Slashdot Mirror
New Study Shows One-Third of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reuters reports that thirty-three percent of Americans reject the idea of evolution and believe that 'humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time' rather than evolving gradually through a process of natural selection, as described by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. Although this percentage remained steady since 2009, the last time Pew asked the question, there was a growing partisan gap on whether humans evolved. The poll showed 43 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats say humans have evolved over time, compared with 54 percent and 64 percent respectively four years ago. 'The gap is coming from the Republicans, where fewer are now saying that humans have evolved over time,' says Cary Funk. Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants topped the list of those rejecting evolution, with 64 percent of those polled saying they believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
The average IQ is 100, after all...
Is anyone actually surprised by these poll results?
Why frame this as a political debate, unless they're just trying to muddy the waters.
This is an education issue, not a Republican/Democrat issue.
33% of monkeys don't believe in it, either.
Republicans are such a perverted facsimile of what used to be a very reasonable party. If 6 years of Obama has taught us anything, it's that the empty can gets the grease. USA Politics desperately needs the GOP to fork into two factions - there are enough independents currently voting "D" to jump over to make a center-right candidate feasible. Center-right by US Standards, that is.
If time started less than 10,000 years ago, then sure, we've existed since the beginning of time. Time periods longer than that are very difficult for people to wrap their heads around.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Let us just ignore the apes who believe that they have not evolved from apes.
At least 33% of Americans are fucking morons, so why should this be any sort of surprise?
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
My position is that I agree with the stated percentage of those polled that they did not evolve from monkeys.
On the whole, monkeys are smarter than they are...
As the article title indicates, it IS a matter of belief; a matter of faith.
Does it take more faith to believe ones existence is the random meaningless act of circumstance or the purpose filled intent of a creator?
These are the same people that likely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and that man rode his dinosaur to work. Also same group of people likely to believe that global warming is some sort of liberal scam, or that Dungeons and Dragons will cause people to become evil, Harry Potter is some sort of liberal scam to turn our kids away from God, or that a Prius creates more pollution than a Hummer, etc.
...is that it's true whether or not you believe it.
That's only because it doesn't apply to them.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There is a big difference between what someone believes and what someone says they believe. The main cause is needing to belong. Someone may say they believe something to fit into the mold they want even though they actually believe something quite different.
There are roughly an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, so 54/64 to 43/67 means the score should have dropped by 3% rather than remain steady.
How could they believe in it if they themselves do not evolve (socially, intellectually or culturally)?
Academia has become proto-business. Great, high risk, public advances for the sake of advancing human scholarship ("because it is hard") have become small private advances for the sake of profit.
There is so much conflict of interest in the scientific community now - such great piles of useless research, driven by a pressure to publish in quantity rather than quality, and to find something quickly commercially realisable that will find private funding. Many postgrads wouldn't have even been admitted to university three decade ago.
With this backdrop, I can see easily why someone not blinded by the religion of the Invisible Hand and not also cognizant of the sea change in science over the last three decades would not know that it was once possible to trust scientific output, even if it is no longer possible.
these are often the wackiest of the wackos.. so, no surprise there, either.
Evolution is the observation - that's the part we know is true because we actually observe it in the fossil record and elsewhere.
Natural selection was the part that was theory.
How is that reduction in higher education funding working out for you-all.
But how many was it again that voted for Obama?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Therefore 1/3 of US are idiots. Good job!
Darwin was not the first to notice that creatures evolve-it goes at least back to Aristotle. He was however the first to suggest "natural selection".
Oh, you mean a SCIENTIFIC theory? Then in that case it's a conspiracy of mass proportion. My god trumps your heathen lies.
That people who espouse evolution is how human beings came to existence will argue with the same zeal and fervor as those who believe God created humans. I just don't see the point in discoursing the subject with either parties - they are both quite unlikely to change their viewpoints - and even if they do, you don't win anything for your efforts. Honestly, it seems to me that the world would be a better place if people understood that what we believe isn't an indicator of our intelligence, it's what we do with those beliefs that truly matter.
67 percent of Democrats believe in evolution seems to imply that 33 percent don't.
54 percent of Republicans believe in evolution seems to imply that 47 percent don't.
One-third of Americans don't believe in evolution would imply that... 100 percent of Americans are Democrats. Fail.
Now, I suspect there are "other" categories in the survey that could account for the discrepancy, but that was left out TFA. Typical sloppy reporting.
At this rate, I expect to see hominids with rudimentary tool skills in the Deep South by the end of 2014.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's proven, so nothing left to believe.
I was just thinking about this earlier today, the only thing that needs to be said to people who "don't believe in evolution" is that selective breeding has been proven.
Do these people not believe that it's possible to selectively breed horses, dogs, cats and other domestic animals and livestock?
The optimist's viewpoint is that 60% of American's *do* believe in evolution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
RELIGION vs REASON - BELIEF vs ANY amount of verifiable evidence. So sad to see this country, once the leading proponent for free expression and personal freedoms, falling into the same sectarian schism as the muslam world - who, by the way, before the CRUSADES, were very enlightened and tolerant of their neighbors' beliefs and lifestyles. It's SO much easier to fall under the sway of a charismatic gospel leader than it is to actually THINK for yourself. THIS is why I paste the Canadian Maple Leaf on all my luggage when travelling abroad (ashamed to be an American),
redneck geek
Idiocracy, here we come!!
"The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."
bork bork bork!
Read the article... and the big change is 10% fewer people "believe in evolution" than (expressed) belief in evolution in 2007. Did 10% of Americans REALLY change their views in 5 years?
I think the survey measures something else. Something even more disturbing, perhaps - the growing willingness to express falsehood as a demonstration of political purity. The last Republican primary showed even very educated Republicans willing to state opinions they didn't really hold (and I doubt Democrats are much different in that regard). It's expressed in immigration law reform, in budget reform, climate change... It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you show your value as a teammate by expressing the teams' view loudly and forcefully. Did 10% of American change their views about evolution? No. They just taking cues from people who think "denial" is a "philosophy"?
Gently reply
As an American, I'm actually glad it's below 1/2.
Assuming there are as many republicans as democrats and the average between republicans and democrats is 55% it appears that more than 66% of nonaligned people believe in evolution.
Kwite wel.
But notice that word: BELIEVE. Belief is not scientific. It is, I dare say, RELIGIOUS.
Dare! But there is the matter of what is more compatible with the evidence we see. Scientists didn't come to believe in the theory of evolution by happenstance.
Let's practice a little tolerance in the comments here. This is someone's religious belief we're talking about.
Even if you assume the THEORY (theory, theory, oh yea, we can't prove 100% that it's true, that's what that word means, right!) of evolution does not preclude the existence of a supreme being orchestrating it all from the start.
Also, remember that people who do not believe in evolution usually do so because of religious beliefs. There is nothing that shows less intelligence than promptly dismissing someone as "Stupid, moron, low IQ" based on their religious beliefs alone. Learn to respect others, even if you disagree with them.
So a lot of people don't believe in evolution, so what? A lot of people don't believe in lots of things. Science has constantly undergone cycles of calling people crazy, then having to eat crow as those people's "delusions" turned out to be fact.
The facts are:
_Fossils have been found on this planet that date back pretty far back.
_It's possible or likely there was an evolution from those forms to the forms we have and see in nature now.
_No one knows who or what started it all in the first place. The Big bang THEORY, the theory of a sea of ammonia spontaneously combining into life, those are all just theories, just as valid as the theory that a supreme being with higher powers instilled life into matter at the start of it all, then let it run its course of evolution.
_If you can't understand the word theory, you're the idiot, look it up in a dictionary.
That's okay. Personally, I don't believe in Republicans. Indeed, I'm pretty confident at this stage in my life that "Republicans" and "Americans" were things my Dad invented for bedtime stories when I was young to scare the crap out of me and keep me on the straight and narrow.
Yaz
I suspect they actually do believe in evolution, but they're commonly confusing it with the theory of the origins of life where stardust simply assembled itself to form us.
Signature intentionally left blank.
This may be a good thing. As this ignorance progresses; my knowledge will make me appear magical to the masses and thus make me all powerful.
First, I'll tell everyone I'm God's chosen one. He is unhappy with the sinners and will eat the Sun. When the eclipse comes, I'll say unto the Christians, kneel before me, for God is not pleased. Then, I'll have them kill their "evil" leaders to make the Sun return.
Or rather, it is a question of whether people believe in evidence and hence in the scientific method. Evolution is just one of the many implications. Those that think Evolution is not a scientifically proven fact are mentally stuck in the age of ghosts, spirits and other esoteric fantasy constructs. This just shows that 30% will insist on believing stupid things, no matter what evidence is given. Politicians have used that fact for a long time to neutralize the control mechanisms of democracy.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You know, the third with the legs and bit fat arses on it. The other two thirds probably have other opinions.
Measuring proportion of body mass here, of course...legs aren't a lot of volume, and USians are famous for being big around the waist.
Max.
I would not have expected to find a reasonable response here.
Nobody was around to witness and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution occurred. We only have suggestive and circumstantial evidence.
And no one has ever seen an electron either, so I guess that's mindless conjecture. Maybe you should read up on what science is and how it's pursued.
nobody can explain certain codependent gender traits
Even assuming that's true, it hardly invalidates an entire theory. You'll understand that better if you follow my above suggestion. BTW, until about 40 years ago no one could explain the evolution of altruistic traits either.
Very likely though you're citing a nonexistent scientific issue. A quick net search didn't reveal anything, so please provide a link to an appropriate creationist site.
There is nothing more frustrating than going out with a nice lookin gal only to have her open her mouth.. continually ramble on about 6000 year old earths, dinosaur fantasies and undying love of Jesus.
Not believing in evolution is such a minor offense compared to manifest ignorance required to buy into crank young earth myths.
Believing in evolution is like believing in anything else, God or whatever. Knowing is different. How much do we *know*? I'm not saying that I am not subscribing to Darwin's theory, only that the human knowledge is like a grain of sand in the vast ocean of unknown, to start banging on our chests and proclaim ultimate truth, one way or another. My personal belief is that we, as a species, need to keep open minds and try to grow our little bubble of knowledge and always challenge the prevailing belief of the day.
At least this way we know where the Neanderthals ended up...
Huh? What are you saying?
I should also point out that Evolution is a theory, i.e. a hypothesis lifted to high levels of credibility by supporting evidence and absence of a credible competitor. It is not a fact, just the best model (with a very, very large margin) that we have. It can turn out to be completely wrong, see the simulation hypothesis. (Which is neither new, not has "strong evidence" in its favor. It is just something that cannot reliably be ruled out and fits the observable facts. But there are competing theories with similar strength. In this area, any honest scientist will sum up the state-of-insight up as "we do not know".)
Now, cretins from the religious factions usually try to muddy the waters by claiming that scientists say that evolution is a fact, in order to present idiocies like "Intelligent Design" as a competing "fact" and claim that you have to chose between them. Not so, that is just a cheap attempt at manipulation. Evolution is a theory. It is incomplete and has its inaccuracies and white spots. Yet its main claims have strong supporting evidence. "Intelligent Design" is a pure fantasy construct, supported by no scientifically sound evidence at all. As such it is not even a (scientific) hypothesis.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Also, GP is fundamentally misunderstanding (or willfully ignoring to pursue a religious agenda) the word "theory": The Theory of Evolution has roughly the same scientific standing as the Theory of Gravity. For an idea to be elevated to the title of "Theory", there has to be really overwhelming evidence that the theory accurately describes the observable universe, demonstrated by different scientists in different labs in a lot of different ways.
I am officially gone from
The concept of needing to believe in something comes from religion. To me it has no value.
Although I think evolution is the best explanation for why our environment is the way it is, how would believing in it help?
The basis of science is doubt and the current theory of evolution does not explain how species can evolve so fast.
If we'd truly 'believe' the theory we would stop looking to make it better.
Personally I don't believe in anything, I make decisions based on experience and knowledge.
The Idiocracy that we are getting into is explained by natural selection. Evolution don't need to mean "improvement" for every criteria, and of course, not becoming smarter.
That is only 33% is a good thing in a country like US, but the question asked wasn't exactly evolution, but "humans and other living things have evolved over time", not sure if that rules out creationism or intelligent design, my idiocracy example could be compatible with those (as in change after design/creation)
I don't feel like reposting the reply I made to another comment, so I'll just leave the link here: http://i.word.com/idictionary/Believe
Note the first definitions don't require religious thought. The common "belief" just means "considered to be true".
There must be an American born every minute. Of course it could be that evolution is leaving them out and that's why they can't see it. One third of Americans will go the way of the Neanderthals.
This country is really becoming an embarrassment. I just don't understand it. Wikipedia at your fingertips, public libraries, a phone in every hand with access to all the world's knowledge, and people are still dumber than dog shit. Absolutely crazy.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
It's easy to call people idiots, but I think people lose sight of what we still don't know yet. Things like the fossil record, the distance to the (visible!) stars, and geology indicate that the earth appears to be really old. But how did the first DNA come into being? Do we have anything more than a wild assumption about that? I think one clue is that the smartest people among us can't agree whether earth got its life from our own primordial soup or from a panspermic plop.
For those with open minds, macroevolution is just as crazy to think about as the origin of life. Not saying it's wrong, just that it's crazy to think about. Well, isn't it?
as Evolution as a theory has some major problems itself. Assuming that it is the only viable "theory" is rather unscientific in itself. It is after all, a theory. However, like the standard model which presents gravity is the unifying force of the universe, which is considered gospel in certain circles, it's certain to provoke many an "OMG WTF is wrong with those people". Which in itself contains the under lying issue. The need for man to believe in something.
The missing link, the so called gap bridger between ancient man and modern man fails to point out that in order to transition, there are hundreds of major changes that needed to occur, so they need a missing link and it's 1000s of cousins over a couple 100 million years, which is simply not there. It is the reason Creationists have a basis to exist at all. I'm not arguing that the basis of evolution does not occur daily, and it is certainly documented in scientific ways that the process of evolution is abound; it's simply that the origins of man is not possible given the time-span it occurred and the changes that needed to happen. Which when filtered by Occam's Razor, suggests some form of intervention was required. It's the simplest solution. That then raises the real question; who did it? who bridged the gap. And why?
Can respect for evidence or truth be taught? To doubt evidence, or the truths of logically sound and valid conclusions can be wise sometimes, but to not believe in them is plain idiocy.
Jacob and his sons identified themselves to Pharaoh as shepherds, and earlier Jacob bred goats specifically for the coloration that was part of his deal with Laban. Our biblical forefathers understood about "selection" and "breeding for traits". The idea that natural circumstances are as much a "selection" as human choice is not much of a stretch.
Time began about 13.5 billion years ago at the big bang.
Your comment is an example of the contributions to the "debate" that make it so woefully possible for so many people to believe otherwise, however difficult they find it to believe the facts, rather than nonsensical fairy stories peddled by self serving imbeciles.
How sad that a country with so many Nobel prize winning scientists, that put men on the moon, drove forward all technological progress in the computer age and still leads the world in so many of the fields that matter to human progress has nurtured such a large amount of gleefully ignorant fools because of an inability to understand the difference between "my political / religious beliefs are equally as valid as yours" and established provable hard scientific facts.
Remember: gravity is a theory, not a fact.
What do you think microbiologists do? What do you think Mendel saw?
I'm aware that you are taking the devils advocate position but people have been watching evolution at work in short lived species for well over a century.
Amateur troll is amateur. Poe's Law is delicate, yet you wield it with the ferocity of a chronic masturbator on a three day Viagra binge.
2/10
'nuff said http://www.frasesparafacebook.info/84181-homer-simpson-wallpaper-1920x1200-homer.html
It's odd that proponents of the free market (with its "invisible hand") can reject evolution -- suggesting that only intelligent design (or straight up creationism) can explain how life got this way. The market and evolution are both amazing examples of "survival of the fittest"; why not accept the same mechanism/explanation for both?
Indeed. I am a scientist and I do not believe in Evolution at all. I think that it is just the (by far) best supported theory for the issue it tries to explain. Deciding whether to believe it or not is a fundamentally flawed approach. Now, by the strict meaning of the survey, I would be one of those that do not "believe in Evolution". The whole wording is deeply flawed.
I should point out though, that the scientists are honest about this, while the religious idiots are not.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
About a quarter claim to believe in evolution, but say it is divinely controlled. The whole point of the theory of evolution is that speciation and adaptation result from natural selection rather than design. So "divinely controlled evolution" is really a longer way of saying "creationism".
84 percent of humans have a "faith", some non-rational belief in deities or supernatural forces.
So I'm having a hard time seeing a reason to mock the 30% of a nations in this study; most humans hold irrational religious beliefs.
Scientists do not actually believe in it. Otherwise it would not be called a "Theory", but a fact. But the whole discussion has to be placed into context: There is an upstart hypothesis with zero supporting evidence, that its followers would dearly have accepted as a fact to be believed (because they do not understand what "theory" means) and they routinely claim that Evolution is promoted as a fact to elevate their own mad ramblings to the same level. As soon as you compare "Intelligent Design" and the Theory of Evolution, it becomes quite clear where the problem is: Most people have no clue what the Scientific Method is and why it works. There are quite a few manipulators on the religious side that try to exploit this educational problem.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
... is that anyone continues to accept 'poll results' without being able to scrutinize the questions.
For a brief period, even the mass media began to require and publish the questions asked by the pollsters so that people had the opportunity to understand the nature of polls. There were even articles written on the fact that pollsters tailor their questions in order to obtain results favored by the group that commissions the poll.
Clearly Slashdotterers are deficient in their skepticism when they take this bait and fail to gag on the smell before regurgitating and discussing the so-called results.
The statistical chances of something happening are irrelevant if it has already happened. If it took those odds (I'm going to assume you used PNOOMA, btw) to get mosquitoes, doesn't matter, because we do have mosquitoes - the lottery rolled and they won. Now, statistically, the chances of mosquitoes evolving twice... That's a doozy.
Now, if you want to say that the odds are a trillion to one, then there's probably several trillions of possible outcomes that didn't happen. Thus we don't have winged, blood sucking unicorns or gelatinous meaty blobs with numerous noodly appendages flying about. It just happens that mosquitoes did happen.
Refute this you wacko.
"white evangelical Protestants topped the list of those rejecting evolution, with 64 percent of those polled saying they believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."
Both of the creations in Genesis have things happening before there were people.
White evangelical Protestants, why do you hate the Bible?
Why can't pollsters phrase questions correctly?! Surely no biblical literalists believe that humans existed "since the beginning of time", as a literal reading of Genesis presents them as created on day six.
Any correlation between these stats and Duck Dynasty being such a big hit?
33% of Americans have no faith in God because they can't believe in the greatest miracle of all, evolution.
The strongest evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe in which we live, is the process of evolution starting from inorganic stardust, leading to organic chemicals, simple cellular organisms, eukaryotic cells with a nucleus, colonies of such cells in the form of plants, fungi and animals, the system of sexual reproduction, and then the whole chain of non-plant organisms starting from worms, crawly things (trilobites), crabs, spiders, insects, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. It is a miraculous whole tied together by an amazingly detailed chain of events that are dependent on randomness. And randomness itself is no less miraculous as it arose from a homogenous universe created in a single big bang event.
Only ignorance of the details of evolution at all its levels, could result in failure to recognize the miraculousness of it all.
I have no use for employees that can't pass 5th grade science.
Evolution is a theory, just as Gravity. But I don't see anyone jumping out of windows.
... is an empire in its decline.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I am originally from Europe and now living in the US. I have an 8 yr old son and am appalled at the low standard of education he is receiving here, even in supposedly top schools.
I am therefore not surprised that 1/3 of all Americans are so scarily ignorant that they have to rely on superstition to understand even the basics. I see this as just more confirmation of how dangerously powerful churches in the US are, and how broken the US education system is, even compared to most 3rd world countries.
The US approach reminds me of the Eurpoean dark ages, when cartographers used to write "Here Be Dragons" on parts of the map to avoid admitting that they didn't actually know what was there at all.
Age and Education are the interesting findings here, not political views:
Age:
- 18-29 age group - 68% evolution, 27% existed, 4% don't know
- 65+ age group - 49% evolution, 36% existed, 15% don't know
Education:
- College grad - 72% evolution, 24% existed, 4% don't know
- Some college - 62% evolution, 33% existed, 5% don't know
- High school or less - 51% evolution, 38% existed, 11% don't know
Side note: Kudos to the survey methodology being described in detail. Looks like it was properly designed.
I think there's something a lot of people are forgetting here. It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason. It's a scientific THEORY. It is not a fact. Facts are different from theories.
The scientists are as much in the dark as religious idiots.
Theory here isn't being used as in the layman's misuse of the word to imply a speculative guess. Everything in Science is built upon theoretically derived conclusions. It's a formal process of creating a conclusion that's constantly improved upon, derived from a body of facts that's constantly improved upon; all of it repeatedly verifiable from independent third parties that's constantly improved upon. Then it chooses to avoid overly complicated magical scenarios when a simpler solution exists.
Also, will you asshats quit confusing ideas and realize this is more about biological physical developments and less about the spiritual aware consciousness you're all concerned about. Yes, they're intertwined; but try an humble yourselves and accept the fact we're all one type of animal or another.
Think about it: we're eatable just like the rest and that just about half the living things at any level has a weenie. (In theory.)
I have no use for employers who lack basic logic and/or are over-reliant on hyperbole to make a point. "Rejects evolution" does not imply "can't pass 5th grade science". Not least of which because someone who rejects evolution can likely still figure out the answer he's expected to give and just parrot back that answer.
Also, to anticipate one possible retort: my having written the above doesn't imply that I'm one who rejects evolution.
I hope that there is a large overlap with the 31% that believe in astrology - keep them all in one bucket...
Empirical evidence, however, sadly, shows that wrong-thinking folks are spread all over the place!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Why should I accept the statistics when there are 4 different age groups, 2 sexes, several ethnic backrounds (skewed, by admission of pollsters in order to 'correct' for the lack of adequate participation on part of blacks and hispanics) and no mention of how the respondents were selected, other than to tell me there were approximately even numbers of land line and cell phone users?
Figures lie and liars figure. PEW is pushing for education reform and they have a poll that suggests what exactly? Is education failing, is religious influence still strong despite the piddling efforts of under-educated science teachers who are often required to use crappy textbooks edited by Texan fundamentalists? Is the crass media guilty of neglecting science education while catering to the political fantasies of the Religious Right who are alwasy marginalized after the elections, anyway?
This is crap, and if SlashDot were moderated for its intended audience, as it once seemd to be, this POS posting wouldn't have passed the smell test.
It's a scientific THEORY. It is not a fact. Facts are different from theories.
The difference is that a fact is necessarily trivial, while a theory is necessarily non-trivial.
It seems like you are confusing the word "theory" with "conjecture". The bar for "theory" is actually very high.
Are these question relevant? Suppose that one side is smarter than the other, that wouldn't make them automatically right. In true democracy you have to allow the option for people to choose to be wrong. That's freedom (or free-dumb).
Either way I always believed that the real challenge for me as an intellectual is not to figure out how to bring less intelligent over to my point of view, but to figure out how to let them have their say and do even if it pisses me off. Eventually I figured this country ought to be big enough to let anyone live how they wish so long as they don't do something that deprives another of same right.
What if I had with me an indisputable proof that God does not exist; proof that is so sound that even the staunchest of believers would have to accept, would it be right for me to unleash it onto the world if I know for a fact a large number of people simply could not cope in a world without God? (Which is what I suspect is the real reason for God's existence in the minds of others)
You're just playing with semantics. I would guess the question was most likely interpreted in its intended form by at least nearly all those asked it.
So do you think Evolution is happening at all, and is the most likely explanation for our existence, or do you have an interesting alternative hypothesis? If so please share.
Also, GP is fundamentally misunderstanding (or willfully ignoring to pursue a religious agenda) the word "theory": The Theory of Evolution has roughly the same scientific standing as the Theory of Gravity. For an idea to be elevated to the title of "Theory", there has to be really overwhelming evidence that the theory accurately describes the observable universe, demonstrated by different scientists in different labs in a lot of different ways.
Yeah, there's really a big "religious agenda", when the final two words of my post are "religious idiots".
My point is that EVERYONE is wrong! Anyone who claims to "know" the answer to this question is wrong. That is not a "religious agenda".
You need to educate yourself about the difference between the common definition of the word theory and the definition of the work theory as used by scientists.
Such information is readily available in many places, and will help you understand why people are laughing at what you wrote in your post.
The less fit species and races die off. Does this mean Hitler was just being a good democrat by supporting the elimination of jews and encouraging the master race to populate. You can't have evolution unless you are willing to kill off all the neanderthals and or less fit individuals. Maybe we could have some kind of minimum IQ test to allow people to procreate. If you are an evil republican you fail and can not pass on your less fit genes.
Maybe all the God believers don't like this. They feel that every person and race should have an equal opportunity to exist on this planet. There
And more than half the governor's mansions.
Last I checked, people who have a working understanding of the physics, history, statistics, cosmology, and experimental data are still trying to cook up numbers large enough to fit the measured time-frame and not have the theory collapse into total implausibility, under the weight of a virtually limitless supply of degrees of freedom and causes of information erasure.
Aren't all the greenies working against evolution when they try to save species that can no longer survive in today's more urban environment? Also what about all the environmentalists that are working to keep invasive species outside the inland waters and islands. What if we were to use the same logic on human beings.
No black people would be allowed outside Africa because the breed faster and kill off the native species. You would have to kick all the white peolpe out of the Americas and send them back to Europe. The Aboriginies could not leave Australia. I would say the Native Americans could live in America, but I feel that they probably killed off some native species when the crossed the land bridge soo many years ago.
When you artificially support a species you are preventing evolution.
"it's self-evident. if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective." not so long ago, radio was considered to be "magic". "Unprovable" things could also be worded as "things we haven't been able to prove / have not discovered / our senses do not detect, yet". We know that ultra violet light exists, but our eyes and brains do not detect it. Without technology, we would not know that UV existed, so, using your premise, our brains are defective. Uh, wrong... And This: "religion is the politics of spirituality". IOW, a smart person sees through the dogma of a religious sect, which is, after all, nothing more than a social group that functions the way all social groups do. They have rules of membership, and it is these rules that smart people see as being irrelevant to their spiritual values. For example, it is not true that you will go to hell if you are not baptized by complete immersion. Silly. Smart people see that there is no need to belong to a particular religion to have any spiritual values, and by and large, they are suspicious of the motivations of the religious leader, and skeptical of "worship"of some deity. Which is why some religions have a fit if you do not belong to a religious group. That makes you a threat to the foundation fo their social group, and they can't have that, so, whether you be atheist or an independent believer in some sort of cosmic order / cause and effect / karma, that makes you "the enemy". Religions do not liek people who ask too many questions and they insist that their dogma be taken on faith alone, and you are showing a lack of faith by asking too many questions. Which is why I got out of organized religion long ago. They do now want their followers to be too self aware, because self awareness leads to seeing through a social construct, and society in itself.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Ok, first of all, put a capital T on that "theory" if you will. In scientific terms, a Theory isn't a thesis or an hypothesis. A Theory *started* as an idea or insight in a given area that might offer an explanation or uncover a cause-effect relationship between two things. It's not even considered a scientific hypothesis until it offers some way to test it. After many rounds of testing, peer-reviewing and, essentially, attempted homicide of that thesis by the entire community -- science largely moves forward by throwing everything we have and can think of at the notions and explanations we come up with to see if we can make them *fail*; scientists, for the most part, don't try to prove hypothesis right, they do everything they can to prove them *wrong* -- if it still managed to survive then there might be something to it. Over time, a thesis that survived many rounds of fail-testing gets granted the level of "Theory" (which is as close to an absolute Truth as science allows -- because even here, if at any point a single fact comes along that directly contradicts it, you can kiss that Theory goodbye).
But you're confusing the issue. Evolution isn't a response to religion, it's not even an attempt to take a jab at any particular religion. It's simply something for which mounting evidence was observed/obtained during the last few centuries and eventually coalesced around this notion that life is always moving, flowing, changing and adapting over time. It was at *this* point that religious people started taking exception with the whole thing because it shattered some dearly-held beliefs.
But the problem there lies with certain specific implementations of mysticism (or religions, if you prefer) who, some thousands of years ago, foolishly laid down supposedly iron-clad notions about who we were and how we got here, claimed those notions came from the deity itself (and are therefore absolute Truths) despite the fact that they had no idea how even the natural world around them worked. That you choose to ignore the inherently human misconceptions of mysticism and shift the blame to science as some sort of "God-killer" is entirely on you and everyone else who chooses to see it that way.
Science says nothing, will *never* say anything about God or any other supernatural entity because, on the whole, those concepts are self-encapsulating. Their very definition is about the impossibility of understanding it, let alone prove or disprove it. What Science *sometimes* does, although largely by accident/incidently, is poke huge holes into the rest of the trappings that humans built atop those concepts of supernaturality. But guess what, that's not Science's fault (in this case I'd go so far as to call it a feature).
Welcome to the bottom third.
Sure, so you jump from a roof and theoretically hit the ground.
Fact is: everyone who tried that before has hit the ground.
Your turn.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, I am not playing with semantics. The details do matter very much here. If you disregard them, all manners of unsavory people try to sell you things that serve to manipulate you and take your money, freedom, self-determination, etc.
The fact of the matter is that I realize I have no expert opinion of Evolution as I am not a scientist in that field. Clearly some selection and some mutation is happening (I have enough other scientific insights to see that), but whether they are actually enough to produce the observable results is not quite clear and would very much depend on the concrete parameters. These are not understood to the degree necessary at this time. Still, there is no competing hypothesis that even begins to have the amount of supporting evidence.
So as to my beliefs: What is clear, is that Evolution is the best current model for how the human animal developed. On matters of mind, I do not think it explains anything, far to little is known about that at this time. Intelligence and self-awareness as a result of selection pressure does not cut it. They would have to be there before and would have merely been selected and amplified. Evolution cannot create anything new, the development space is fixed right from the start. But Evolution does not actually make a claim here (although some scientists do), as it is about genetics. What I believe in is Dualism, as it offers a nice, non-religious, model for these things. You could also say it is a minimalist model, as self-awareness and parts of intelligence are simply declared "non physical" (which is a semantic trick...). The funny thing is that the world is so overloaded with religious idiots that anything that is not readily explained by science is immediately declared to be invalid by many of those that managed to avoid religion. That is just as wrong either. There are white spaces on the scientific landscape. Self-awareness and intelligence are two of those. (For example, despite what idiots like Marvin Minsky claim about computers getting "intelligent" any time soon, nothing even hinting at that has been observed or even credibly predicted by theory today.) The scientific way to tackle this problem is to recognize the white space and to form hypotheses, the simpler, the better, by Occam's razor. Dualism merely describes the hypothesis that physical reality as understood at this time is an incomplete model when taking account the experience of existing and manipulating our environment, e.g. by forming hypotheses and testing them.
This is then were most religion fails: It is a complex, extraordinary explanation for these "white spots" that would require extraordinary evidence to be upgraded to a theory. Yet, there is no evidence at all. In fact, the religious "explanations" are subject to the scientific method themselves and very clearly show that they are a memetic mechanism designed do control people, and to allow some to accumulate power and exercise this control. The claim to have "the truth" is just one of the tools of manipulation used to great effect.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Except that Hitler (and other white supremacists) are consciously pushing back against the demise of the white race. Its this white race that is gradually being eroded by superior genetics.
You can't have evolution unless you are willing to kill off all the neanderthals
Except that there's no evidence that Neanderthals were pushed out in some sort of race or species war. In fact, recent evidence shows that there was some mixing of Neanderthals with the homo sapiens that came out of Africa later. Side by side, the stronger species won out. What white supremacists and the religious right wing are doing (which the Neanderthals failed to perceive) is to fight back against the inevitable by wiping out potential challengers before they get out-competed.
Have gnu, will travel.
really? i wonder why 1. energy and or matter cannot be created or destroyed. 2. there is no know process of turning inorganic matter into organic matter 3. there is no know process of turning organic matter into a life form.
Our eduction system has gotten us here, and active strategies by wackos have gotten our eduction system to that point.
it's self-evident. if you believe in unprovable things your brain is defective.
No. The question of god's existence can not be proven one way or the other. Its an unanswerable question. "Self evident" is a phrase the unscientific have used for millennia.
Atheists are believers, their belief is merely the opposite of the religious. More importantly their belief is an article of faith, just like the religious.
Agnostics are the one who don't hold a belief in the matter, who have come to no conclusion given a complete lack of evidence on way or the other.
Agnostics are also usually the ones who grow quickly tired of the debate since it is pointless. Atheists, being believers, will endlessly debate and evangelize and demean others who don't accept their belief system.
I shutter to think of a world where unapproved opinions and beliefs are outlawed.
Gravity is a downer, and friction is a drag.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I think so you racist oooo.
1/3 of Americans are gullable and stupid.
This is what we're dealing with; I'm surprised that it's as low as one third - surely religion in the US is more popular than that?
Many christian denominations accept scientific discoveries and find no conflict with faith. This includes cosmology and evolution. Matter of fact the physics professor who put forth the big bang theory was a roman catholic priest.
These denominations do not interpret the bible literally, they consider it figurative language. They see science and religion as orthogonal. That science is explaining the mechanics of god's universe, and religion is explaining god's desires and intentions.
Another study shows that 1/3 of all Americans have suffered some kind of blow to their head during their childhood.
Let's now debate about causation and corelation.
You are equating natural selection with eugenics. There is nothing natural about eugenics. And no, eugenics is not the same as being rejected by the opposite sex because you are a moron.
More genocide has been committed in the name of religion than any other rationalization that exists.
Perhaps it might be worth reflecting on the probability that the majority of people on either side of the debate have no real justification for their belief for or against evolution than that they identify with a social group who holds a particular stance on the issue. It's just as easy to fall in to the trap of thinking you're more intelligent and learned by looking down on creationists - while never having applied any kind of personal critical analysis on evolution except to think that God doesn't exist therefore the theory of evolution must be true - as it is for creationists to accept a thousands of years old interpretation of creation - without sharing the cultural context in which it was written and understood - from the book of Genesis.
We see the same thing with politics. Very few people have any real idea what the Republican and Democratic parties really believe, except for lazy mischaracterizations of the opposing party fueled by whatever echo chamber a person tends to consume their news and media from. Meanwhile we're completely distracted from the abuses of both parties in nearly every single newly passed piece of legislation pandering to lobbyists and campaign donors.
The obvious solution is to raise citizens who are able to critically think for themselves, but we're only getting worse in this regard the more we see the government intervening in public education, and things aren't looking much better in the private education sector.
Realize "believe" is the wrong term when talking about science in the first place. (Man I hate it when people say that instead of "I accept evolution is a valid scientific theory as supported by reams of evidence and creationism isn't even science." )
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
43% + 67% = 100% but 54% + 64% > 100%
To add to the confusion and misunderstanding, percents are broken down into not well defined other percents.
Article provides good examples of how many people don't understand basic science, basic math, and effective communication skills.
new letter/phrase: hex-u means "www"
I can't name a single thing that man doesn't create through an evolutionary process.
Sometimes I think about the possibility of God being a genetic engineer who's figured out everything we're trying to learn right now and has already deposited us on a test bed in the middle of this solar system after having genetically engineered us and cultivated us through an evolutionary process. Like Sea Monkeys.
I'm Christian, by the way. Unlike some scientists I'm all right with not having all the answers.
I think the bills got dumber as well, which encouraged separation.
The only things linking the two sides now is the willingness to buy missiles, spytech and give themselves raises. With the occasional post office naming.
O ye of the unwashed masses, devoid of the great lessons and wisdoms of life:
http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/howtofly.php
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
On matters of economic policy are the 43% of Republicans who believe in evolution smarter than socialist leaning Democrats? In my opinion certainly.
sure leaves fags out in the cold...
A lot more than that changed their minds on health insurance reform crafted by the Heritage Foundation. The Republicans who spent the better part of 20 years pushing it suddenly "realized" it was the lovechild of Stalin and Hitler. Democrats who used to mock Romneycare, and kicked Hillary out of the primaries for supporting the mandate, now think it's the Most Progressive Plan Evah.
Mindless political hacks, all of them.
Before the gloating sets in, you have to put these numbers into perspective: a significant fraction of Europeans also do not believe in evolution; here is data from the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
In addition, although scientific literacy is low in both Europe and the US, American adults are generally better informed on science than European adults:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/science-literacy-us-college-courses-really-count
I'd rather be in the "bottom third" that believes in rational, open inquiry than the top two-thirds that lives in a secular liberal fantasy land built on false theories, propaganda and political correctness. Your comfortable world can (and inevitably will) fall apart around you as science moves from one left wing political cause to another, while mine stays grounded in objective reality, giving my life meaning, structure and a solid foundation upon which a history of empires and free market economies have been built. So yeah, I'll take the "bottom third" any time.
Even if that kind of nonsense were true, it wouldn't matter: whether evolution has occurred is an objective fact and not subject to your choice or belief. So, you cannot avoid the consequences of evolution by simply choosing to ignore it.
Maybe all the God believers don't like this. They feel that every person and race should have an equal opportunity to exist on this planet. There
Unless they believe in a different sky daddy, then it's their duty to kill them and hope they burn in hell?
You are confused.
"Survival of the fittest" has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
It is a slogan invented by the Nazi party in the mid-30's in an attempt to associate their ideology with established scientific Theory. It is a gross misinterpretation of Evolutionary Theory.
Sort of like "The missing link". Another phrase which captured the public imagination but has no real meaning in a scientific context.
Once these memes catch on, they never die even though they are completely bogus.
Believing that our universe came forth by accident from nothing and then that our planet just happened to be one which could support life, and then we evolved initially from primordial ooze, and then from single- celled organisms into... fish... then monkeys.. and then people, is completely unbelievable and unrealistic. It would take a tremendous leap of faith and abandonment of logic to believe then entire big-bang to evolution concoction of theories. Evolving from simple to complex violates the laws of thermodynamics. It is far easier to believe that were were created in perfect form, and have De-evolved over the years due to various factors. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I voted for Romney :-) for the sake of protecting the unborn.
You're confusing evolution with eugenics.
Who cares?
30% non-believers.
Does that mean 70% believe?
In that case just let evolution and breeding sort it out until all the non-believers are gone!
(Yeah. You don't need to tell me.)
When it comes to political decision making, I prefer someone who honestly says that he doesn't believe in evolution because he doesn't understand the evidence for it to someone who says that he believes in evolution because scientific experts have told him that it's true and doesn't want to look stupid.
Unfortunately, most respondents who believe in evolution fall into the latter category.
Seriously, does this even matter? I don't think you're ever going to get 100% of people to agree to anything. Some people would disagree just to be difficult. What if we discover that much of what we believe about evolution right now is actually false? What would historians say about the minority of Americans that rejected the idea?
I suppose if I were not an American, I would see this poll and article as a chance to point and laugh at how stupid the Americans are. The thing is, I've travelled the world quite a bit, and from what I've seen a large percentage of people everywhere are quite stupid, especially when it comes to things like scientific ideas that do not directly affect them day to day.
The process of evolution is a FACT. It is NOT a theory. It does not require any sort of "belief".
Just observe: today's cars are different last years cars. That is a FACT. How did they get that way? We applied selective pressure and... kept the models we liked. Evolution at work! Before you say "but, this isn't biological evolution"... how do you think all those vegetables you eat got to their current state? Do you really think Chihuahua was GOD's creation?
I neither believe or disbelieve in the theory of evolution. It simply is the current best theory that matches all the available evidence. my believe is neither required nor given.
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
“If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
– St. Augustine of Hippo, 5th Century AD (considered by some Protestants to be one of the theological fathers of the Reformation)
- See more at: http://truecreation.info/
My kids came home from their first day of school asking "are people really this stupid?" They weren't asking about the students. They were asking about the teachers. They knew kids didn't know stuff, but the idea that their teachers might be ignorant also was a shock. My answer: yes dear, but don't let them know you know how stupid they are, or they will hurt you.
I wish I could claim this was the benefit of my genome, but it is environmental. If the kid learns to read at 18 mos, they will develop some way to evaluate the text on their own and establish their own ethical domain. They will experience the mainstream educational method in that context, objectively finding it ridiculous.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I think, to be fair, that this bit of research is pretty inconsequential. Most people simply don't have the insight to understand what evolution is about - as evidenced by much of the discussion on this forum. It's like accepting general relativity or quantum mechanics - if you believe or disbelieve simply because the group you associate with believes or disbelieves, then it is no better than following the fashion of the day.
The danger in a democracy, however, is that there is a risk that popular sentiment can influence scientific research indirectly, through funding and otherwise; for that reason alone, science should work at being more appealing and to the public. It shouldn't be hard, either - just point out how all the benefits we enjoy today are directly connected to science in general. Without the insights of QM and GR we would have no computers and other modern electronics; without those and the insight of the theory of evolution, we would have very little modern medicine: no cure for bacterial infections, and we wouldn't now be just on the verge of cracking cancer, genetic diseases, Alzheimer and viruses, just to mention a few.
There are (at least) three positions a person can hold regarding God's existence:
1. "I believe that God exists" (aka religion) 2. "I believe that God does not exist" (aka atheism)
This is extremely restrictive in that it frames things in terms of a single god and only in belief. The more common atheist position is:
2b. I lack belief in the existence of gods.
While your 1. hides the existence of the asymmetry between theism and atheism, every theist I have ever come across believes in a single god or particular pantheon of gods and either lacks belief in the existence of other gods, actively disbelieves in them or thinks they are a misattribution of the god(s) that he worships.
3. "I hold no beliefs concerning either the existence or the non-existence of God" (aka agnosticism)
Is a misunderstanding of what agnosticism is. Theism and a-theism (not the privative alpha) are about belief, gnosticism and a-gnosticism are about knowledge. It is perfectly possible to lack belief in god(s), i.e. be an atheist while at the same time not being certain that god(s) do not exist, i.e. agnostic.
humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
The human race is 13.77 ± 0.4% billion years old. That's old. "I have seen the glittering creation beams above the Tannhauser gate; the singularity of our making as we depart from the dark universes past." That's sci-fi.
trying jumping off a roof in a black hole
your turn
but Evolution sure does "believe" in them!
C'mon - belief is what you do on your particular Holy Day, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, whenever. Surely it should be said that people either accept or reject Evolution, rather than "believe" in it, which puts the level of wrongheadedness of the rejectionists into sharper, less emotive focus.
ID is a pointless fiddle to leave religion some room.
If aliens made life on earth, who made the life on the planet they came up on? Other aliens? Or did THEY evolve without ID?
In the latter case, ID isn't the way it MUST happen here, and there's no evidence for any alien to have done it, so it's unnecessary.
In the former case, how did life arise on the planet THOSE aliens came from? Other aliens? Or did THEY evolve without ID?
And the only way to get out of infinite regression is to say that life arose without intelligent design.
Because even "but the first aliens, not us, were made by God", that becomes infinite regression too. Even though that's what ID wants to have "taught".
We know that definition of God you're talking about doesn't exist since it's entirely self-contradictory.
Indeed your coda makes it impossible too: if we're not able to comprehend or even notice such transcendence, then the bible, being a comprehension of its transcendence, cannot be that being, since it's been comprehended.
... I bet you don't believe that BLACKS evolved from APES, do you...
Want to talk about it? Thought not...
Since Paul was the one who set up the papacy and that he did so based on Jesus saying that he was given power to do so as his earthly representative AND that Jesus (and hence Paul, and therefore the Pope) can let ANYONE into heaven according to christian doctrine, the pope IS the gatekeeper.
Indeed that is the entire reason why protestants think the papacy is the institution of satan, since elsewhere in the bible, the earth was given to satan to lord over and be an affliction to the faithless humans who ate of the forbidden fruit, therefore anyone saying they rule earth spritually must be statan.
... when presented with THIS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_erectus_new.JPG
Home erectus. Looks very similar to a modern AFRICAN, doesn't he....
But then that would imply that Africans evolved from apes, and all the other races EVOLVED from Africans, and whites evolved from the Indians...
LOL. We can't have the TRUTH coming out, can we...
Both the biological theories of evolution and the alternative ideas you hear flying around are massively oversimplified compared to how reality is. The basic principles of evolution are a mathematical consequence in many systems with feedback, for example dynamical systems. The idea that evolution happens should be a no-brainer to most rational people. The idea that our current understanding of the behaviour of systems that evolve over a long period of time is sufficient to explain our distant origins in any sufficiently detailed degree so as to be of practice use, however, is not so clear cut. The idea that the fine detail sufficient to make accurate experimental predictions in real world cases is beyond what we can comprehend is a natural idea given modern notions of information and complexity, but have more in common with the 'ineffability of God' type ideas you find in religious circles, rather than either the 'we can know, we shall know' sentiment once uttered by Hilbert before Godel threw a spanner into the works of his plan to make the foundations of mathematics provably rigorous, and also the 'we have this pretty theory and we like it, therefore we _do_ know' type attitudes that are become all too common amongst sciency types these days.
I believe in evolution, but I don't believe current science properly understands evolution, nor will they for some time, so I seriously doubt anything beyond 'evolution has been going on for a long time and contributes massively to how we are today'.
John_Chalisque
Because that happened in the past, therefore you can't go there while he does the first experiment showing the electron charge, can you.
HOWEVER, you CAN go and do the same experiment again.
So why the hell do you think "you cannot test the precambrian evolution" is a problem with testing evolution?
Someone failed Science 101. GP is right, you are not. Fact. Bro. Chihuahua.
Here is how logic & science proof the existence of the Creator http://youtu.be/ZS1x-6al2pE
Sure, so you jump from a roof and theoretically hit the ground. Fact is: everyone who tried that before has hit the ground.
Counter evidence.
Your hitting the ground theory of gravity needs more work.
... is so scientific ...
Perhaps you could provide us with a helpful list of things that we must believe or be shunned.
You could call it a "catechism" ...
if its a believe issue, then leave it to the zeals, its not an issue for news.
Now, statistically, the chances of mosquitoes evolving twice... That's a doozy.
Insects are common. Flying insects are common. Blood-sucking is an obvious niche. So it seems reasonably likely that a mosquito-like insect would have evolved. (Blood-sucking also evolved in bats, and even amongst Darwin's finches on the Galapagos.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
there is so much idiotic bollox in your post its not worth refuting as facts are of no use to you
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Creationism bugs the heck out of arrogant liberal want-to-be dictators with delusions of godhood. Those liberals want to micro-manage other people's lives, all the way down to what size soft drink you can buy.
Every minute liberals spend fighting against creationism diverts them from their normal evil plans, such as the Obama administration's "Fast and Furious Project" which supplied guns to trigger-happy drug dealers. Of course it's merely a coincidence that every drug-related gun murder creates more votes for politicians who support gun control, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hilary Clinton.
I'm surprised that so few people reject evolution, given the obnoxiousness of the people who support evolution..
Intelligent people can blindly believe incredibly false ideas. Isaac Newton is an excellent example. I think few would argue that he was smarter than more or less anyone on /. But he went ended up following some pretty fallacious paths, which I am sure he would have defended fiercely and intelligently. This may be understandable given the times he lived in, but it is not today since so much of what people believe is so demonstrably false. Yet people persist in the belief that opinion is as good as proven fact (clue - it's not), and that anyones opinion is as good as anyone elses (another clue - it's not. As an engineer, my opinion, say, of a bit of code or circuit design is more well founded than, say, my wifes, who is a teacher. On the other hand her opinion on teaching is more well founded than mine.). What is missing in the US is being taught to *think* and to think *critically*. Instead we allow pressure groups to dictate what is taught and what is not. I do not have a problem with organized religion, but I do have a problem when schools of thought are dictated by people who are so shallow minded that they are afraid to use the intelligence they were born with. It seems as if you scream and stamp your feet loudly enough, and hide behind good old freedom of speech, you can force any harmful creed down someone elses throat.
I don't see why more folks don't believe in God and evolution at the same time. I always interpreted the 7 day thing as figurative meaning each day was a phase and could have taken thousands or millions of years. The concept of an almighty being is also feasible and every single computer science major should believe that. Just ask yourself whether or not it is possible to create a world with millions of sentient beings that you can interact with and control? Maybe not today but how about 100 or 200 years from now? I find the people who argue vehemently against either idea (evolution or God) to be severely misguided.
I don't mean to imply that I am an opponent of the theory of evolution... But why is that many of those who are either atheists or believers in evolution (deniers of intelligent design) are so eager to embrace the concept of an the aliens causing life on Earth? (I've read theories about a life alien DNA landing on Earth, aliens artificially putting life cells or DNA on the planet)? After all, to those atheists, what is the difference between an alien cooking Primordial Soup vs God cooking Primordial Soup?
I'm glad so many Americans are sceptical of the lies of the leftists.
an ill wind that blows no good
There is a big difference between what someone believes and what someone says they believe. The main cause is needing to belong. Someone may say they believe something to fit into the mold they want even though they actually believe something quite different. Link: http://catlakadam.blogspot.com
Birisi inanyor ve ne birileri diyor ki arasnda büyük bir fark vardr. Ana nedeni aittir gerek edilir. Birileri onlar aslnda oldukça farkl bir ey inanmak bile istediiniz kalba sdrmak için bir ey inanmak söyleyebiliriz.
# - http://catlakadam.blogspot.com [catlakadam.blogspot.com]
As a staunch conservative, let me just say that I'm embarrassed by these numbers. In case no one else has pointed this out, I'd like to put at least some of the blame for this on conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved, who devotes an hour each week to the promotion of "Intelligent Design".
One thing in his favor is that he greatly prefers to take dissenting opinions from his callers, so I'd like to encourage articulate and well-informed call-ins. Just make sure that you've read some of the literature in support of "Intelligent Design" first, as he tends to ask that as a way to put the caller on unequal footing.
I have a family member who I just found out doesn't believe in evolution. Well, humans evolving from apes anyway. He believes in microevolution. Can anyone point me towards a very up to date, single resource, that can help me convince him of evolution? Something that lays out a clear case from the fossil records to the genetic information -- all of it in one, clear argument.
So adding "believing" in something else is not a compatible narrative.
Neanderthals!
Think about it. Visit a zoo and watch the monkeys & apes throw poop. Then watch Congress in action. I see no sign of evolution.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Scientists do not actually believe in it.
Aha! So they're among the 33%?
Lots of Schwantzenfreude going on here.
Another study suggests people tend to only believe what they see happen before their own eyes, or that which their elders can explain to them in less than 20 words.
Things change over time yes, but to extrapolate that humans came about from apes which came from amoeba? If I had to guess I'd say Darwin was trying to sell books at the time, that or become famous.
I like the idea of deporting all of them to some third-world country that insists on living in the forefront of the 14th century. All the Republicans we send them will feel *so* at home.
mark
I wonder what percentage of people don't care weather it was evolution or not, and just pick whatever answer they think will fit in best with their surroundings. Is it really believing in evolution if you just say, "Yea sure evolution whatever?" Or is it believing in ID to just say, "I think we've always been this way" without putting any thought into and just trying to get the pollster to leave you alone so you can go on your way? I bet that to most people the answer is meaningless either way.
Your confusing ignorance with disagreement. Most people who don't believe in evolution have been explained what it is and what the evidence is for it. They know about dinosours, carbon dating and DNA. There is no evidence that the people who disagree with you are less intelligent than yourself. That is just your ego making your feel good. Your fear of people who think differently is predictable but also kind of lame.
Sure. Evolution is science. Actually, no. It's more like a religeon. And just like most folk here say 'religeous' folk won't listen to reason, neither do many who say they are into science. It's all just inflated ego on some subjects. I usually get dropped or banned here - even when I'm polite and careful in my responses. So why bother. But here is some science for you. Check the link. It appears that the apostles of global warming are having some problems with their theories. I'm not a troll. I'm just tired of Slashdot's biased treatment of anyone with an opinion even slightly different.
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17277-global-warming-alarmists-stuck-in-antarctic-sea-ice
I on the contrary believe in evolution precisely because it is the current best theory. If something comes along that better explains what we observe, then I'll believe that.
"many different education systems in African countries"
or perhaps
many different education systems in a particular country in Africa
it would have been clearer.
Ha ha. Your comment about seeing electrons hits homes. I am one of those retards that believe the the majesty and perceived order in the universe points to a divine creation. I was having a polite arguments with an intelligent atheist who felt that I was an idiot because I believe in divine creation. In the argument he pointed to the fact that scientist could see electrons. Yes my friends scientists can see electrons. His arguments was not that scientist could logically deduce the existence of electrons. No scientists can see them. I really think he thought that with a big enough microscope you could see and electron. Wow. There really is no arguing with that. Yet atheists are all the time calling creationists stupid and ill informed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
About the same number of Americans consistently vote Republican although for most of them it is against their interests. Seems like a linkage here: Ignorance, superstition and stupidity, along with a big dose of manipulation and fear-mongering by the 1% and their wannabees.
Stop telling other people what to do.
Who the fuck are you?
You don't "believe" in science or evolution. You accept it, challenge it with alternative ideas, or confess ignorance, Belief is about faith not science. The two things are not equivalent. I don't have "faith" in science. The very idea is absurd.
Interesting choice of words when discussing knowledge.
Scientists can speak in their expertise and say, with some real authority, that X or Y or Z happened. What they do, instead, is that they go on to say, THEREFORE THERE IS NO GOD or THERE IS NO PURPOSE or THERE IS NOTHING DISTINCTIVE ABOUT HUMANS in purpose or destiny. Science is about efficient causes, and Evolutionists presume to preach on final causes and formal causes. Which is, to put it kindly, speaking outside of their expertise. Not much different than a theologian making scientific inferences about fossil records.
Gravity is a theory too.
We'll sheet. Ain't no such thang. I'll stake my overhanging unabrow on that.
No one should BELIEVE in evolution. It's a theory. It's a field of study. It isn't for believing it's for understanding and researching. If you want to believe in something, which suggests faith rather than the acquisition of or pursuit of knowledge you might as well just be reading a bible rather than a science text book.
I don't believe it for a second. The fact is that if you thought your group believed that the earth was flat, you would say it was flat, even if you knew it to be false. So, the media frenzy on this makes it more likely that people will SAY that they disbelieve evolution, because of their need to be part of the tribe.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
I would like to know from someone who has read the book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" what makes you agree with the evolutionary point of view?
As someone that has read the Bible at least 10 times, I agree on the Bible view because it answers the questions:
1. Why am I here?
2. What is my purpose? What is the meaning of life?
3. What is right or wrong?
4. What is my destiny?
Again, please someone who has read the book. I don't doubt there are a bunch of experts here but I don't know where these responses will be coming from.
Let's see, what if the CDC denied the flu shot to those people who said that evolution is false. Then we would know in a few generations if they were right or not; no, the belief itself is not inherited, but the meme that supports the belief might be contagious. There ought to be fewer people who believe evolution doesn't happen because the rapidly evolving flu viris should kill them off at a differential rate.
The other thing that is far easy to do is to eliminate some areas of the country where evangelical Protestantism is more common from the sttistics. That would seem to introduce a bias or a correlated fact connected with belief. For example, just eliminating the Old South from the study might reveal much different statistics, Similarly removing Southern Baptists might have a similar effect on the data. I thought that earlier versions of this sort of study came up with a higher percentage of Americans saying that they didn't believe in evolution, say 30 years ago, than now. That is progress.
Creationism is a ruse. It is a rhetorical position and like any such argument it is designed to substitute a strategic point of view to defend a weak permise. In this case belief that God created the static universe depicted in Genesis defends the weak permise that authority of The Word is an absolute and defendable. The term used by these bigots is "inerrancy in Scripture" and it comes from the preliterate belief that written words are exactly what they are said to mean and not crude approximations to fact. The world's religions are rooted in a time when most people did not read and had an almost magical belief in the wisdom of people who could read. Now, we know that words can easily be twisted and that semantics and meaning can change over time and be manipulated, something not accepted through out much of the history of the Bible from Rabbinic times up to past the beginning of the Reformation. Some parts of America were settled by refugees from Europe at a time before this distinction was widely accepted in the 17th Century, and these people are relics of the earlier way of thinking. They have been sheltered from the outside world by their own imposed isolation and by living in rural and isolated parts of what had been a sparcely populated nation. Now, they are being exposed.
Actually the apparent medical ethics case playing out right now in Oakland Ca. might have something to do with this. A 13 year old girl is still on a ventilator two weeks after a surgury caused cardiac arrest and "brain death" meaning that there is no electrical activity in her brain. According to Children's Hospital and a couple of neurologists the girl is deceased, yet her family insists that she is still alive and that a miracle could occur to revive her, and retained a lawyer to fight to keep her on life support and even transfer her to a sub-acute care facility. The hospital insists that the girl has died and that she has no more chance of being revived as does a corpse that is being maintained to be used for organ transplant. The experience of being alive resides in the neural activity of the brain. The outspoken mother believes that because her child is warm and still has a heart beat she is still alive and is a person. Her belief is reinforced by a faith-based community she is part of, probably faith-healing, probably evangelical. I have no issue with the anguish the mother and family feels, the whole thing is tragic and possibly criminal if a routine operation went bad due to carelessness, but the case reveals the pitfalls of ignorance of science and resulting magical thinking. The hospital cannot yield on the science that brain death is death for it would destroy organ donation practice, but the unfounded beliefs of the mother are like the belief in Creationism. It would not surprise me at all of the group that his been supporting her also believes in Creationism or that evolution is false.
The idea of "belief" in a process necessarily leads to philosophy and religion where belief is important and facts are nearly irrelevant. Do I believe in evolution: no! I already have a religion and science isn't it. Science should never be framed in terms of belief, only in terms of hypothesis, currently accepted theory, proof, replication, and then either law or alternate hypotheses.
Under these provisions IMO proof does not exist for human evolution, nor has it been proven for many other species. Do I accept human evolution? About as much as I accept cold fusion. Do I accept other forms of evolution? Provisionally yes; some proof of diversification exists.
Working back from the implication that religious belief affects acceptance of scientific theorems I come up with an entirely different conclusion that the mainstream assumption: if you believe in the bible (and take it somewhat literally) then there MUST be a diversification process that works, at least within certain bounds; the number of species that could be accommodated on the Ark are a fraction of what exists today.
Science has demonstrated a diversification process in simple organisms, and has reasonable validation for species evolving within a genus and perhaps a family; however this mechanism is a long way from proving evolution from protozoa to homo sapiens, sapiens.
Therefore I reject the notion of human evolution as a proven theorem, however I do hold that a diversification process exists. Is it based on survival of the fittest or on an predisposition for diversification (genetic life assurance)? I cannot tell.
If the market and evolution are co-proofs then we are all in trouble because the market is seriously flawed and prone to collapse. Following this logic if evolution functioned like the market we should have all been extinct a LONG time ago (hmm maybe that was what killed the dinosaurs - a life market crash cause by gorging carnivores top and starvation at the bottom).
The trouble with Occam's Razor is that it is sharper than the guy who proposed it.
Say the truth really is down the creationist path. The truth will therefore never be found because each time the idea is brought up Occam gives it a quick shave and we are stuck with "well we still have evolution".
We get all excited about finding some form of diversification and then decide we know it all: "All Indians walk in single file! I know, because I saw one of them!!!".
If you trust science you miss the whole point! Don't trust it; it doesn't work that way! Use a theorem until it breaks, then find something more useful, but don't EVER proclaim you KNOW something because of science. Science makes for a very bad religion because you can't trust the god of science from one century to the next.
Considering the timescale involved in proving or disproving evolution we may as well be Copernicus tinkering with his epicycles without getting to the stage when we can truly say - this works within X bounds, but obviously isn't the way it really works.
I feel more comfortable with theoretical physics than evolution because at least with physics many theorems could be tried in my lifetime, whereas you would need to live as long as God to really see what is going on with evolution.
Really? So we see two different species (or as it turns out in a couple of recent cases a single species that we thought was two), we make up a story as to how one turned into the other, wait for someone to laugh and if the room is silent proclaim our finding as scientific proof? ;)
Awesome! we have finally matured into the era of populist science
Should we celebrate with fairy claps or pat ourselves on the back?
Not believing in evolution because an invisible man in sky, told a bunch of random men / women to write a book, isn't really logical now is it? The evolutionary tree is pretty complete, it does a great job of tracking many different branches and thanks to DNA we can verify the branches pretty closely. So I wouldn't say that one third of Americans don't believe in evolution, I would say that one third believe in blind ignorance.
So long as programs like Duck Dynasty, Storage Wars, Pawn Stars and their ilk flood the airwaves and News agencies
are more interested in ratings than truth, it doesn't matter what people think about something as irrelevant as evolution.
The movie Idiocracy is more prophetic than its creators ever dreamed.
1> Do you believe you are related to Chimpanzees?
And a "no" answer means you don't believe in evolution.
I've become so jaded and skeptical as it is so easy to design questions to get the response you want. I know when I was teaching it was expected to design them so to increase the pass/fail ratio for my classes.
As to republican vs democrat, that is a very regional perception. Where I grew up it was the democrat sheeple that were not too sure the world was really round.
NRRPT/RCT
Still some intelligent people out there!
At least 1/3 of us believe the right thing!
One of the early uses of calculus was to find the age of the Earth in years. Bishop Usher in 1650 estimated that the Earth was 4004 + 1650 = 5654 years old. That would make the Earth 4004+2013 = 6017 years old today. That fits right in with the young earth theory.
This article seems to imply that the theory of evolution is identical to natural selection. There are many advocates of natural selection (which has a ton of evidence) who do not support many of the other tenets of evolution. And while we are at it, there is not one single theory of evolution. The only one that could claim that was the original, and Darwin said some embarassing things, like if a momma monkey and a daddy monkey who are both missing their right arm have baby monkeys, those babies will also be missing their right arm. I guess he didn't know any blind (or deaf) parents with seeing (hearing) children. Debunking one tenet does not debunk other tenets, but if the question(s) read the way I think they did, I could not answer it. I'm still looking for a clearer article.
Well not the electron itself but as of last year we do have a picture of the orbit.
Sorry for being a pedant. :)