On ‘Darwin Day,’ many Americans beg to differ | csmonitor.com — There will be a lot of Darwin stuff going on for this anniversary.
This Thursday, celebrations are under way worldwide to mark Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. From Argentina to Australia, people are gathering for film screenings, quiz contests, and museum exhibits on “Darwin Day” – along with at least one “survival of the fittest” cake-eating contest.
In the US, though, Darwin remains a controversial figure. Two centuries after the famed naturalist’s birth, more than 40 percent of Americans believe human beings were created by God in their present form, according to recent polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center – a view impossible to reconcile with evolution propelled by natural selection.
Such creationist beliefs lack scientific merit, educators say, and in classrooms evolution reigns supreme.
You have to wonder what is wrong with this picture if evolution has been taught in the schools without complaint for 50 or more years, how only 60-percent think it is true and 40 go with creationism which is not taught at all.
Others born on Feb. 12 listed here include, oddly enough, Abe Lincoln and footballer Lincoln Kennedy.
I wonder how far the idea for a holiday would get?
60 @RGB
i never said preachers are atheists, those are your words, but if you think rich preacher can fit through the eye of a needle, then hey, that’s all you. (you see, i am a christian who is quite well versed in scripture, sir)
61 @RGB
They believe animals can’t change from “type” to “type.”
either they are subject to change or they aren’t.
if they can change at all, why are thy limited to what you believe? is it you who sets the limits? where in the bible does is unequivocally state that speciation does not occur. if you can’t point me to chapter and verse, then you fail.
p.s. to all the creationists out there
fyi: the bible does not expressly state that evolution does not occur
show me where it does if you think i am wrong, but remember you’re the one who says the bible must be taken literally so no interpretation is allowed.
1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
I find electricity to be a lot more mysterious and magical than evolution. If you told me that electricity was really little fairies I would have a lot easier time believing that than I do the notion that the world is only 6000 years old and/or humans and apes don’t have a common ancestor.
62 grog. My mistake. Then preachers do believe in creationism because it is the word of God in the bible and not for the extra spending money they can fleece out of the gullible.
Subject to change, but never enough to change their “type” ie: bird to cat sort of thing. I can do better than quote scripture, I can say, look around, show me an animal that became a different phylum.
RBG
63 grog: Well, let’s see. I have here Genesis chapter 12:
“And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth the seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind.”
Strictly and literally without any interpretation as per your instructions, there is nothing here that says “some other kind” or “later, some other kind” or “just a wee bit like some other kind.” No, it says exactly and very precisely: “having seed each one according to its kind.” There is no other option.
Seems clear enough. Unless God changed his mind later in the Good Book.
RBG
I think it’s been fairly well documented that preachers evolved from snake oil salesmen 😉
This topic stinks like Darwin’s feet…NEXT!
69 Sorry, lovechild, jes where is our manners?
Hug it Out Bitch Mmmm…Stanky!!! WTF! WTF!! Crunk Smoke ’em til the wheels fall off Mean-mugger Your views suck Ridin’ Hoggs Gas, Grass or Ass, Whatever.
RBG
#67–RBG==only an idiot couldn’t understand that language to mean anything he wanted it to.
hah, hah!!! Write it down and the all knowing word of god is still indecipherable.
71 bobbo. Ah, ah, bobbo. The rules…
63 grog: “…the bible must be taken literally so no interpretation is allowed.”
That narrows things down considerably. We have a tree. It has fruit with seeds. The seeds conform to the tree. Not a whole lot of wriggle room there. Anything else is invented speculation.
“…the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind.”
RBG
Great idea. A holiday for people who believe in NOTHING! And take no comfort in there being a larger plan. Because it’s all random crap, as far as they “believe”. But I wonder how many Darwinists play the Lottery? Believing that, some how, they’ll bet those astronomical odds. What hypocrites these people are, to claim they’re so much better than the stupid God believers, because they trust random chance will favor their ways.
OK, the next time they end up before a judge, for a crime they did or didn’t commit. They should say that they don’t want a trial were anyone involved swears to God to tell the truth. Or has taken any oaths of office. Etc. I think they’ll need to hold that trial on the Moon. But I’m sure that these Darwinists would prefer that at least some portion of the population, has more moral fiber than they do, when it comes to picking a jury. Hypocrites.
Why don’t they get their own little island, where they can screw each other over. Because laws are contrary to “survival of the fittest”, right? Remember the US Constitution? Something in their about God given rights? Well if there’s no God, there are no rigths. And so they’re screwed. If they want to become someone’s “property” again, because natural selection dictates it. Fine. Bow down and serve the stronger. Because whole bunch of ultra wealthy elitists will be needing slaves, when they can get rid of that nasty old US Constitution.
Glenn E. If it’s guaranteed comfort you’re so desperately needing, you can also take drugs.
Re gambling. No one ever said ignorance is limited to the religious.
RBG
#72–RBG==THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF EVOLUTION!!!!!! Each offsprine is “of the kind” of its parents and yet over millions of years/a few generations, things change.
Do you want to tell me your children are a different “kind” from yourself??
And yet they are different at the same time.
JEBEESUS!!!!! When intelligent folks like yourself have cinder blocks for brains==what are we to do with the truly devoted?
bO,
there is a trick many dont see in LARGER GROUPS..such as humans.
There are random and Purposeful, changes in EVERY birth.
Even TODAY, there are LESS THAN 10% of births that are perfect newborns. and perfect is used VERY loosely.. The thing to look at is OLD and CURRENT birth rates and survival rates..
Survival rates USED to be in the 15% range and NOW are 80%, for the child..
for THE MOTHER…iT was ALMOST the same..about 15-20% of mothers SURVIVED..and NOW that is about 90%, in developed countries.
but the odds of having a child with NO problems/difficulties/deformities(minor or major)/dependencies/… STILL is around 10%.
The PROOF of a NEW form, being created ENDS and STARTS with 2 things.
CAN it feed itself.
CAN it reproduce…
THAT is all.
Even if you have a handicapped CHILD, and you protect it..
AND it LIVES..
THEN if some person has its child..
IT has proven its ability to survive, EVEN in a distorted manor.
“And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth the seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind.”
that doesn’t preclude evolution.
no one is suggesting that a chimp will spontaneously give birth to a human, but over millions generations it can get closer and closer, each one minutely attenuating those features better suited to survival.
duh.
so basically genesis does not pre
62 grog. My mistake. Then preachers do believe in creationism because it is the word of God in the bible and not for the extra spending money they can fleece out of the gullible.
i’m sure most of them do believe what they say, i’m just pointing out that they sure do make whole lot of money doing so.
75 bobbo RBG==THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF EVOLUTION!!!!!! Each offspring is “of the kind” of its parents and yet over millions of years/a few generations, things change.
Do you want to tell me your children are a different “kind” from yourself??
And that’s exactly the whole point of Gen. 12: what I am saying is that, my children aren’t a different “kind” from myself because they supposedly follow Genesis 12. No argument there.
If you write down the organism’s kind at the time of Genesis, and then write the same down now, you will find you are suggesting that the kind has changed. Not allowed. Your interpretation is certainly counter to Gen. 12, an innovation, relying on sophistry instead of verbatim literalness, displaying cleverness in reasoning, and at the very least an interpretation counter to Occam’s Razor.
RBG
#77 Grog, your attempt to reconcile Biblical creation and evolutionary theory is shaky. Although some of evolutionary theory may not be completely at odds with the Bible, any suggestion that man evolved from a lower life form does absolutely contradict scripture:
“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (New International Version)
Also contradicted by scripture is any notion that man’s communication skills were ever primitive. During the temptation story of the Bible, the serpent was able to communicate to Eve such abstract concepts as knowledge and wisdom in order to induce her to commit an act that had been strictly forbidden by God. Those were some very well-honed communication skills, wouldn’t you say? So according to the Bible, language was highly developed from the very beginning, especially with all the practice Adam had from naming every animal created by God.
It would seem that any evidence uncovered by archaeologists or paleontologists suggesting that human communication skills evolved from primitive levels is at odds with the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. Reconciliation of Creation and evolution does indeed have a few pitfalls.
80. Their communication skills seem to be in keeping with the fact that Adam & Eve were also able to walk around and correctly interpret their environment from the get-go without any prior training or experience.
I think some religious people would interpret that bit of scripture as meaning God’s design caused life to arise from Earth’s elements and compounds (which it did) until it breathed as a man (which it eventually did).
Other religious people would state that man either evolved from an original man-like form or that man alone did not evolve but the rest of the organisms did.
But there is a lot of lattitude allowed when the test is: “Did the Bible specifically say it didn’t happen?” In which case of course, anything, any idea, including religious schisms, even tribes of hidden green aliens – and the concept of evolution – can be embraced as fair biblical propositions.
RBG
#70–RBG==you say: “If you write down the organism’s kind at the time of Genesis, and then write the same down now, you will find you are suggesting that the kind has changed. Not allowed.” /// And yet we see around us that change has certainly occurred.
Which do you prefer:
A. The bible you are using is a bad translation
B. The bilbe is wrong.
C. The bible can be interpreted to reflect reality.
Any statisticians in the audience? One question that may have already been answered by evolution and I’m just not aware of is the need for sexual reproduction. What are the odds of an accidental life form crawling out of a pond and developing into a human being? Now add to that the odds of a sexual partner to allow life to continue.
There’s probably a better chance of a tornado ripping through a junk yard and building a 747 than something as complex as human life being just an accident.
You know, “words” are interesting things. They are indeed “the stuff” of ideas. It is a betrayal of intellect to think a word means only one thing. Everything, every word, gains much of its meaning “IN CONTEXT.”
“of its kind” certainy means one thing in the context of a parent giving birth
and another thing over a million years==all without violence to the meaning at all–just perceiving and applying the correct context.
Silly to lock down a word to a single context. Maybe only a control freak propagandist would do such a thing.
#83–cheezewheezy==”than something as complex as human life being just an accident.” /// Thats not what the theory says unless you somehow interpret “natural selction” as “an accident.”
You don’t do that do you?
If you go to Las Vegas and the ball rolls onto “Black 21” was that the operation of chance, or “an accident.”
I’d tell you to stop jerking off, but there are too many of you to think you are joking.
Read a book. Watch Discovery Channel. Do ANYTHING that pulls your head out of your ass.
RBG, there’s a problem with tortured interpretations that take a much more figurative approach to scriptures, such as saying that “breathed into his nostrils” doesn’t really mean exactly what it says. The problem is that these “divinely inspired” scriptures must have been intended to confuse some followers. After all, there has been a great deal of confusion by the most sincere of believers, and an omniscient god would have known in advance that this would be the case, but he proceeded without doing anything to prevent that confusion.
In other words, if it didn’t happen exactly as God inspired it to be recorded, then he purposely caused many sincere believers to trip up and believe something that did not actually happen, with some very unfortunate results, including the persecution and killing of people who disagreed with the literal meaning.
When I was in church, we all thought we knew who was the author of confusion, and it was supposed to be Lucifer. One corollary of non-literalism is that God himself is the author of confusion.
@RBG and @Gary the Dangerous
well, once you guys get your stories straight let me know, seems you both have a hard time deciding what to take literally and what not to take literally. good luck with that.
either way, you both have done an excellent job of proving that the only reason people disagree with darwin is 100% based on religious beliefs and not scientific research.
so there you go.
#87 grog wrote, “seems you both have a hard time deciding what to take literally and what not to take literally.”
Nope, not at all. I haven’t the foggiest idea why you thought I was confused.
Just one question for you. When the Israelites were told by the same god that you worship to kill the children of the people whose land they were taking, did you take that passage literally or figuratively?
#60 – RBG,
I don’t know about you, but if I thought a real God actually could get pissed off at me and deny me sure eternal life, I think it would be “yes sir” all the way.
If there actually is a real god as described in the bible and I find this out when I die, I will do my best to get in one good punch before I get zapped for eternity. I’ll try to punch god right in the nose for all the pain and suffering s/he has caused by deliberately telling millions of people different names by which s/he wants to be called and then telling them all to kill each other.
No. Such a god would not be worthy of my worship if such a despicable creature were to exist. And, I’d rather burn in hell for eternity than kow tow to such a vindictive bastard.
Luckily, I need hypothesize no such creature. For, such a creature is a logical impossibility. The existence of one or more gods would raise more questions than answers, at least for anyone who actually recognized a question staring them in the face and waiting to be asked.
Where did such a creature come from?
If one is perplexed by the enormity of the universe, how is one’s mind eased by imagining a creature capable of creating such things at the rate of one a week? How is it that the universe requires a creator and a creator does not? Such logic flies up its own asshole in endless recursion.
It’s turtles all the way down.
http://tinyurl.com/nqtv5
#61 – RBG,
You don’t seem to understand that most religious people don’t have a problem with the idea that plants and animals change, but they believe a zebra will always be a horse-like animal and a bird a bird, a cow a cow. They believe animals can’t change from “type” to “type.”
And this is precisely why said religious people are idiots. They do not recognize that all creatures are in all of the scientific taxa from which they evolve. Whales are still mammals because whales evolved from mammals. Birds are still in the taxa dinosauria because they evolved from dinosaurs. Tetrapods are still in the family that includes lobe-finned fish such as the coelecanth because we evolved from lobe-finned fish. (Sorry, I don’t happen to know the Latin name for that taxa.)
You’re correct. Species don’t change type. Not at the level you describe. If they did, cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) would have gills and not need to breathe air.
You’ve just made the case FOR evolution, not against it.
Were evolution false or even guided by a creator, the Panda would have a true thumb. God would simply have un-fused the existing thumb from the other fingers. However, the panda evolved from animals that had fused thumbs and needed an opposable one. So, instead of a thumb, the panda has a sixth digit that is really an enlarged wrist bone called the radial sesamoid bone. It’s not perfect. But, it’s good enough. And, that’s enough for evolution.
So, given intelligent design, please explain male nipples.
#73 – Glenn E. Coyote Super Genius,
Great idea. A holiday for people who believe in NOTHING! And take no comfort in there being a larger plan.
Personally, I feel a great connection to the other species on the planet, a true oneness that comes from our common evolutionary history.
Because it’s all random crap, as far as they “believe”.
Mutation is random. Natural selection is directed toward survival, not toward “higher” or “lower” species or greater or lesser complexity, just toward survival. As such, it is most definitely NOT RANDOM.
But I wonder how many Darwinists play the Lottery? Believing that, some how, they’ll bet those astronomical odds. What hypocrites these people are, to claim they’re so much better than the stupid God believers, because they trust random chance will favor their ways.
Not me man!! I can tell crappy odds when I see them.
OK, the next time they end up before a judge, for a crime they did or didn’t commit. They should say that they don’t want a trial were anyone involved swears to God to tell the truth.
I would prefer someone who merely swears to tell the truth over someone who swears to god. However, since so few people are capable of accepting reality, that will be difficult.
But I’m sure that these Darwinists would prefer that at least some portion of the population, has more moral fiber than they do, when it comes to picking a jury. Hypocrites.
I find non-believers to be more moral than the religious. And, societies with non-religious people in them tend to have lower violent crime and other ills of society.
Why don’t they get their own little island, where they can screw each other over. Because laws are contrary to “survival of the fittest”, right? Remember the US Constitution? Something in their about God given rights? Well if there’s no God, there are no rigths. [sic] And so they’re screwed. If they want to become someone’s “property” again, because natural selection dictates it. Fine. Bow down and serve the stronger. Because whole bunch of ultra wealthy elitists will be needing slaves, when they can get rid of that nasty old US Constitution.
Ah, more bullshit. When was the last time you stoned someone to death for working on the Sabbath? If you do not, why not? The bible states very explicitly that you must.
If you are capable of ignoring such sections of the bible, it is because people are generally moral, at least those with functioning morals processing centers like the amygdala and orbito prefrontal cortex.
That is what keeps you from a literal interpretation of the bible that would have you killing people left and right for minor infractions like wearing a mix of linen and wool.