Half of US Doesn't believe Evolution

[hifigator]

Aug 25, 2008 12:55:34 GMT -5 Bando said:

Aug 25, 2008 12:47:02 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I think you were misinterpreting ed. I think that all he was saying is that science is not stagnant, and that as we learn things, we also discover shortcomings in earlier beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the earlier beliefs, just maybe help explain them in more detail.

That is not at all what ed said.

Umm,

Just because science says something is so, does not make it so.

1,000 years ago science told us the earth was flat. 100 years before Galileo, science (yes, science) told us the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago science told us the atom was the smallest possible form of matter and could not be separated.

Today, science will tell us virgin birth is impossible. And, rising from the dead, also impossible. And that thing about water into wine, can't happen. And the parting of the Red Sea, no way. And, God speaking from a cloud on a mountain, gimme a break.

Jesus very-clearly said He would hide the truth from the learned and reveal it to the common people. This is why learning should take place in the light of faith lest we form the wrong conclusions.



Ed gave three examples of what science used to "tell" us -- one being the flat earth, another being that the earth is the center of the universe, and finally that the atom is the smallest substance and incapable of being split. Of course we now know these to be false. Likewise, things which now seem impossible, might be proven possible in the future, like raising someone from the dead or parting of a sea.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 25, 2008 9:37:41 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"This is yet another reason why it is so crucial to restore and maintain the separation of church and state, and for religious groups to stick to religion and stay out of politics and public education. And for political parties to stop pandering to religious groups."

Then, read this news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_democrats_faith

As I mentioned already, and as you quoted, I think religion and politics should not mix. It is bad for the country. My strongly held opinion on that issue has not changed.

Reading the article you linked, it is disheartening to see the Democrats now feel they need to play defense v. the Republicans by incorporating religion too. At least they are trying to be as inclusive as possible on the religion front.

[SirSaxa]

For those who are trying to spin this issue somehow by saying the questions were asked the wrong way..... let's get real. Either you believe Evolution or you don't. And as for the questions? How hard it is to interpret these:

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

YES or NO

The following asked for responses in the "Definitely True", "Probably True", "Probabaly False" etc.

A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

B. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years
[/blockquote]

There is nothing unclear about those questions.

[SirSaxa]

Science and Faith operate in completely different realms.
Faith has nothing to do with science, and vice versa.
Neither one proves or disproves the other, or even tries to.

If one believes god created the entire universe with its unfathomable distances, variety of life and mysteries, why wouldn't one believe that evolution was part of that grand design?

It seems much more odd to believe that god created everything else, but then when it came to man he had to step into the evolutionary process and interfere with his own grand design to specifically create man and drop him in to the mix ready made?

Secondly, how strong can someone's faith really be if they are afraid that science might "disprove" it? Science proved the earth was round and that it was not the center of the universe. Somehow, faith and religion survived.

As for the Bible -- especially the old testament -- are we really expected to believe the literal Garden of Eden story? The literal Noah's Ark story? That Methuselah was really 900 years old, etc?

Science needs to be taught in public schools without interference from religious influence. There really isn't any legitimate option.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 25, 2008 13:21:19 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I believe in evolution. I also said I believe evolution is being guided by a Higher Power.

I do not believe (in the time domain in which we live) that mankind was created in its present form. So, I do not believe in what most call creationism. In fact, what I believe is that what we see today is creation unfolding, merely a snapshot of God creating the universe and all in it.

If the statements above truly reflect your belief, then I would assume you would also be opposed to the teaching of intelligent design/creationism. Evolution and only evolution should be taught in science class in public and private schools. That should not even be an issue.

The part about evolution being guided by a higher power is entirely your right to believe. And even to share... but not as part of the science curriculum in public schools. That is a concept and belief that belongs in religion classes, or philosophy, or theology.

[hifigator]

I try to stay out of the actual religious issues. People have their beliefs and I don't think it is wise in general to get into debates on such personal and sensitive areas. So I will avoid the topic of my particular beliefs on this or that specific area.

However on a general sense, I have no problem accepting evolution as we know it to be -- slight mutations and adaptations being repeated many, many multiple times creating specie variation. As SirSaxa pointed out, who is to say that evolution couldn't be the building blocks that God used? I see no necessary contradiction or conflict between evolution and religion.

Now as to faith being diametrically opposed to science, I pretty much agree. Science is the study of what we know to be true by analysis and repeated testing. Faith is essentially what we know to be true by our own feelings, conscience and understanding.

Lastly though, I think that some neglect what they can't explain and then act like they have succeeded in proving their theory.

There is no denying that there have been evolutions on the micro scale. What we haven't yet seen is any real macro evolution. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that we haven't been able to prove it. So therefore placing ones beliefs in macroevolution -- the development of completely different animal categories from others -- requires faith. In that much, we are doing much the same thing as someone coming from a religious background.

Ironically the argument follows the same type of reasoning as the global warming issue. We can seem to prove parts of the global warming issue, just as we can "prove" evolution on the micro scale. Did macro evolution happen? Well that requires a degree of faith. Similarly, the theory that there will be a systematic raising of global temperatures specifically related to the harms that we are doing to the ozone requires a degree of confidence in that which we don't know for certain. That is, for lack of any better word -- faith.

[Bando]

There is no denying that there have been evolutions on the micro scale. What we haven't yet seen is any real macro evolution. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that we haven't been able to prove it. So therefore placing ones beliefs in macroevolution -- the development of completely different animal categories from others -- requires faith. In that much, we are doing much the same thing as someone coming from a religious background.

HiFi, you're either being willfully dishonest or you have no flippin' idea what you're talking about. Evolution does not predict that fish transform into monkeys or some other such nonsense. Only your strawman understanding of evolution makes these sort of claims. You're arguing (again) from ignorance here. Either educate yourself or Shut up.

[RBHoya]

Aug 25, 2008 13:21:19 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Beyond that, Bando, I would like to ask if you believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. If you don't we have nothing in common on this subject and there will be no further reason for your calling my beliefs hackneyed and stupid.

If you do believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, please tell me how science, without faith, explains that.

I'm not Bando but want to put my 2 cents in anyway. I understand why people get touchy when their believes are questioned and why they're offended by words like hackneyed and stupid (though IMO theyre just words and if you're putting yourself out there on a message forum, expect that stuff like that is coming, and theyre only words anyhow).... In fact I think it's one of the main reasons that the atheist movement in this country is slow to pick up steam sometimes--we're a very PC country and atheists are too quick to imply or outright say that theists are fools for buying into some of the stuff that they do. I understand that it's frustrating sometimes, but calling people names just makes people think atheists as are cocky jerks (and some are). I do think that if people would sit down and have open-minded, rational discussion, a lot of minds would be changed... but that almost NEVER happens.

To reply to what you said specifically though Ed... On questions like virgin birth and resurrection, the first thing that any truly open-minded, rational person should say is, "I don't know." Too many people skip that step, in my opinion, and just move right on along to defending one side or the other. But the first thing that everybody should say is I don't know. Why? Because we weren't there to experience it or see it first hand. None of us KNOWS one way or the other.

All we can do, then, is try to use logic and see where that leads us. And to me, all evidence would seem to suggest that neither of these actually happened. For starters, I've never seen a virgin birth or a resurrection. Nobody I know has either. And in modern times there have been none documented. So, if it is possible, it has not happened lately, nor is it at all commonplace. Such events also would defy everything we know about biology and pretty much any other scientific discipline. When you combine those two factors, the odds of virgin birth or resurrection are extremely, extremely small. BUT, that doesn't mean that they necessarily didn't happen, because again I start everything by admitting that I don't know. It just means that if I were making a guess, I'd have to guess that they didn't happen, just because the likelihood of something defying all else that has held true for so long is very, very tiny.

Of course, a lot of people DO believe that it happened, in SPITE of the fact that science and mathematics tell us that the likelihood of it happening is so low that it's ALMOST impossible. I wouldn't mind hearing how you get to that conclusion. I've got a general guess as to how you get there, but I don't want to assume anything about your point of view and I hope you'd do the same about mine.



And to tie this post to Evolution and the thread, I will say that I very much agree with whomever made the point that a lot of people respond one way or the other to that question simply because they want to make clear that they are a certain type of person, not necessarily because they believe in something in particular. Soooo many people are quick to label themselves as "religious" or "Christian" or "conservative" (and this happens on the other side of the aisle too), and they give the answers that they feel they SHOULD give as a proud member of that identity group, rather than giving an answer that they've reasoned on their own.

[Bando]

Beyond that, Bando, I would like to ask if you believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. If you don't we have nothing in common on this subject and there will be no further reason for your calling my beliefs hackneyed and stupid.

If you do believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, please tell me how science, without faith, explains that.

No, I don't believe in either of those things. I'm an atheist and a skeptic (which is to say, I don't believe in any New Age or eastern spirituality either). I don't think there's evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm of any kind.

That's all inconsequential, though, as I wasn't calling your religious beliefs "hackneyed and stupid", but your argument. Namely the "science was wrong before" trope.

[theexorcist]

First. SirSaxa, there *is* lack of clarity on the questions. One mentions God and one doesn't. A reasonable person might infer that the answer on faith is binary - either God was involved or not.

Second. All of you who want to split faith and science are nuts. At its most basic and beautiful, science has a suspicious amount of order and beauty for something that was done entirely on chance and natural selection. Tell me that you've never experienced a sunset or walked to the top of a mountain on a perfectly clear day and looked out at the expanse before you and at least questioned whether or not something was done by a higher power. Some science apparently confirmed the idea of an earthquake at Jericho around the time of the blowing of the horn - I kind of believe the idea that God became a little more involved at the controls than He usually is.

One of my theology classes at Georgetown included a collection of readings - something about scientists coming to the top of a mountain, only to find that the theologians had been there all the time. For me, the remarkable complexity of human life and the world in which we inhabit, is one of the most compelling arguments to me of the existence of a higher power. Rather than those who try to separate them, I tend to see science and religion as nurturing one another.

And if we really want to get nasty, much of religion is based on intrinsic faith - faith in experiments that you have not personally conducted. There's not a lot of it there, but there is a bit. And bear that in mind if you want to attack me on this.

[Bando]

Aug 25, 2008 15:25:03 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

First. SirSaxa, there *is* lack of clarity on the questions. One mentions God and one doesn't. A reasonable person might infer that the answer on faith is binary - either God was involved or not.

Second. All of you who want to split faith and science are nuts. At its most basic and beautiful, science has a suspicious amount of order and beauty for something that was done entirely on chance and natural selection. Tell me that you've never experienced a sunset or walked to the top of a mountain on a perfectly clear day and looked out at the expanse before you and at least questioned whether or not something was done by a higher power. Some science apparently confirmed the idea of an earthquake at Jericho around the time of the blowing of the horn - I kind of believe the idea that God became a little more involved at the controls than He usually is.

One of my theology classes at Georgetown included a collection of readings - something about scientists coming to the top of a mountain, only to find that the theologians had been there all the time. For me, the remarkable complexity of human life and the world in which we inhabit, is one of the most compelling arguments to me of the existence of a higher power. Rather than those who try to separate them, I tend to see science and religion as nurturing one another.

And if we really want to get nasty, much of religion is based on intrinsic faith - faith in experiments that you have not personally conducted. There's not a lot of it there, but there is a bit. And bear that in mind if you want to attack me on this.

I don't want to get too into this, but there's so much wrong here I have to say something. First off, your thoughts on a sunset, evidence of an ancient earthquake, and something your professor told you are not evidence of divinity. I find myself able to express awe and wonderment with the natural beauty of the world quite well, actually.

Second, you are apparently unfamiliar with the concepts of peer review and replication of experiments by different parties.

[RBHoya]

Aug 25, 2008 15:25:03 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Second. All of you who want to split faith and science are nuts. At its most basic and beautiful, science has a suspicious amount of order and beauty for something that was done entirely on chance and natural selection. Tell me that you've never experienced a sunset or walked to the top of a mountain on a perfectly clear day and looked out at the expanse before you and at least questioned whether or not something was done by a higher power. Some science apparently confirmed the idea of an earthquake at Jericho around the time of the blowing of the horn - I kind of believe the idea that God became a little more involved at the controls than He usually is.

I've heard other people including Bill O'Reilly and I think John McCain say something like this before and I don't necessarily disagree with it... However I have to wonder, isn't our entire perception of beauty and order a product of our limited minds and all of the things we have experienced? Put another way, if everything around us had been different for our entire lives, wouldn't our perception of what's beautiful be different as well? I tend to think that people come to think of things as "beautiful" or "ordered" or "perfect" because they've experienced them their whole lives and it's all that they know or can really imagine, rather than people thinking things are beautiful/ordered/perfect because they intrinsically are. I could be wrong about that, but I've just never really bought the whole "look at how beautiful the world is, could it really have happened by accident?" type thinking, because to me it's more likely that it DID come to be as it is by happenstance, and we've just evolved to find it beautiful.

I'm sure some people who know more about philosophy than I do could weigh in.

[theexorcist]

Aug 25, 2008 15:17:08 GMT -5 Bando said:

Beyond that, Bando, I would like to ask if you believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. If you don't we have nothing in common on this subject and there will be no further reason for your calling my beliefs hackneyed and stupid.

If you do believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, please tell me how science, without faith, explains that.

No, I don't believe in either of those things. I'm an atheist and a skeptic (which is to say, I don't believe in any New Age or eastern spirituality either). I don't think there's evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm of any kind.

That's all inconsequential, though, as I wasn't calling your religious beliefs "hackneyed and stupid", but your argument. Namely the "science was wrong before" trope.

No one knows if God exists. No one knows if God doesn't exist. There's a lot of information there on both sides, but it eventually hits the "reasonable men can differ" point. I'm using my faith to believe that God does exist. You are using your faith to believe that He doesn't.

[Boz]

I think some would say that the very ability we have to appreciate a concept like beauty transcends science alone and points to the existence of a higher power.

I don't think Bando or Sir Saxa would say that, just some people.

I am actually going to surprise Bando & Sir Saxa here on this one, though. I agree with them that I don't really think religion has a place in science classes, whether it's public or private school. I studied biology and evolution at a Jesuit high school (probably like a lot of you here) and we didn't really see the need to make sure that everyone understood that God was responsible for it all....not in that particular Bio classroom we didn't anyway. That was for Theology class.

I do think schools should acknowledge what is known and unknown. That doesn't mean that they should teach creationism along with evolution, but they should acknowledge that evolution does not explain everything and there are mysteries in the world that man has yet to decipher -- through any means.

Now -- here is where I will disagree with Bando and Sir Saxa -- I think that while religion and faith should not be taught in science classes, I think there is a place for them in schools (public and private) and in public life. If a student want to express -- yes, even in science class -- that their beliefs tell them that evolution goes beyond just Darwin and natural selection to something that is based on faith, I really don't see the problem with that. A good teacher can acknowledge their belief as valid for that student but that it doesn't necessarily apply to all students, and also distinguish it from what is being taught.

Schools should teach what is known, acknowledge what is unknown, and, you know actually encourage students to seek out answers on their own, whether those answers are found in a system of faith, or the scientific method.

As for the survey, well, I think all polls are misleading and biased. Why should this one be any different? I probably disagree with Arianna Huffington on virtually everything she stands for, except for one thing. I agree with her and Harry Shearer that we should all Say No To Pollsters.

[Bando]

Aug 25, 2008 16:00:32 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Aug 25, 2008 15:17:08 GMT -5 Bando said:

No, I don't believe in either of those things. I'm an atheist and a skeptic (which is to say, I don't believe in any New Age or eastern spirituality either). I don't think there's evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm of any kind.

That's all inconsequential, though, as I wasn't calling your religious beliefs "hackneyed and stupid", but your argument. Namely the "science was wrong before" trope.

No one knows if God exists. No one knows if God doesn't exist. There's a lot of information there on both sides, but it eventually hits the "reasonable men can differ" point. I'm using my faith to believe that God does exist. You are using your faith to believe that He doesn't.

Well, not exactly. My position is that "I don't believe in God" not "I believe there's no God". If held to the latter, you'd be correct, but these are fundamentally different statements. Since I'm not making any sort of assertion in my position, it doesn't require any faith.

Incidentally, I understand how the whole agnostic/weak atheist/strong atheist thing can be confusing, so I'm not saying you were misrepresenting me or anything.

[hifigator]

Aug 25, 2008 15:04:35 GMT -5 Bando said:

There is no denying that there have been evolutions on the micro scale. What we haven't yet seen is any real macro evolution. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that we haven't been able to prove it. So therefore placing ones beliefs in macroevolution -- the development of completely different animal categories from others -- requires faith. In that much, we are doing much the same thing as someone coming from a religious background.

HiFi, you're either being willfully dishonest or you have no flippin' idea what you're talking about. Evolution does not predict that fish transform into monkeys or some other such nonsense. Only your strawman understanding of evolution makes these sort of claims. You're arguing (again) from ignorance here. Either educate yourself or Shut up.

I have no idea why you continue to insist on trying to make this personal. I was very neutral on the issues, and as I said before, I try to avoid discussions of religious beliefs, as it is of such personal and sensitve nature.

As to your criticisms, I honestly have no idea where you are basing them. As to your argument that I don't know anything about the subject, you are entirely wrong. It was subject matter that I have been interested in for some nearly 30 years. I wrote numerous papers as well as a science project that took me all the way to state as a sophomore in high school.

As a topic I was interested in, I took several elective courses at UF and did spend several afternoons discussion evolutionary theory with distinguished professors -- some of which claimed to be Christians, and others that did not.

So I am fully confident that I do know a bit about the topic. I have no idea what specifically you are objecting to, but to use your criticisms to support your idea that I don't know anything is just plain silly.

I don't want to take this thread off in an entirely different direction, but since you apparently have no concept of what I was saying, I will try to give you a concise version:

* There are unknown elements in evolutionary theory. In no particular order, here are a few:

evolutionary theory has no real answer for the very beginning of life. The "Big Bang" theory for years had the most momentum, but in recent years has received more criticisms than acclaim. In any case, evolution has no answer (yet) for what exactly started the entire process.

evolutionary theory has no explanation for the explosion of life at the pre-Cambrian era.

similarly, evolutionary theory has no answer for several dead periods, where life seemingly regressed and simplified for periods of 100,000 years or more

although you will try to deny this point, the fact is we also don't have a fossil record, with a missing link out there somewhere. what we have are an assortment of links, but with very, very few of them even linked together in quantities of more than one or two links. If you actually look at the identified fossil records that we have, the resulting "chain" that is typically shown, is akin to the constellations in the sky, as seen by star gazers from centuries back.

in addition to the lack of an identifiable chain, we do still lack the "missing link" as it is called. For evolution to have happened on the macro scale, the millions and millions of tiny mutations of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years, would certainly have left us a fossil of just one intermediary specie wouldn't it? it takes a lot of faith to believe in those millions and millions of subtle, almost negligible changes resulting in specie variation all the way from elephants to buzzards and from giraffes to alligators, and yet we don't have evidence of just ONE intermediary specie

there are numerous other questions for evolution to answer. I don't point these out to disprove evolution, just to point out that the entire theory is often shown as fact when the fact is that microevolution is a proven element, but macro is not. It might be proven in the future, and I'm not going to tell you that I have a better theory for you to believe. But understand without any doubt, that you are exercising faith when you decide on one.



On Edit: To put it simply and without all the details, there are simply unknown questions that have yet to be answered. Some of them serve as tough questions for universal (macro) evolutionary theory, just as some cause question in creationist theory. Note that I haven't promoted a theory to you or anyone else, just pointing out areas where we are still dealing with the unknown. As long as you acknowlege that, then there is no need for us to agree on the hypothetical answers. But when you try to deny that much, it is you who appear the fool. And as you know, better to appear the fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[The Stig]

I'm sort of with Boz on this one. I've got no problem with people learning creation stories and other 'unscientific' beliefs, as long as that happens outside of science classes. I personally think that every high school's curriculum (public or private) should include a mandatory comparative religion class. The important thing is that it would teach students ABOUT the religions of the world, not teach them that XYZ religion is right or other religions are wrong.

I also have no problem with the beliefs of a certain religion being taught as fact at a religious school, as long as those beliefs are being taught in religion classes, and not in science/history/etc. classes.

Of course, in science classes I think that students should only be taught the things that are generally accepted as accurate by the scientific community, without any restrictions imposed by religion or other non-scientific sources. As others have noted, some of what the students learn in those classes will be proven wrong by future scientific discoveries, but those future discoveries would never happen if people weren't taught the original beliefs.

So to sum it up, I think students should learn the science in science classes and the religion in religion classes. Of course, that makes too much sense for it to ever happen.

[AustinHoya03]

Aug 25, 2008 14:25:47 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

The part about evolution being guided by a higher power is entirely your right to believe. And even to share... but not as part of the science curriculum in public schools. That is a concept and belief that belongs in religion classes, or philosophy, or theology.

Completely agree with SirSaxa and Boz on this point.

I will add that certain Americans seem to believe educational curricula exist not only to educate young people, but to build their "character." Ronald Reagan once said that the goal of US History should be to instill patriotism in young Americans. Abstinence-only sex education lessons often include language on whether sex in high school is a sound moral decision. Intelligent design classes, in my opinion, exist mostly to encourage children to incorporate faith/religion into their worldview.

The problem I have with the above listed types of education is that they don't encourage young people to seek answers but rather are dogmatic. That is not to say dogmatic lessons re: morality have no place in a young person's life -- I just prefer they come from parents, priests, and other actual human beings rather than a textbook.

[hoya9797]

hifi, there are lots of transitional fossils (missing links) that have been discovered.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

You should read that entire page. You might find that your study of evolution is a bit out of date.

[Bando]

Aug 25, 2008 22:33:06 GMT -5 hoya9797 said:

hifi, there are lots of transitional fossils (missing links) that have been discovered.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

You should read that entire page. You might find that your study of evolution is a bit out of date.

Don't bother, he won't listen. Trust me, I've shown him the evidence in the past, he doesn't really care.