48% of Americans Reject Evolution

[Skullkracker]

Evolution is more like a paradigm IMO.
Which is kinda like the dominant theory 'till they come up with a better one. Over and out!

[reiketsu]

"Daddy, why is the sky blue?"

"Because God made it that way."

the above gets replaced with

"Because the light from the sun hits the Earth's atmosphere which our rods and cones in our eyes pick up as blue in color."

Above is a simple and blunt explanation.

For ages a thunder was explaned as being a *insert regional god here* demonstration of fury/happiness/arpoval/etc. Nowadays we know all physical process that results in that eletric oxplasion. It wasn't discovered from a day to another, it took time, experiments and hard work. The same goes for the theory of evolution (as mentioned in another thread "the wording does not mean that they doubt it’s true").

There still a lot to be learned, but we've got proofs enough to belive we didn't come from nowhere in a blink. It took eons of development until teh species reach the actual stage. And, hopefully, many others will changes will happen. Dunno.

Once I watched on the an interview with many college professors and scients about this issues. One of them said something very interesting, "Teh science isn't there to prove God didn't exist. It's there to help us to understand why everything 'is'. Often we statle in a dead end, thst forces us to go and look up for another ways to explain certain things. And sometimes, after realize what we needed to to keep going, we inquiry ourselves if there aren't really a great being that thought about this all and planned this big puzzle".

I'm an evolutionist myself. I don't accept what's written in the genesis as absolute truth, nonetheless I respect people's belief. Hence I'll try to understand it and even learn something, like that bible can be a good source of advices if you don't take it literally.

Evolution is more like a paradigm IMO.
Which is kinda like the dominant theory 'till they come up with a better one. Over and out!

I think that after all what was said in the thread, call evolution a "dominant theory" sounds kinda wrong.

[MsNomer]

48% of Americans are distressingly retarded.

If 51% of the population can re-elect George W. Bush to the presidency after having directly observed and experienced the effects of his lack of self-control, intelligence and higher thinking, then it is completely expected that almost half of the population of the United States is not prepared to accept analytical arguments based on the scientific method.

[MsNomer]

One thing I would like to point out, having completed an anthropology course entitled Magic, Science and Religion, is that the idea of belief in a supernatural being has itself evolved through time. Each civilization that sprung up from the hills and valleys our ancestors learned to cultivate created some diety to turn to that would explain things they could not explain for themselves. This pattern has repeated itself across ethnic bounderies, geographical locations and time. Whether prayers have been offered to ancestors, animal spirits, the sun, El, Bal or Christ, it has all been an effort to explain the unexplainable.

What has caused the progression of magic to religion? A better understanding of the natural world around us. As the scientific method has brought us a better understanding of the weather, we have stopped praying to dieties to bring the rain for our crops.

At some point, the beliefs you cling to today will become mythical and the fodder of fable. Which, by the way, would be full circle... as that is where religion started.

[hitokiri_snake]

The "heap" of evidence only shows that the universe is expanding, be it the doppler effect or whatever. There is no evidence that shows the universe has always been around, thus it had a beginning. That makes it even more strange to believe SOMETHING came from NOTHING or NOTHING creating SOMETHING. A transending external force just makes more sense.

[arke]

You must be killer in debates with that flawless logic.

[MsNomer]

It was Beekur, from the Muppet Show. He had an accident in the lab and *poof* Bob's your uncle and here we are.

[Starnum]

Meh, no reason God couldn't have made the big bang or whatever.

But seriously, evolution has been proven. I'm sure 48% of Americans reject the world "fuck" too. *shrugs* (Old fashion)

[Buzkashi]

Blindly following evolution makes you equally as stupid as those who blindly follow religion.

[Eldo]

The "heap" of evidence only shows that the universe is expanding, be it the doppler effect or whatever. There is no evidence that shows the universe has always been around, thus it had a beginning. That makes it even more strange to believe SOMETHING came from NOTHING or NOTHING creating SOMETHING. A transending external force just makes more sense.

Then what created the transcending external force? zomg my mind exploded

Blindly following evolution makes you equally as stupid as those who blindly follow religion.

Blindly following anything makes you stupid. For example, blindly supporting a politician and a call for a war goes as well.

If you believe everything someone tells you, then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Starnum]

Yes, you should question everything, especially your government and the nature of existence. You must always keep an open mind, because that's the best way for truth to get in.

[psi29a]

Blindly following evolution makes you equally as stupid as those who blindly follow religion.

Difference is that some of us like to draw conclusions based on the evidence presented. The problem is that some people have conclusions and go out looking for evidence and facts to support their conclusions. (I believe there was a cartoon about this too.)

It is far better to do the former than to do the latter.

[dialdfordesi]

Evolution is a really really simple process, it just takes longer than we could ever live to see the effects.

Organisms in a species are made differently. Some are better made to survive in their environments while others aren't so statistically that population will become more like the individuals who can live long enough to reproduce. Over large amounts of time (or at least large amounts of generations if you decide to incorporate microbiological organisms as well), these species change. Give it enough time (an unfathomably large amount) and different populations of a species in different areas will become so different that they can't interbreed (unlike dogs, all dogs are from the same species), thus making them different species.

I think the biggest "disbelief" comes from the common ancestor that man shares with primates. It's completely possible that we do have separate lineages since the evolutionary history is based on a lot of statistics, so it doesn't necessarily reflect how organisms evolved over time. Also toss in the fact that the fossil record is grossly incomplete due to the fact that only a fraction of organisms ever fossilize long enough for us to find them in an undeteriorated condition, and you can see that the phylogenetic tree (the "family tree" of evolution) is just the most probable way that things happened.

[Albator]

NOOOoooOOOoooOOooOOooOoOoOo....

[Buzkashi]

I'm just saying that 100 years ago or so they were equally as sure that there could be no flaws in Newtons theories.

Then Einstein came along.

Not saying all of what Newton said was wrong though. In fact most of it was right. I


If I'm not mistaken that is.

[Eldo]

The good thing about science, unlike religion, is that it could always be challenged and supported by experiments and the like. Nothing in science is ever 100% correct, and needs continuous modification and experiments in order to elaborate or disprove a theory. Theories are not set in stone, they are supported by experimental data and observations, which are factual information and evidence obtained from those experiments. This leads to new developments and progressions. Which is majorly different in religion, where words are set in stone and remains static and no further development comes from it. Science is supported by facts and evidence. Religion, however, is supported by faith and beliefs only.

Say if the bible wrote that the Earth was flat. Person A believes that completely. Person B however, has evidence that the world is round. Person A refuses to believe that because the bible says it's flat. This example, albeit a weak analogy because I'm tired, is an analogy that shows the argument for evolution versus religious beliefs. There is evidence supporting evolution, but people refuse to believe that because the bible wrote that man was created by God. The best of both worlds would be that God created a scheme that is evolution, but I think most religious people are not happy with being associated with primates.

[Buzkashi]

I can understand what you are saying. What you see most of the time is people comparing Christianity to science.

Islam is heavily scientific. The Quran supports or is the first example of the Big Bang Theory. It speaks of the formation of the fetus in the mothers stomach, the formation of clouds, plate tectonics etc. I'm not trying to buff up my faith or whatever, I'm just saying that throughout history what people have thought as universal Ideas for the way the world works or big scientific theories usually get proven wrong or altered. Like you said nothing in science is 100% correct.

[psi29a]

Like you said nothing in science is 100% correct.

Which I hope most professors will belabor this point. It is always evolving.

Some professors/teachers act like preachers sometimes.

[Eldo]

I can understand what you are saying. What you see most of the time is people comparing Christianity to science.

Islam is heavily scientific. The Quran supports or is the first example of the Big Bang Theory. It speaks of the formation of the fetus in the mothers stomach, the formation of clouds, plate tectonics etc. I'm not trying to buff up my faith or whatever, I'm just saying that throughout history what people have thought as universal Ideas for the way the world works or big scientific theories usually get proven wrong or altered. Like you said nothing in science is 100% correct.

Yes, but my point is that religion itself is not 100% correct itself. Should it be contradicted, it would go to all lengths to prove that the science is wrong, countering with badly designed and poorly calculated science, along with personal faiths and beliefs, as with Christianity. My unfamiliarity with the Quran makes me unable to comment on your statement or to applaud it, but while scientific theories could get proven wrong and altered; religion, it seems, cannot. Science could be challenged it order to better itself, but religion cannot be challenged, or it would be heresy. Religion seems to suggest that their texts are 100% correct. The taboo of corrections in religion is that it must always be right, because it has been passed down by the higher order. And if there are mistakes, then there is some flaw in the beliefs and in this 'higher order', hence ridicule begins. A set of ideals could change. Science is constantly evolving. Religion, however, seems it cannot.

[Buzkashi]

I can understand that.

What people can't understand is that science and religion can work together. What you see predominantly in the west though was either a complete dominance of one or the other througout history. It was either Religion that didn't recognize science or science that didnt recognize religion. Science was put on the back burner for so long in midevil europe that it was simply a case of Thesis and Anti-Thesis with the rise of liberalism.

What people dont understand is that education, sciences, etc. lived in harmony with religion in other parts of the world. But what you see these days is a new kind of crusade. The west is trying to spread its Liberal Revolution(Capitalism,Secularism, and Democracy) to every corner of the Globe. Thing is you cant spread a solution to a problem to people who didnt have the same problem.

[dialdfordesi]

Like you said nothing in science is 100% correct.

That is most definitely true. My genetics professor who got his degree in 2006 learned a completely different method of genome replication that the model that's used today.

I'm also feeling you on the fact that religion and science can work together. I know lots of Indians who are both scientists and devout Hindus. I'm not saying the creation stories don't contradict what we now know, but the way I see it is the teachings of Hinduism are more spiritual and philosophical than saying that things are a certain way.

[Starnum]

I wouldn't really call myself religious. I want to know as much truth as possible. For me, that DOES involve both God and science. I don't care if it means I'm related to primates, if its the truth. I don't agree with blindly arguing something that can easily be seen as blatantly wrong. Nor do I think you should draw a conclusion and then try to come up with facts or excuses to explain it. Eldo is right, not only is science not entirely correct, but neither is religion. The bible may include truths and the words of God, but it was also written by man. It says not to add to or take away from the words of the bible, which can only mean that man has done so. If God has told man not to alter the bible, for it is a sin, than that is proof beyond the logical sense that its possible that it can and has been altered. It’s all about interpreting the words of God and coming to your own personal beliefs about what are true, and what really matters. As a child I couldn’t accept that the bible could be wrong, but it is only a document of God’s will written by man, and thus I am sure that it has been manipulated by man. However, it just happens that my own personal beliefs and experiences have lead me to believe in God as well. There's no reason both can't be true, God and evolution. I just prefer to keep an open-minded mentality with my belief system.

[arke]

So... are you guys done with the science circle jerk?

[MrFelony]

wait, i haven't finished yet. does that mean i have to eat the biscuit?

[Starnum]

Yes, yes it does.