Majority of American Reject Theory of Evolution

[Matthew]

I'd say that article proves evolution is working perfectly.....in reverse.:tongue:

Q: Are we not men?

A: We are Devo!

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The only way its ever going to be fine is if there's some massive revelation that the bible is just a book, and that's all.

Ah, but to faith, that's only a challenge thrown up by the Devil.
That's what they said about the whole fossil record, for example.
For anyone who looks into its history, it couldn't be more obvious that the Bible is just a book. The jury's in.
But in the face of True Belief, evidence is definitionally impotent.

 

[madame_zora]

Ah, but to faith, that's only a challenge thrown up by the Devil.
That's what they said about the whole fossil record, for example.
For anyone who looks into its history, it couldn't be more obvious that the Bible is just a book. The jury's in.
But in the face of True Belief, evidence is definitionally impotent.

Some truly scary shit. When the criteria for knowledge is no longer evidence, we are indeed fucked.

 

[rawbone8]

Didn't you get the memo?

Knowledge = sin.

 

[findfirefox]

Some truly scary shit. When the criteria for knowledge is no longer evidence, we are indeed fucked.

We are so past "fucked", we are on a highway straight to oblivion and we have missed all the exits.

 

[JustAsking]

I think this is way beyond religion. This is something endemic in American culture. What happened is that we never really recovered from the Civil War. After the Civil War, the South healed itself religiously and emotionally by becoming an ethnic group. Part of the culture is anti-intellectual. It crystallized around the Southern Baptist Convention and then exported itself throughout the country.

It seems like a religious attack on science but its something far worse and far more fundamental in the American culture.

I am not defending religion, because that is a big part of it. I am just saying that the problem is worse than that. You could show the Bible to be totally bogus and you won't root this thing out without digging further.

Sorry to ruin your day. But we are totally screwed.

 

[faceking]

Al Gore invented evolution.

 

[HotBulge]

I reject the statistical results and am not convinced that the survey was conducted properly. The study sampled 804 people on a random telephone survey. I wonder how "random" the calling lists were for the survey. I doubt that the numbers called were cell phone numbers, and clearly, the telephone numbers were not drawn from people who have removed themselves survey/poll lists. That leaves behind a calling list of people who are perhaps older or less sophisticated, etc. I wonder if the sample took into account educational background in numbers that are proportionate to the educational distribution of the US population.

 

[BigNThinkKev]

The biggest problem with the creation versus evolution argument is as follows: the incomplete fossil record. We are still just scratching the surface when it comes to the fossil record and there are huge gaps. The largest two gaps are (1) the end of the reptilian dominance (dinosaurs) to the emergence of mammals and (2) mammals to sentient mammals. As the fossil record becomes more complete many of the questions will be answered.

On a second note, if one reads the Origin of Species one will find that Darwin puts forth many theories not just evolution. Of all the theories only two have survived scientific scrutiny. The first is the theory of evolution: one species through natural selection will evolve into another species over time. Clear evolution evidence is hard to come by and the closest is Archaeoptrics (sp?) the dinosaur with feathers (fills one gap between dinosaurs and birds). As far as I know we are still looking for the missing link between simian and man (would fill the gap between sentient and non-sentient mammals). The second is the theory of adaptation: one species will adapt to its environment, but remain the same species. This can be seen all over the world most notibly Australia and the Galapagos. Adaptation also explains a whale's pelvis and leg bones. There was an interesting series about the last Ice Age on the Discovery Science channel where scientists believe that whales actually used their newly adapted hip bones/legs to travel over the ice from one body of water to another. And those individual animals with weak hip bones did not make it over the ice and perished from starvation.

The second theory from the empirical evidence has been moved to the fact category and 99% of scientist agree it is a settled issue; Darwin all but proved it from empirical evidence collected in the Galapagos. Unfortunately, since evolution theory is so heavily dependent on the fossil record it cannot be proven to a scientific certainty. A preponderance of the evidence supports the theory, if you make a leap of faith, that as time progresses, the gaps in the fossil record will be filled. Just as it takes a leap of faith to believe God created life on earth.

Since paleontology is a relatively slow process I do not think we will have evolution proved to an undeniable fact in our life times.

And in the immortal words of Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that."

 

[bigone,babe]

I don't care what sciencetists say. I do and always will believe and trust and have faith in the Lord. Evolution, besides being a stupid idea, is very, very, very, illogical(now Im sounding like Spock from Star Trek!). I read articles written by sciencetists who dissprove the evolution theory, and they say it's so immprobable because the structure of evolution is based on everything on earth originating from a single cell. They and I say that is impossible. Also, they say that there is only a 1 in 10^320 chance of anything from evolving from a cell to everything you see today. Many acclaimed sciencetists who really study our orgins say, and I quote,"The best answer to the orgin of the human species is still 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' ".
Oh and a little history lesson real quick-Dawrin, the author of the evolution theory, didn't even believe it himself near the end of his life. He even thought it was totally illogical. Now there's a fact for you.
Peace out.

 

[b.c.]

All a bunch of malarky. Everyone knows present day humans are not native to the planet Earth. We came from the stars.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Seriously, how many of you farmers have actually studied the evidence for evolution? You've probably heard something about finches being involved, but that's about it. Have you actually read The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man? Which edition? (There's considerable variation between editions). Have you slogged through Mayr's books? Can any of you even spell Archaeopteryx without looking it up? How many have gotten past the first chapter of Simpson's Quantitative Biology? (I haven't either - Simpson knew his evolution, but I have issues with his math). You can tell me how a lens shape which minimizes spherical aberration, described centuries ago by Descartes, managed to appear 400 million years earlier in the crystalline lens of the eye of Phacops (that's a genus of trilobite)?

Darwinian evolution ("evolution", incidentally, being a word which doesn't appear in "Origin of Species") is indeed our best theory - even though it does not "disprove" Creationism, but merely makes it unnecessary - but most people, including those who consider themselves some sort of sophisticated elite, haven't the foggiest idea why. But they believe it anyway - and such a belief is religion, not science.

But not to worry, the polls are crap. Those of you who are up on your Gaussian statistics know some of the reasons why.

 

[headbang8]

The second theory from the empirical evidence has been moved to the fact category and 99% of scientist agree it is a settled issue; Darwin all but proved it from empirical evidence collected in the Galapagos.

It's in the nature of the scientific method that nothing is ever proved, only supported until disproved. Evolution will not be "proved" by a more complete fossil record, or anything else, for that matter.

The Bible, however, has been disproved many times over. But it was never meant to be a scientific text or historical document, was it?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Some truly scary shit. When the criteria for knowledge is no longer evidence, we are indeed fucked.

And the sad part is, it don't feel good, right, MZ?

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Damn, I actually posted on this thread?

Lessie, evolution is not the be-all and end-all at Darwin, despite the consensus, it wasn't until Mendel's work was proven that a mechanism for it could be developed genetically and a lot of more work besides..I need to read that damn book when I have the chance.

Oh, and if you (I will be none-specific) don't believe evolution works, WTF did all these mutant breeds we call "dogs" come from? Naturally there is no animal grossly proportioned as a sausage dog or a bulldog when it comes to facial features or spinal column length ESPECIALLY when they're detrimental to health. Or breeding cattle for food, now we have animals who's only purpose are flesh-sacks for eating, no way could you get those through fluke, we selectively bred these species, we're technically evolving them in a direction that makes them look pretty or taste fine.

Many theories can not be proven truely at the mo. Can you prove that gravity exists? Or that light can travel as a wave and a molecule at the same time, or that time is relative, or that space is relative? Can anyone know where an electron in a circuit is at the same time and the direction it's travelling (a key for computing)....

It's a complicated subject. I've spent 6 years+ on it!

 

[rhino_horn]

u guys preaching about "knowledge/evidence/science" shud really stop bashing religion. people BELIEVE in stuff, because it provides simple answers for complicated questions like, how did life start on a lifeless rock? where did the universe come from? why/how r we here? what is the universe? the only thing we know, for certain, is that SOMETHING happened.

no scientist(not even alex8) can give a satisfactory answer to these questions. religion fills the gaps. (didnt they recently drop the "big bang" theory?)

most(not all) people tend to believe that they r especially smart, and that their logic is more correct than someone elses, or that they know more...u can study/research till ur eyes bleed, but ur still gonna be left with the same questions.

as for evolution and the bible, u can go to any honest priest(or the pope himself) and he'll tell u that the bible has been changed/amended repeatedly, throughout history, to the point that people were translating translations...it was changed for every culture that chose to adopt it. the first bible appeared 30 years after the supposed death of jesus(pbuh), establishment of the roman catholic church was 300 years later. as a result, the true teachings/stories of jesus(pbuh) were diluted(mainly because of paul).

*maybe a better question wud be, does anyone give a shit anymore?

 

[JustAsking]

BigNThinkKev,
You are correct that there are a number of components to modern evolutionary theory, but I think you have the history wrong.

Common Descent:
Common Descent, which is the notion that any two life forms have a common ancestor, was well accepted as scientific fact at least 100 years before Darwin's publication. The acceptance of this was based on the assumption that life forms evolved from earlier life forms. When people say evolution is a scientific fact, this is what they mean. There has been no scientific controversy about this basic definition of evolution for at least 300 years.

Natural Selection
Darwin's contribution was to propose a mechanism by which information from the environment could affect the direction in which a species would evolve. It is now one of a handful of mechanism of evolution that are observed everyday and well documented in the literature.

Transitional Species
There is no controversy in the scientific community that the fossil record contains massive evidence of species evolution. Take the vertebrates for example.

Proving a Theory
As someone stated before, theories are not proven. They are evaluated almost solely on their ability to predict the outcome of past, present, and future observations. The best theories are those that have a high degree of refutability but continue to have the most predictive power. Anyone who says the Theory of Evolution or any other theory has "never been proven" is revealing their abject ignorance about how science has been conducted for the last 250 years. For example, Newton's (and then Einstien's) theory of gravity claims that gravity is a property of all matter in the universe. The only way to prove that would be to measure the force of gravity between all objects in the universe. To say that the theory of gravity has never been proven is to say that we haven't yet made all those measurements. To dismiss the theory of gravity because it has not been proven in this way is stunningly ignorant. Saying this about evolution is just as ignorant. The real point is that over the last so many hundreds of years of scientific scrutiny, none of these theories have failed.

Evolution vs Adaptation
Creationists claim that adaptation cannot create new species, but only tweak a given species to make it more able to survive. This is an arbitrary claim in that no mechanism has been proposed that would place limits on the amount of genetic modification that can take place over time. It's as arbitrary as saying that gravity doesn't work in New Jersey and not giving any reason why. This makes it an "opinion", not a theory. Anyone can have an opinion.

Science vs Religion
Most of the world's Christian population belong to denominations that find no conflict between science and religion. In fact, the largest Christian denomination claims that where there is any apparent conflict between science and religion, one must adapt one's theology to be consistent with the science. The earliest writings on this come from St. Augustine in 400 AD, writing about the folly of interpreting Genesis literally. You are welcome to read all of it, but chapter 20 is enough to get the idea.

People who claim that science contradicts religion have not noticed that their particular theology is in the minority. Science only contridicts their particular theology, not the mainstream of Christian thought that has prevailed for two thousand years.

 

[JustAsking]

u guys preaching about "knowledge/evidence/science" shud really stop bashing religion. people BELIEVE in stuff, because it provides simple answers for complicated questions like, how did life start on a lifeless rock? where did the universe come from? why/how r we here? what is the universe? the only thing we know, for certain, is that SOMETHING happened.

Jesus is truth, and so is knowledge and evidence. They cannot be incompatible. Most of the world's science until the 1800s or so was performed by Priests, monks, and extremely religious laymen. These days, there are religious people all around the world who do science and do it properly. Their theology tells them that God created a consistent, elegant universe that is worthy of systematic study. In fact, this aspect of Judeo-Christian theology is one of the crucial ingredients that promoted the rise of science in the Western world.

no scientist(not even alex8) can give a satisfactory answer to these questions. religion fills the gaps. (didnt they recently drop the "big bang" theory?)

Its a sad little god who exists only in the gaps of our knowledge of the world. If this is all he is, he is getting smaller all the time. The God of the Gaps is not a good theology. What we really have is the God of all Creation whose work we study daily in our pursuit of science. There is only an apparent conflict in this iswhen we adhere to narrow theologies that insist that the Bible must be scientifically accurate.

And no, the Big Bang theory is no more invalidated then Newton's work is invalidated by relativity. This is merely science doing its job, which is to constantly challenge its own theories and refine them or replace them so as to increase their predictive power.

..u can study/research till ur eyes bleed, but ur still gonna be left with the same questions.

Or it can enable you to believe that the world is round, and we probably should not burn people as witches. Little things like that.

*maybe a better question wud be, does anyone give a shit anymore?

As a religious person, I give a huge shit about evolution. There are hundreds of millions of people suffering from AIDS and other diseases that have evolved and are still evolving (ie Bird Flu). My faith informs me that any attempt to stand in the way of science's work in relieving this suffering is patently evil. Anyone who works to undermine science and medicine in this manner comes out on the other side of that equation in my book.

 

[Dr Rock]

i was hoping the resurrection of this thread would catch a few crucifixated pigfuckers for me. sure enough, after reading this page, things are getting cosy down in my ignore list again. thanks folks!

 

[dong20]

Oh, and if you (I will be none-specific) don't believe evolution works, WTF did all these mutant breeds we call "dogs" come from? Naturally there is no animal grossly proportioned as a sausage dog or a bulldog when it comes to facial features or spinal column length ESPECIALLY when they're detrimental to health.

Your choice of example confuses me and to me (taken at face value) would be more supportive of creationism than natural 'Darwinian' evolution because as you say by any natural process such anatomical anomalies and weaknesses would not long survive in a species unless they were intentionally refined and retained by outside influence, in this case Dog Breeders.

I don't support creationism or Intelligent Design in that sense for a second but where the dog phenomenan to occur naturally it could be considered evidence of creationism (which I suppose it is but man made). Though looking at some poor dogs it's certainly not evidence of intelligent design.:tongue:

Many theories can not be proven truely at the mo. Can you prove that gravity exists? Or that light can travel as a wave and a molecule at the same time, or that time is relative, or that space is relative? Can anyone know where an electron in a circuit is at the same time and the direction it's travelling (a key for computing)....

I agree, a theory is just that until it's refined or replaced with another, intellectually I can I think, just 'understand' time dilation etc but on a Human level such things make NO sense to me at all.

I wonder if part of the growth of sceptism toward Darwinian theory in the population at large is more basic; people don't change visibly 'as a species' from generation to generation, so the leap from Amino acid...Single celled organisms....multi cellular organisms.....ape...Human over billions of years is beyond the real visualisation of many people. it's more an intellectual leap of faith as alluded to by an earlier posted.

The same with cosmic distances...can we truly visualise such distances? probably not. So, often, it's easier to 'reject' them as beyond us, and thus, as we like to think we know best, as incorrect. Light travels so fast it's taken us poor dumb humans hundreds of thousands of years to work out that it travels at all.:tongue:

P.S. on that subject I assume you mean light as a 'wave or a particle' (not a molecule...which would serious light indeed!!) and indeed the problems with electron 'probablity' in computing are increasingly very real. It is indeed complicated..:smile: