Mere Third of Americans Believe in Evolution Theory — This is just plain ridiculous.
The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God — as stated in the Bible — essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:
Thi situation just gets worse by the minute as Americans believe less and less in the idea of scientific proof and the notion of progress.
I blame academia for all this. Nobody ever addresses these zealots and instead ignores them thinking that it will blow over. This is exactly what happens with right-wing talk radio. They are ignored as if they are inconsequential. They are not!! Now look what we have.
Now if people are going to claim that the Bible is literal and must be obeyed without question, then how long will it be before we, like some Muslims, re-institute public stoning? I’d like to know.
I also challenge any of the self aggrandizing posters to take a look at all the phenomena that science can’t explain. Most scientists just pretend it doesn’t exist or come up with some lame reasoning that won’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. That’s why anyone who takes an open honest look won’t even start to take sides in an argument as stupid as evolution vs. creation. I know this won’t change the narrowminded, bigoted nature of some of the posters (you know who you are, you’re the ones getting mad about now), but maybe, just maybe you might open your eyes, if only just a narrow slit, or maybe you’ll just bury your head a little deeper into wherever it is you have it.
Claiming that evolution did not happen is putting your head in the sand. Rooted in the belief that evolution is a “theory not a fact” is severe lack of understanding about how science works. We are not talking about arbitrary dismissal of a guess. We are talking about what can be proven according to very strict guidelines of scrutiny. Just because we cannot state down to the millisecond how old the Earth is, does not in any way imply that we cannot state with complete confidence that it is millions of years old. Somehow, the scientifically ignorant have concluded that scientific theories are simply opinions just like religion is an opinion. It is analogous to believing that the world is flat because your religion says that it is (which the bible suggests).
I have to agree with M. Marvinski in that there are things that science cannot explain and there are things creationism cannot explain. I hope you all have noticed that I have neither said that the evolutionary theory was wrong nor right. Neither have I said creationism is wrong or right. Arguing these points is worthless because there are counter-examples or inconguities to both ideas. What I was trying to point out is that things are more complex than they appear to be. Theories are theories, ways to sum up facts. And religion is faith which means that it takes very little fact to support. I’m just hoping that by reading these statements you see that being blindly devoted to either side of this argument is ridiculous and pointless… unless you just like to argue.
I also challenge any of the self aggrandizing posters to take a look at all the phenomena that science can’t explain. Most scientists just pretend it doesn’t exist or come up with some lame reasoning that won’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.
Yeah, that’s why no research is being conducted anywhere right now. In fact, scientists are covering up all that research because they are pretending that there is nothing science can’t explain, so they can never admit that any additional work needs to be done.
Indeed, if you read any scientific grant applications, they generally say, “we already know the answer to this question, but we just want more money to prove it again!”
/sarcasm
Sorry M, but that’s crazy talk.
First, it’s quite obvious that scientists never, ever, ever pretend that they have the answer to everything and there’s nothing they can’t explain. Hell, even from financial point of view, that’s crazy. There’s a financial incentive, in the very least, to make up issues that need to be explained just to get some money even if there were no issues to explain. But as you acknowledge, there are unexplained phenomenon, so scientists will indeed not pretend that everything has been explained. How better to get that fat grant cash?
Moreover, if an “explanation” doesn’t hold up to “scientific scrutiny” as you say, you know what happens? Scientists try to correct the error and then explain it! If an “explanation” is peer reviewed and other scientists punch holes in that explanation, a SWAT team of scientists will jump all over the issue to figure out the answer. In the very least, the “publish or perish” issue in academia ensures this type of activity.
There are just too many incentives to take apart the pre-existing status quo. At no point will scientists allow a flawed explanation just to sit there and for scientists to “pretend” that everything has an explanation. Somebody is always trying to make their mark, make a buck, keep their jobs, etc.. What better way than to punch a hole than in a preexisting “explanation”?
Moreover, you mentioned earlier that there are scientific theories that have been proven wrong over time. To add to Thomas’ sufficient answer to your point, who do you think proved those theories wrong? Theologians? No, other scientists did (although those aren’t mutually exclusive groups historically, but are for pratical purposes these days).
Okay, if man, monkeys and apes evolved from less than ape, due to survival of the fittest, I suppose, do we have a scale of evolutionary achievement to tell where current ape species are on the ladder to becoming men? Is next step in man’s evolvement to become gods?
Hey, armchair biologists. Can we solve the Chicken and Egg problem right now, since I was having this conversation after the Cal game.
Whichever mutation occurred in the predecessor-chicken species to create our modern chicken had to happen before the egg was produced that led to the current chicken. Or maybe it occurred in the egg, before fertilization, but then that’s still the first chicken egg, which came before the chicken. If it occurred in a live chicken, then that chicken is not the same species as the current chicken, as all the other cells have the predecessor-chicken DNA.
Hence the egg came first. (We weren’t sure, right?)
So I was wondering when do most mutations that lead to a new species occur? During DNA transcription when stem cells are reproducing. During the differenciation of stem cells into eggs. Is it due to random errors in the DNA duplication process, or perfectly-timed hits of radiation?
We talk about mutation to evolve a new species all the time, but before that conversation I had never considered how that mutation has to occur in a particular cell at the right time in order to make it into a new organism that can reproduce itself.
There’s no need for perfectly-timed hits. All the cells are hit and mutated. It may hit a cell that doesn’t divide at all, as some white blood cells or neurons, as it may hit a cell that’s dividing but is not involved in reproduction (the most common example being the skin cancers produced by UV waves). And when it hits a reproductive cell, it may destroy it on short term or modifying the offspring into something that cannot reproduce itself.
And then, of course, there’s the filter of compatibility with the environment.
Just as I thought, from the responses to my previous comments, the small/narrow minded will forge blindly on ahead totally ignoring history. There are very few things in the universe that you can prove and evolution ain’t one of them and neither is creation. Somehow, there are always people who think mankind has arrived at the epitome of intellegence when all you have to do is take a look around to see how ignorant mankind really is. Show me any other animal on earth that pollutes the very air it breathes, food it eats and water it drinks. Show me another animal that wages war on it’s own kind. Yep, humans are right there at the top of the heap.
Yes, religion is an opiate, as is science also. Some people learn from the past, some ignore it. Ignore, ignorance… they go together. Kudos to the posters that actually see the big picture. I’m sorry for the ones that don’t. Like the poor, we will always have the ignorant with us. Take the blinders off.
And once again, it’s not about whether people believe in evolution or creation, since it really doesn’t matter, it’s about people being narrow minded. All this issue really does is expose the people that need help. Tell me how believing either way is going to help you when you need food on the table, a roof over your head, a job or when someone you love or you, yourself are dying of cancer or any other life issue. I guarantee, you will not be thinking about whether man evolved from primordial ooze. As far as that goes, if evolution is fact, then surely man in his present form is merely an amoeba on his way to a truly intellegent lifeform.
Are you trying to tell me that we are NOT in the Matrix right now? The theory of creation and evolution was lost years ago. I was talking to my pet monkey “Adam” and he was telling me he experienced the Matrix first hand.
Theory: as stated above is “tested and proven”. Check out Google for “Scientific Theory”. A theory must be validated and repeated, hopefully by independant studies.
God: Once again, we can argue but it’s a waste of breath. I would simply ask the evolutionists one thing. Would they, for the sake of investigation, open mindedness, and pure questioning, sit in a quiet room for one hour, alone, and ask the Creator to show Himself. He doesn’t need me to fight for Him. But are you willing to truly be open? Easy to nay-say. Easy to call it crap. Willing to ask? Willing to be wrong? Yes, there is a right and wrong answer here.
Lord Jesus, please touch each of these kids, show them the Father, show them the truth. Your truth that is not confusing, is not someones vain imagination, is nothing except the proof that You love them and You are alive. The truth that You are willing and eager to talk to each and every one, right now.
Instead of cussing me, why don’t you just try it?
Jeff C
the same thing will happen if you ask Hestia to come into your life.
I tried and it worked.
Wow, seems the comments to this post are continuing. Kudos to John Dvorak for the post then if you are attempting to affect people… apparently it touched a lot of people–in one way or another. I couldn’t say the discussions have been very productive, but it shows that a lot of people have very strict thoughts on the matter. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s been a while since I’ve seen this many comments on one single post. Anyway, I’d like to end my commenting on this post by saying the following: in the span of your lifetime, whether or not creationism or evolution is the “right” answer will not matter. I think a more important question is not what happened in the past but what is happening today? What will you be doing today and why will you be doing that? SOMEthing drives you–whether that be money or power or sex or God, there is a reason that you are doing what you do today… I hope it’s the right reason.
Pierre,
Sorry to hear about your Hestia experience. Keep the Faith…
Once again, we can argue but it’s a waste of breath. I would simply ask the evolutionists one thing. Would they, for the sake of investigation, open mindedness, and pure questioning, sit in a quiet room for one hour, alone, and ask the Creator to show Himself. He doesn’t need me to fight for Him. But are you willing to truly be open? Easy to nay-say. Easy to call it crap. Willing to ask? Willing to be wrong? Yes, there is a right and wrong answer here.
Definitions of Delusions on the Web:
false beliefs that usually involve a misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences
specialed.peoriaud.k12.az.us/psygloss.htm
a person’s serious misunderstandings about what is going on – in other words, a misunderstanding of what they see, hear, or sense. There are several common themes for delusions: persecution (being tricked or picked on), “referential” ideas (everything is directly related to, or about themselves), religious ideas, and “grandiose” ideas. Other themes are possible. Psychiatrists admit it can sometimes be hard to distinguish deeply held beliefs from delusions. Contrast this to Hallucinations.
http://www.rcep7.org/orient/orient/refrnc/gloss/gloss_cd.htm
False beliefs that distort reality. (p. 556)
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/intro/cafe/lahey7/student/olc/chap14glossary.mhtml
John wrote:
“Now if people are going to claim that the Bible is literal and must be obeyed without question, then how long will it be before we, like some Muslims, re-institute public stoning? I’d like to know.”
Now, I don’t exactly remember Jesus endorsing stoning in the New Testament. Or did he? 😉
And sticking with this observation, where in the New Testament does it say the earth and the universe is 10,000 years old???
The point is that if you are going to take Old Tesstament material and make it part of this belief system, then why be selective? I understand being selective, but the absolutists who promiote the 10,000 year old universe say they are not selective and the whole Bible is the Word..and must be believed and obeyed. Thus stoning. Jeseus has nothing to do with it since he never forbade the practice.
Hey, I’m just asking.
Dvorak said:
10,000 years since the creation of the universe
John, you are using a “strawman” argument by conveniently assuming that ALL creationists believe that matter was also created 10,000 years ago. But the evidence for a recent “origin of life” is much more compelling and powerful than the evidence for a recent “origin of the Universe”. This makes perfect sense because, in general, more recent phenomena usually leave fresher evidence. Also, without any contradictions, you can have a recent “origin of life” without necessarily agreeing with a recent “origin of the Universe”.
Dvorak (also) said:
“…sedentary layers, petrifaction and other things that should have taken over 10,000 years…”
The existence of sedentary layers is not questioned by Creationists. It is the method and timetable of how they got there that is in disagreement. Regarding sedentary layers, I’d like for evolutionists to explain vertical petrified trees which traverse through multiple layers of strata?. The TalkOrigins.com explanation is pathetic… but sedentary layers rapidly laid down by a large flood is a perfect explanation for vertical petrified trees. Regarding the time it takes for petrifaction (in general), see here. Also, Evolutionists give the most “science fiction” explanations as to how/why the geological layers are more often than not found in the wrong order or have missing layers. They break “Occam’s Razor” on this one at every turn.
Dvorak (also) said:
Jesus has nothing to do with it since he never forbade the practice.
John 8:7 But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Dvorak (also) said:
where in the New Testament does it say the earth and the universe is 10,000 years old?
(1) Jesus extensively quotes from the Old Testament and where he seems to “change” the rules, he explicitly states that the particular rule in question was applied at that time in a different manner due to the immaturity of the people at that time… sort of like how telling a child “don’t play with matches” doesn’t apply to adults… but the same principle of “be careful with dangerous things” still DOES apply to adults. In the same way, the things that Jesus nullifies are not because truth or right or wrong changed. Moreover, when Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, he does so in a way that most definitely “ratifies” it and “endorses” it as absolute truth. Therefore, you can’t just throw the Old Testament out on a whim. Certainly, Jesus never did. In fact, Jesus did the opposite.
(2) The New Testament is very clear (numerous times) that death did NOT exist before Adam (aside from plant life). (SEE: Romans 5:12, Romans 5:12-21, I Corinthians 15:20-26). If you deconstruct these verses enough to make them compatible with Darwinian Evolution, your interpretation then takes so many liberties that, by that time, you could then “make” the Bible “say” virtually anything you wanted it to say.
(Please, no lecture about how my bible quoting doesn’t “prove” anything to those who don’t accept the Bible. I already know that. I’m merely answering John’s direct questions about the Bible here. )
Normally I would accept the straw man argument. But to tell you the truth the smartest engineers I know who are creationists ALL find some rationale for the 10,000 thing too. I DO NOT think the 10,000 year folks are in the minority. Because of this, there is no straw man issue. As for the rest of your memo..the most poignant comment is that you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. Indeed.
I don’t want to personally get into a debate on this topic, since others on this forum are much better at this side of the debate than I am. I just make the posts, stir the pot and check in once in a while to learn something. I’ll jump in on posts like this because I doubt anyone cares to defend my position regarding the straw man analogy since everyone assumes I do that routinely and on pupose.
John:
You are correct that there are many (probably a majority) of creationists who believe BOTH that life began 10K years ago AND that the Universe was also created 10K years ago. However, there is at least a very, very large percentage of creationists who agree with a recent creation of life but either disagree or are undecided about a recent origin of the universe. Why? Because there is much more evidence supporting recent origins of life and less evidence supporting a recent origins of the Universe. Therefore, I’m simply saying that it you can’t disprove recent creation of life by only using evidence which attempts to disprove a recent origin of the Universe.
I don’t want to personally get into a debate
…no problem… since the overwhelming majority of posters have been pro-evolution so far… I’ll refer to a previous poster…
Wesley said:
“has been tested and retested and retested again and again”
Actually, evolution is a pseudo-science because it fails to make risky predictions. Every time its “proofs” are debunked, it comes back with other proofs and fails to allow alternative explanations to even be considered. For example, Darwin made risky predictions about the fossil record which have since utterly failed.
Also, consider the Scopes trial. Virtually every single “proof” used for evolution at the Scopes trial has now been proven fraudulent.. BTW, “Inherit the Wind” was Michael Moore-like propaganda. (But they don’t tell you this in your high school science class, do they?) …in fact, “Inherit the Wind”‘s exaggerations and distortions are so outlandish, it is more like a parody.
Basically, creationism has never been disproved… not even by virtue of evolution being (supposedly) proven. Rather… many scientists rule out creationism from the start and then “sell” the best theory they can come up with which conforms to naturalistic philosophy regardless of the facts. Next, instead of refuting creationist with facts and arguments, they belittle them with sarcasm and sneers… as shown in this thread.
However, there is at least a very, very large percentage of creationists who agree with a recent creation of life but either disagree or are undecided about a recent origin of the universe.
We may have our first break through. This statement implies that only life is 10k years old but that the universe is far older. Let’s be clear, that supposition by itself contradicts the bible story of creation. The only way you can make a universe that is billions of years old fit into the bible creation story is by claiming parts of it to be allegorical. So, if you accept that the universe is billions of years old, you are by definition accepting that the biblical story is not, on the surface, literally true and thus it means that other parts may also not be literally true.
Actually, evolution is a pseudo-science because it fails to make risky predictions
Bullshit. Firstly, such a statement shows a clear lack of understanding about how real science works. Secondly, evolution puts forth a single premise: all species adapt and change based on their environment over time. Those species that adapt best to their environment survive through procreation. A consequence of this premise is that humans, as with all other species, have adapted and changed over time to better survive. The evidence to support this premise is overwhelming. Notice that my statement says nothing about how, when, how long or anything else about the cause of evolution. It merely states that we evolved.
Basically, creationism has never been disproved… not even by virtue of evolution being (supposedly) proven.
Bullshit. Show me a scientific proof of creationism. All versions of creationism fail because of the inability to prove the existence of an uber-being or the reliance on the bible as scientific source which it is not or they claim to prove such existence purely through complexity. All of these premises fail the rigors of proof required for a scientific theory.
I’d throw Mr. Dvorak, Thoman and Anon right in the bucket with all the religious people I’ve met. They seem to be just as dedicated to their point of view even in the face of piles of scientific and antecdotal evidence that don’t fit into their “religion”. The surprising thing is that supposedly intelligent people would be so narrow minded. I guess it just backs up the premise that 90% of the people would rather do anything than think, 9% think they think and a mere 1% (or more likely less) actually think.
I have seen absolutely no scientific evidence that substantiates the creationist claim. None. Nadda. Zip. Zero. For those that plan on providing such evidence know that A: you cannot prove a theory by disproving a competing theory and B: any theory that involves an “intelligent designer” must also provide evidence of said designer(s) and C: complexity in and of itself is not proof of a designer.
Science is not religion. Science is a process of devising conclusions based on verifiable, unbiased evidence. Evolution has been confirmed by scientists from numerous different fields of study and many different religions. If someone truly had scientific evidence that evolution was wrong, they could make millions if not billions of dollars. They would turn the scientific community on its ear. So, please, feel free to provide said evidence. It should be noted that proving evolution to be wrong has absolutely nothing to do with how evolution happened. Thus, people parroting information about Darwinism are completely off base. In order to prove evolution to be wrong, you must prove (i.e., with real, unbiased scientific experiments) that species do not adapt to their environment regardless of time. Furthermore, you would need to explain how it is that bacteria do adapt and change to their environment among other things.
In a debate about whether creationism holds any scientific credence or whether evolutionary theory is wrong, the only thing that matters is evidence. Anecdotal evidence is entirely irrelevant with respect to a scientific theory and presenting any such evidence is further proof that you know nothing about science. It doesn’t matter how many people believe something to be true, the evidence is what establishes it to be true.
This is yet another indication of people that truly do not understand how science finds truth.
Why don’t you two get a room?
Heh…my apologies John. This is twice I’ve gotten myself tangled in a discussion about loony claims of “scientific” creationism.
Your original post pegs Bush as the cause of this ridiculous state of affairs. Any evidence to back up that statement?
Do I need proof? All I recall is that in poli-sci 1 at Cal Berleley one of the things we were told is that the President — as a rule — sets the moral tone for the nation. Always. Thus if he is an evangelical the country tends to go that way. If he thinks creationism is the way to go, then a large number of people will suddenly agree. So now we have this situation. So I blame him based on schoolboy notions. Works for me.
Does that mean during the Clinton administration, more men got blow jobs at work? (Damn, how’d I miss that? ;->)
The president sets the moral tone for the country? If so, then it only shows that people in general are mindless wind up toys and extrapolating that into a democratic society, they are the ones leading our country. Mr. Dvorak, here’s a hint, don’t believe everything you hear. I wouldn’t blindly believe everything I heard in school. Typical liberal thinking though, blame someone else for our erroneous logic and don’t take any responsibility for thinking for ourselves. Some people prefer to be spoon fed. Then after eight years of our previous president we should be in fine shape. Who’s under your desk?
If you accept that it is possible for a population to mutate to the point of creating a new species, then you are accepting evolution theory.
No, I’m accepting the Bible’s (ooh, I capitalized it, I’m obviously a loony creationist! Stop reading now, all you intellectual giants who can’t be bothered with this drivel!) logical and scientifically provable statement that life reproduces according to its kind.”
Evolutionary changes certainly take place. There is no doubting that fact. Darwin’s finches proved that adaptations take place within a finch’s family lines, even producing new finch species.
Here is what those who believe in a designerless universe can not prove scientifically: All life arose from a single source. This premise requires that the same first cell eventually produced all life on earth, making a kiwi and a kiwifruit tree distant, albeit scientifically traceable relatives.
So what’s the answer? Did a plant cell and an animal cell arise on their own independently? Gee, that’s just beating astronomical odds twice, huh? I’ll bet that’s what happened.
Interestingly, the account of creation lists the appearance of life forms in the same order as scientifically proven facts: Beginning with plants, ascending through sea creatures, eventually culminating with intelligent man. That Moses was a lucky guesser, wasn’t he?
And please stop accusing ANYONE who believes in a creator of believing the universe is 6,000-10,00 years old, wouldja?
Oh, and certainly the Bible is not a science book. But interestingly, a round earth is described in Jeremiah, and Job describes it as “hanging upon nothing,” a perfect description of its appearance in space. Pretty lucky guesses, huh, especially when prevailing scientific thought of olden times had it sitting on a giant cosmic turtle.
Have a nice day, and feel free to wite off my ramblings, you “open-minded” folks out there 😉
The problem with scientists and psuedo intellectuals is typified by the following example of excerpts from EDL research and scientists typical response:
The authors submitted a subsequent paper to the referred journal Statistical Science (such review journals generally represent the pinnacle of scientific publishing), where, not surprisingly, it met with considerable skepticism-but also with admirable scientific objectivity. The reviewers insisted on a somewhat larger-than-usual number of challenges and revisions, but in the end, they published it. In the words of Robert Kass, the journal editor: Our referees were baffled; their prior beliefs made them think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful references to modern day individuals, yet when the authors carried out additional analyses and checks the effect persisted. The paper is thus offered to Statistical Science readers as a challenge puzzle.
The published results show that this finding was significant at a level of 1.8 x 10 -17, that is, the odds of its occurring merely by chance are less than 1 in 50 quadrillion. (A quadrillion is one with 15 zeros after it.) A finding in most scientific journals is considered significant at chance levels of anything less than 1 in 20.
Following publication of this paper, a public statement was issued, signed by five mathematical scholars -two from Harvard, two from Hebrew University and one from Yale. “The present work,” they said, “represents serious research carried out by serious investigators. Since the interpretation of the phenomenon in question is enigmatic and controversial, one may want to demand a level of statistical significance beyond what would he demanded for more routine conclusions… The results obtained are sufficiently striking to deserve a wider audience and to encourage further study.” The work was also critiqued and endorsed by Dr. Andrew Goldfinger, a senior research physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and by Harold Gans, an analyst with the U.S. Department of Defense.
How has the paper been received?
The authors note with disappointment, but not surprise, that responses so far have mostly fallen into two categories: a prior acceptance or a prior rejection. The former, by believers and enthusiasts (especially those without mathematical training), is indeed not surprising. But the latter is-or should be. Since to date no one has discovered a flaw in the authors’ work, it is reasonable to ask of scientifically trained, prior skeptics (who are certain these results must be a fluke), “What standard of proof would you accept as an indication that the phenomenon might be genuine?” The most frequent answer by far is “There is no standard. I will not believe it regardless.”
There you have it in their own words. Even if they see it first hand it would not matter, history repeating itself. If you are in that category, then you are to be pitied.