait to overcome a problem in its surroundings..With ecological genetics, it may be possible for a species of bird to develop a curved beak over time to crack a certain type of nut indigenous to its surroundings...The birds with the straight beaks cannot get the nut crack and then die...The ones that can adapt will then survive and thrive.

However, there is NO real evidence for macroevolution which basically states that a frog and a human have a common ancestor. That is what the entire "theory" of evolution in the media sense rests on. There is also the little issue of MATTER and ENERGY, both of which came from somewhere. The theory of evolution does not even begin to answer this question with anything other than a laughable speculation.

The theory of macroevolution,(which is really what we think of when we say "the theory of evolution"), allows humans to create a complete world in their mind without a creator...Thus anything goes with this belief because since everything evolved on its own, there is no "God" to answer to.

The bottom line is that both are THEORIES and are FAITHS. Neither can be proven with scientific validity. That's why they are called theories.

I believe God created Heaven and earth and that He put in place a way for species to evolve within their own kind, but I do NOT believe that we have a common ancestor with a antelope.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mudesi]

44. That's not true

There is much evidence of macro evolution. Recent studies have found common genes in humans and chimps, for example. (link. Do a google, there's more) The fossil record also has a plethora of evidence that indicates common ancestry.

Your beliefs that humans did not have a common ancestor with another species are based entirely on your own ignorance of the subject.

[TnDem]

52. It means nothing...because...

We share the 99.4% of the same DNA as chimps just as a Ford Maverick shared 99.4% of the design of a Ford Mustang..

Sharing design traits shows a common DESIGNER not a evolutionary link that said one came from another.

No evidence....

[mudesi]

58. Do some reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

I urge you to read the above link with an open mind, and then to do a few Google searches for credible authors on the subject, as well as visit your local library. (The above link, in fact has an excellent bibliography. You should also take note of the common misconceptions).

You will absolutely change your mind when you acquaint yourself with the relevant facts. Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power.

[slackmaster]

49. Evidence for macroevolution is indirect but abundant

It comes from a broad range of scientific disciplines.

...However, we have NEVER seen macro-evolution...

You must be from the mythical "if it isn't based on direct observation, it's not science" school of science, brought to you by the so-called "Intelligent Design" front of equivocators and prevaricators.

Nobody's ever directly observed beta decay of a neutron or the formation of a star either, but that doesn't take theories about those processes out of the realm of science.

[TnDem]

54. If it's not direct, it's not science....

Just like the theory of intelligent design...It also makes a lot of sense when it is studied objectively...However, since either are unproveable in a laboratory, they are both THEORIES and thusly, FAITHS...

Out of the realm of science? Nothing is out of the realm of science, including intelligent design.

It takes faith to believe that "everything in the universe came from a dot smaller than one in the page of a book". This garbage is actually taught as FACT in some elementary textbooks....That's no different than saying that God created it...Both are theories with corresponding hypotheses.

[slackmaster]

61. The theory of evolution is silent on the origin of the universe

But I think you already knew that.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. Thanks for telling that to scientists.

I guess Keplers's indirect measurements of the motion of planets puts a big ol' hole in Newtons "gravity" thing.

[mike_c]

57. polyploidy is instant (and observable) macroevolution....

Sorry, but macroevolution is observable. Gradualism is not, but it's only one of many natural processes that occur on time scales longer than human lifetimes. Nonetheless, we know they're happening because we can see the evidence even if we don't live long enough to encompass the events themselves.

[NickB79]

78. Research "induced polyploidy" and get back to me

Researchers have used various chemicals to double the number of chromosomes in reproductive cells of various species in the labs, and the resulting offspring are a NEW SPECIES, ie they cannot reproduce with members of the species they were created from to create viable offspring. These have also been observed in nature in species as varied as arctic flowers, insects, goldfish, salamanders, and lizards. Macroevolution has been observed many times by scientists, both with and without human intervention.

[WildEyedLiberal]

89. Of course evolution doesn't explain the source of matter and energy.

Neither does it explain nuclear fission. Why the hell would a a theory underpinning biology explain phenomena dictated by the laws of physics? What a silly argument.

Just curious: do you deny the existence of early hominids (neanderthals, Homo Habilis, etc)? Do you deny that human beings - and aforementioned hominid progenitors - are a member of the same order of mammals as apes?

If so, then you might as well admit that you don't believe in reality.

If not, have you ever considered the possibility that those early hominids were precursors to homo sapiens - that is to say, that desirable traits from such species were reproduced and the offspring thus eventually evolved into homo sapiens, while undesirable traits eventually led to the extinction of said species? If you have considered that possibility, is it such a stretch to imagine that, millenia before that, humans and apes had a common ancestor, the offspring of which produced traits that are observable in today's humans and chimpanzees? If you can wrap your mind around that, is it such a stretch to believe that all life on earth evolved in such a manner?

The fact is that this planet is approximately four billion years old, and for a good amount of that time, life on earth remained single-celled. The fact is that life slowly - yes - evolved, becoming more and more complex. The fact is that primordial life forms passed certain key traits onto future generations, which can be observed through fossil records. That process is known as evolution and it resulted in the diversity of life on earth we see today.

You drastically misuse the term "theory." As scientists use the word, "theory" refers to a coherent body of principle that explains a certain discipline. It does NOT mean a "guess" or a "conjecture" as it does in informal vernacular. The definition of scientific theory is one of the basic foundations of understanding the scientific method and when you spectacularly misstate such a basic foundational principle of science you cripple your argument and prove that you have no real business trying to argue science with anyone.

Faith, by definition, is something that must be believed in absence of evidence. You assert that there is "no scientific validity" to evolution, but you are, once again, astonishingly wrong; it would not be a scientific THEORY if it had not passed muster through the scientific method.

I don't mean to be rude but did you take elementary school science? My childhood science education didn't dwell on evolutionary biology but I did learn what the scientific method was, and the means by which scientists test hypotheses and arrive at theories. You appear to lack even that basic knowledge. Please, educate yourself before you opine about such things in public - you are NOT doing "religion" any favors with your argument.

FTR, I am not an atheist. But I don't have to be to look at the evidence and understand the reality of evolution.

[InvisibleTouch]

33. To quote an undergrad anthropology prof of mine:

No, I don't believe in evolution, because the word belief implies faith in something you otherwise have no proof for. I don't believe in evolution - I know it as a fact.

[TahitiNut]

46. "Fish will be the last to discover water." (Einstein)

I'm continuously perplexed by those who'd make their omnipotent 'God' subject to Time - something (as Einstein described) that's an intrinsic attribute of Creation and, therefore, subordinate to the 'Creator.' Even the Bible indicates that 'God' is the "alpha and omega" - for whom bothe the Beginning and End of the Universe is as 'now.' Just because our minds are immersed in a Newtonian paradigm of cause and effect doesn't subordinate the Omnipotent to our limited comprehension. When some say that all things (was, is, and will be) exist within the Mind of God, it comes closer to my own sense of what's meant by 'God': The Grand "Is". So, I find such arguments as contrary to Faith itself ... an admission of lack of Faith and the hypocrisy of a 'God' in service to the mundane and self-serving interests of Narcissistic Man.

Ridiculous.

[BurtWorm]

51. Even the pollsters do not understand what evolution is.

This question on the origin of human beings, asked both this month and in November 2004, offered the public three alternatives: 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.


The question implies that evolution is teleological, with an end toward "advancement" and perfection. This is not actually how speciation works, according to either Darwin or current biologists as I understand them. Species evolve into being as their physical characteristics are shaped over time by random mutations, sexual selection, the dying off of those with unsuccessful traits and the genetic passing on of successful traits. It takes time for a species to evolve into being but it probably is not millions of years, maybe only tens of thousands or possibly even thousands.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue that, given those three choices, anyone who claims to agree with the third is misunderstanding that choice. That 51% chose it would seem to indicate that too large a number of Americans are ignorant about the overwhelming evidence that the human species is a product of the evolution of previous species.

[mikelgb]

53. to me, saying "God guides evolution"

is just like saying "Mother Nature guides evolution"

I have no problem with this

[SmokingJacket]

55. Not buying evolution and saying God guided it are VERY different.

I would guess that most religious people think of God as a kind of Great Mover -- the guiding force behind everything. I know many religious scientists, and that's kind of their view. I think if you're going to be religious, this makes sense.

But I've never met a scientist who DENIES evolution. That's whacked out.

[dave_p]

72. Moved v guided

You can buy evolution with a god as the mover - i.e. as the initiator of the mechanism, but guidance once the process is under way is very different. Guided change wouldn't be evolution, it'd just be change.

[BluePatriot]

59. The fact that the question was even asked....

....at a PRESIDENTIAL debate, truly made me realize how far we have declined as a society.

Do people honestly think the world will sit back and twiddle their thumbs while we sit around getting all religious? No, they'll just quietly out-innovate us and generate more engineers, mathematicians, inventions. See: Japan.

[CrispyQ]

79. Best response in this thread!!!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[FloridaJudy]

62. My faith is 100% compatible with science

But then, I'm a Buddhist, which oddly enough takes no dogmatic position on god/gods. We just accept things as they are, and try to live in such as way as to make them better (or at least not to make them worse). The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Not believing in evolution makes about as much sense as not believing in thermodynamics.

I personally believe that a deity who runs around planting fossil evidence, or diddling around with the DNA of bacteria, to "test our faith" is way too demented for me to worship. To paraphrase Bill Maher, I believe in God, I just give Her more credit than that.

[JitterbugPerfume]

63. Proof that

the dark ages never really ended

[JCMach1]

69. Science is science... belief is belief and it is about time

the religious nuts got over it...

[CreekDog]

70. Don't confuse Faith with Knowledge and don't get worked up where they intersect

First, belief in God is about faith not knowledge.

Second, belief in the Christian God means that he supersedes all of creation, all dimensions, created all matter, all rules of the universe, etc. etc.

What that means is that while many Christians understand and accept biology, the teaching of evolution, etc. The source of our faith, the bible does have the Genesis account right up front. Now, I don't know if that's meant to be literal or not. Perhaps not.

But please don't force me to decide between faith in God and understanding science. I'm not a moron because I continue to believe in God and allow for there to be a different explanation than evolution to explain our existence.

And also understand that when you deny the existence of God, that may be okay for you, but for many of us, it is this belief that makes life tolerable in the face of death, our own, or our loved ones. Some of us, I dare say, simply are paralyzed at the thought that death is final, final, that there is nothing beyond it because we are just flesh, blood and bone. For many of us, our faith gives us a hope that science cannot in answering the ultimate questions of existance and fate.

So, be careful on the browbeating of Christians for believing or not believing in evolution. Religion always offers a conflict between the known world and the unknown because it tries to explain what we don't see.

I just wanted to say this because I see so much vitriol towards those who believe and even those who believe (in the faith sense) in a power greater than can be explained by science. That they give this power a greater deference than science is not necessarily a bad thing.

It is one thing to encourage knowledge of science, it is quite another and destructive to harm somebody's faith in order to get them to acquire that knowledge. So, be thoughtful -and don't.

[mudesi]

71. Rejecting evolution is tantamount to rejecting the idea of a round Earth

There is a difference between believing in something that science has not yet been able to explain (ie. What happens when we die?), and believing something that science has already answered.

You state that you are not sure whether the Genesis account ought to be taken literally or not. The answer is no, because it the story told in Genesis (Adam and Eve, as well as the 7 day creation story) is false. There was no first human called Adam who lived in a garden, his mate was not created from his rib, and there was no forbidden tree. Science has come up with an explanation for the origins of humanity, and that explanation is evolution.

Science has already disproved many of the things religion has claimed in the past, and to keep on believing obvious falsehoods is an excesses in willful ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

The world is not flat nor is it in the center of the universe. The world does not sit upon an infinite stack of turtle shells, either. Lightning is not Zeus, earthquakes and hurricanes are not God's anger, and a total solar eclipse does not indicate the end of the world.

Nobody here (at least not I) is trying to convince people to stop believing in God. What I am saying, though, is that believing God is responsible for phenomena that have already been proved scientifically is dishonest and ignorant, and that these beliefs are being exploited daily by the Republican party and the neo conservatives to keep you distracted from their power grabbing and thievery.

In short, you have been lied to.

[CreekDog]

74. I haven't been lied to, there was no intent to deceive

And as far as science is concerned and empirical evidence, evolution explains "how" humans were created.

However, the existence of the universe, the concept and purpose of life and the why we are here and what we should do in terms of ethics and morals and what happens beyond our physical mortality, science hasn't figured those out and I dare say.

But I already know the arguments, so you don't really have to recount them to me. I actually abhor Intelligent Design being taught for a bunch of reasons, although to some extent I subscribe to some elements of it. This is sort of like saying, "yes, I believe in evolution, but I see God's hand at work in this or that, etc. etc.". However teaching that in science class seems foolish, and also teaching this as a way to deny the scientific thought and teaching behind evolution is setting kids of faith up for a fall when they find out that the arguments against evolution are much poorer than the arguments for. But that's a digression for another day.

My point is that most Christians for instance, ultimately care more about "why" life was created and where God fits in than lose sleep over doubts regarding the mechanics of that creation. Many Christians will simply accept evolution, however, if you are asking them to deny their faith while asking them about evolution, they will not deny their faith.

You have to recognize the implication of what you are asking. To you, it may be a simple matter of truth and fiction, but for others, you are getting at much more profound questions they are not ready to tackle. And you have to be patient about that. That's my take.

[Johonny]

73. It's hard to understand

how anyone that spent any real time and thought to learn about they subject could doubt the theory.

[CreekDog]

75. Ask them why they are denying it

You may end up talking past each other in the process.

In that way, you might see that your belief in it and their denial of it are based on totally different paradigms.

But what's troubling me here is the thought that people who deny evolution are just simply stupid. It's actually much more complicated than that.

[EstimatedProphet]

76. Similar to what you stated earlier, I believe in God and accept evolution

I don't see a conflict here. I also agree with you that some who deny evolution are following a different paradigm - I just don't think it is a reality-based one. I also think it is hypocritical to pick and choose from biological sciences, and not do so from another field, like physics or psychology or chemistry. If you accept that the scientific method is functional in one field, and yields facts, then it should be functional in all fields and yield facts, at least to the extent in which that field is testable by the scientific method.

This is what gets me about some evolution deniers - they don't reject evolution based on any factual disagreements, but on what they want to believe. Many of them base thier ideas on misunderstandings of how processes work, and it would appear in some cases that those misunderstandings are deliberate. This is not to say that all of them do this, but if that's how those that do argue against evolution base their rejection, then it is far more than a paradigm choice, it's simply dishonest.

[depakid]

77. Sorry, but I don't accept results from cheap corporate media polls

and unless you want to get suckered, I'd advise that you don't either.

[FloridaJudy]

83. Just for a chuckle

Eddie Izzard on "Intelligent Design"

(profane/adult language alert: don't click and say I didn't warn you)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T22Dl43nQvE

[Rosa Luxemburg]

87. Another take on this (what about those beings from other planets?)

There could be others out there who have 'been here before' what else is out there?

(that would explain the God thing?)