Half of US Doesn't believe Evolution

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Aug 25, 2008 16:32:50 GMT -5 The Stig said:

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.

What he said.

[hifigator]

9797, I will go read your article, and maybe there is a newfound train. That would certainly be enlightening. In fairness, I haven't written anything on the subject in about 15 years, although I do read just about every article that I come across. In any case, my point wasn't and has never been to prove or disprove evolution or to prove or disprove creation or a guiding hand, but rather to simply point out that there are still a bunch of unanswered questions out there and also point out the danger in blindly accepting any "theory" as fact. The fact of micro evolution is frequently presented as proof for macro-evolution. Down the road, that might turn out to be the truth, but right now it isn't. Guys like Bando only prove my point.


To Clarify: one major hurdle that evolution still has in its way, is that we don't see trasitive chains in the fossil record. That is to say that we don't see progressions of subtle but identifiable changes from specie to specie to specie. For evolution to have been the sole source of the tremendous differentiation that we have, the millions upon millions of progressions would certainly have left us such an identifiable chain somewhere, wouldn't it?

Bando, you have NEVER answered that question, let alone the question of the start of life or the explosion of life in the pre-Cambrian era. Instead you just babble about something being proof of this or that, and then try to attack the messenger when all else fails. I have little use for this type of debate.

[hoya9797]

Aug 26, 2008 10:35:20 GMT -5 hifigator said:

To Clarify: one major hurdle that evolution still has in its way, is that we don't see trasitive chains in the fossil record. That is to say that we don't see progressions of subtle but identifiable changes from specie to specie to specie. For evolution to have been the sole source of the tremendous differentiation that we have, the millions upon millions of progressions would certainly have left us such an identifiable chain somewhere, wouldn't it?

Read the link I just gave you. There are tons of transitional fossils that have been discovered. We see links between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, etc.

FYI - the Discovery Institute is not a good place to learn about real science.

[hifigator]

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.

That was an interesting read. I have seen most of the fossil record data before, and he certainly uses a degree of freeedom in completing the chain. Still, he does make some good points. I found the biochemistry angle a bit more interesting however, and I think he has some good theories WRT that angle. THat is certainly not my field of expertise, so much of the basic terminology went over my head, but he did a good job of allowing the context to make the conclusions somewhat intuitive. I will have to accept his theories at this point, as I am not learned in that field, but like I said, that seems like a sound approach to analyzing the records that we do have. In very simplified terms, it sounds like, at least at the microorganic level, all of life is more similar than different, and yet very different from almost all "non" life. At least at this point, his ideas seem to be supported by the data.

[Bando]

Aug 26, 2008 10:35:20 GMT -5 hifigator said:

9797, I will go read your article, and maybe there is a newfound train. That would certainly be enlightening. In fairness, I haven't written anything on the subject in about 15 years, although I do read just about every article that I come across. In any case, my point wasn't and has never been to prove or disprove evolution or to prove or disprove creation or a guiding hand, but rather to simply point out that there are still a bunch of unanswered questions out there and also point out the danger in blindly accepting any "theory" as fact. The fact of micro evolution is frequently presented as proof for macro-evolution. Down the road, that might turn out to be the truth, but right now it isn't. Guys like Bando only prove my point.


To Clarify: one major hurdle that evolution still has in its way, is that we don't see trasitive chains in the fossil record. That is to say that we don't see progressions of subtle but identifiable changes from specie to specie to specie. For evolution to have been the sole source of the tremendous differentiation that we have, the millions upon millions of progressions would certainly have left us such an identifiable chain somewhere, wouldn't it?

Bando, you have NEVER answered that question, let alone the question of the start of life or the explosion of life in the pre-Cambrian era. Instead you just babble about something being proof of this or that, and then try to attack the messenger when all else fails. I have little use for this type of debate.

Sigh. HiFi, I did address this, way back on our first evolution thread here. In short, I said that (a) there are craploads of transitional fossils, and provided the same link 9797 gave you; (b) noted that fossilization is a rare process that does not happen every time something dies; and (c) this is not the only evidence for what you call "macro-evolution".

Furthermore, and I can't say this loudly enough, the theory of evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origins of life. To try and besmirch evolutionary theory for this reason is the same as casting doubt on gravitational theory because it doesn't say anything about the origins of life. Stop trafficking in red herrings.

As for the Cambrian explosion, nothing there invalidates evolution. Simply because we don't know a lot about the period doesn't mean anything happened during that time that was somehow contrary to evolutionary theory. For further information, I suggest you read the relevant page at Talk Origins' Index of Creationist Claims.

Obviously our knowledge of evolution is incomplete, and while more is found out every day, there are still things that lack explanation. However, none of the claims you cite are part of this. You're recycling creationist drivel, and it's getting tiring. I guess it's progress, though, that you're still not trying to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution anymore.

[hoyatables]

Aug 26, 2008 11:44:17 GMT -5 Bando said:

I guess it's progress, though, that you're still not trying to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution anymore.

Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!

[hifigator]

I didn't mention the thermodynamics issue, because as you said, we discussed it before, and agreed to disagree. As was the case then, and still the case now, it is not proof one way or the other. I don't understand why you can't get that much through your thick skull. Maybe you haven't evolved past your avatar. In any case, the "explanation" why evolution happens here is essentially the tremendous amounts of energy put into our system from the sun. But that explanation merely raises 2 other questions. The first is simply that an influx of energy doesn't routinely generate the tremendous amount of "order" that is fundamentally necessary for the likes of humans to evolve from the simplest of single cell organisms. Does that mean that it can't? Certainly not. But it is at least a question worth discussion. Secondly, one could argue that though we would die without the heat from the sun, it wouldn't come from a lack of order. In fact I think some would argue the opposite. If for some reason, the sun were to die out, then I would think that might lead to a situation where those with the most resources to protect themselves, heat themselves etc... would survive longer. Now obviously, that wouldn't be a very long time without the energy coming from the sun, as we would drop well below zero almost immediately. But hypothetically, it would seem that those with the most resources and the most intellect would be able to devise a system to survive the longest. That would seem to be a sort of minor scale survival of the fittest wouldn't it? But without the enerygy from the sun, we shouldn't be evolving at all, right?

Finally, the only point all along is that there are still a lot of unknown and uncertain areas. Thus blind belief in evolution -- specifically macro evolution -- takes faith. That has been the whole point all along. You refuse to acknowledge that much, even though you keep proving that very point.

[williambraskyiii]

Aug 26, 2008 12:12:14 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I don't understand why you can't get that much through your thick skull. Maybe you haven't evolved past your avatar.

oh...snap!

[Bando]

Aug 26, 2008 12:12:14 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I didn't mention the thermodynamics issue, because as you said, we discussed it before, and agreed to disagree. As was the case then, and still the case now, it is not proof one way or the other. I don't understand why you can't get that much through your thick skull. Maybe you haven't evolved past your avatar. In any case, the "explanation" why evolution happens here is essentially the tremendous amounts of energy put into our system from the sun. But that explanation merely raises 2 other questions. The first is simply that an influx of energy doesn't routinely generate the tremendous amount of "order" that is fundamentally necessary for the likes of humans to evolve from the simplest of single cell organisms. Does that mean that it can't? Certainly not. But it is at least a question worth discussion. Secondly, one could argue that though we would die without the heat from the sun, it wouldn't come from a lack of order. In fact I think some would argue the opposite. If for some reason, the sun were to die out, then I would think that might lead to a situation where those with the most resources to protect themselves, heat themselves etc... would survive longer. Now obviously, that wouldn't be a very long time without the energy coming from the sun, as we would drop well below zero almost immediately. But hypothetically, it would seem that those with the most resources and the most intellect would be able to devise a system to survive the longest. That would seem to be a sort of minor scale survival of the fittest wouldn't it? But without the enerygy from the sun, we shouldn't be evolving at all, right?

Finally, the only point all along is that there are still a lot of unknown and uncertain areas. Thus blind belief in evolution -- specifically macro evolution -- takes faith. That has been the whole point all along. You refuse to acknowledge that much, even though you keep proving that very point.

How to conduct an argument, by HiFiGator:

Step 1: Ignore whatever your opponent says, and don't respond to their points.
Step 2: Restate your thesis ad infinitum.
Step 3: Accuse your opponent is being completely unreasonable for having the temerity to not agree with you.
Step 4: Repeat until any substantive discussion has been killed.

Am I missing anything?

[Elvado]

Is it possible that the half who don't believe in evolution simply haven't evolved yet?

I ask this as a person of faith who believes in evolution as a manifestation of God's design.

[The Stig]

The thing with evolution is that you don't have to explain every single step. It's a basic concept, not a detailed history. The fossil record isn't supposed to be complete. I'm sure there are plenty of species that existed for which there are no discoverable fossils left on the planet. There are a lot of scientific debates and disagreements over the specifics of evolution, but you'll be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist not under the influence of religion who doesn't believe in the basic concept of evolution.

As we've discussed here before, that basic concept of evolution can coexist with belief in a higher being. Furthermore, as Elvado points out, the basic concepts of evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive. They only clash if you take a religious explanation 100% literally. I think it's perfectly possible to believe in God creating evolution. I personally don't believe that, although I don't deny it either. I simply think it's impossible to know - you can't prove or disprove God. But scientifically I don't think there's anything wrong with that belief.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Aug 26, 2008 13:13:09 GMT -5 williambraskyiii said:

Aug 26, 2008 12:12:14 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I don't understand why you can't get that much through your thick skull. Maybe you haven't evolved past your avatar.

oh...snap!

What does it say that hifi's avatar doesn't even exist?

[hifigator]

Aug 26, 2008 13:28:23 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The thing with evolution is that you don't have to explain every single step. It's a basic concept, not a detailed history. The fossil record isn't supposed to be complete. I'm sure there are plenty of species that existed for which there are no discoverable fossils left on the planet. There are a lot of scientific debates and disagreements over the specifics of evolution, but you'll be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist not under the influence of religion who doesn't believe in the basic concept of evolution.

As we've discussed here before, that basic concept of evolution can coexist with belief in a higher being. Furthermore, as Elvado points out, the basic concepts of evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive. They only clash if you take a religious explanation 100% literally. I think it's perfectly possible to believe in God creating evolution. I personally don't believe that, although I don't deny it either. I simply think it's impossible to know - you can't prove or disprove God. But scientifically I don't think there's anything wrong with that belief.

I agree with you 100%. I have said as much. I think those who insist on trying to interpret the Bible exclusively literally are missing a huge part of the importance. Jesus himself taught extensively in parables. I think symbalism is there for a very important reason. Those who view the Bible exclusively literally are certainly entitled to their views. As someone who views God as omnipotent, I see no reason to doubt that he could create the universe as we know it in a week, but I see no reason to insist on such a view. In my opinion, the best way to think about that issue is the concept of "appearance of age." Our minds are limited by a number of factors. Time is certainly one of those concepts. We have tried to comprehend things outside of time, and we simply can't. Our minds don't allow us to consider things as happening at different points and yet at the same time as well. Sure, we have seen science fiction stories/movies etc.. with parallel universes and time portals. Obviously Einstein is famous for among other things, his work resulting in the theory of relativity. And no one can say for sure that we won't ever evolve to the point where we can understand a concept of time being limitless -- for instance a time where you can go relive "prior" events. There could be fourth, fifth dimensions out there and we simply can't comprehend them. In a sense, it would be like trying to explain colors to someone who was born blind. You just simply can't. Similarly, our minds currently have an inability to think of life in a 4 or 5 dimension setting. The point in all of this, is that I don't feel any need to interpret the Bible literally, with the text taking on solely the literal meanings of the individual words as we know them.

Getting back to evolution, my point is quite simply that as best as we know it, microevolution is a fact. Macroevolution is a theory. It's that simple.

Bando, I find it very strange that you make up a bunch of rubbish that would apply to your arguing techniques, and then suggest that the formula is actually my SOP.

I point out a handful of issues that have yet to be explained and on the surface, seem at least somewhat contradictory, if not incompatible with general macroevolutionary theory. Your response is that "the records aren't complete, but if I knew better, I would understand that."

Sorry, you are the one who seems incapable of formulating a logical argument.


Lastly, for the record, I am what was called a theistic evolutionist back when I was actively studying the subject. Strangely enough, I haven't heard that particular term used in recent years. I don't know whether there was some kind of "stir" and the term took on some kind of negative connotation or whether it has just simply "evolved" into a more appropriate modern day term. In any case, that was a term that essentially applied to those who believe in a higher power, but believe that one of the mechanisms chosen by that power was evolution. I have seen nothing that would contradict such a position then or now.


On Edit: Stig, when you say "basic concept of evolution," I think that is another way of saying microevolution, and I agree with your suggestion.

[Bando]

I point out a handful of issues that have yet to be explained and on the surface, seem at least somewhat contradictory, if not incompatible with general macroevolutionary theory. Your response is that "the records aren't complete, but if I knew better, I would understand that."

No, my point is that the "issues" you point out with evolutionary theory aren't incompatible with evolutionary theory at all. You're saying blatantly false things about evolution in order to undermine it. I'm simply trying to correct your lies.

Additionally, I'm amused by the fact that you still don't comprehend the scientific meanings of words like "law" and "theory".

And just to join the consensus, I agree that one does not need to believe or disbelieve in a deity to hold evolutionary theory as true. Huzzah for agreement!

[hifigator]

Alright, we are doing nothing but wasting each other's time now. You are being obstinate for no real reason that I can see.

Right off the top, when the context is evolution, there is almost always an underlying subtopic of "how it relates or competes with creation." In that regard, it is reasonable to point out that evoulutionary theory being responsible for the tremendous specie variation which we have, does immediately beg one obvious question: what about the START of life? That is certainly, without a doubt a legitimate question to ask. You dismiss it by saying that evolution doesn't deal with the start of life. Well as the saying goes: no sh!t Sherlock. That's the point.

Secondly, evolution on the macro scale especially, is foundationally based on millions and millions of small, almost imperceptible mutations happening over and over, for a long, long time. The lack of progressive fossil records that detail such systemantic progressions certainly casts some degree of doubt. For you to just dismiss that issue because the "fossil record is incomplete," and because you can take a stargazers view of certain fossils and create your own chain requires a degree of faith on your part. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but you can't deny that much. (well, you can, you deny everything that doesn't fit with your own views, but honestly reasonable people won't)

The explosion of life associated with the pre-Cambrian era is simply difficult to answer. Essentially, we have a documentation of simple organisms and then in an amazingly short period of time, we have an explosion of more complex organisms. WhY? Evolution isn't in any way "proven" wrong here, but it is a legitimate question to ask and one which isn't easily answered with simple evolutionary theory -- either micro or macro.

You can dance around the issue all you want, the fact remains that there are still some major unanswered questions with evolution on the macro scale. Scientists acknowledge this. Thus it is still considered a theory. Yet for some reason, you have all the answers. You simply say, "oh no, that's not a problem for this or that reason." Yeah! Bando has answered all these questions. Do you finally see the point? None of these issues in and of themselves, or taken as a whole "invalidate" evolution as you worded it. They simply cause concern to maybe analyze evolution at the macro level and say, "maybe we are missing something."

I'm not going to go around and around on these same issues. These are some unanswered questions which cause concern with general macroevolutionary theory. If you choose to disregard them all, then fine. But don't try to convince everyone else that you are somehow smarter than the scientific world. They acknowledge the issues and have postulated some ideas which might, down the road, be proven accurate. But at this point we still don't know.

[Bando]

does immediately beg one obvious question: what about the START of life? That is certainly, without a doubt a legitimate question to ask. You dismiss it by saying that evolution doesn't deal with the start of life. Well as the saying goes: no sh!t Sherlock. That's the point.

But you're citing this as a failure of evolutionary theory, which is bull. Evolutionary theory doesn't speak to the origins of life because it's limited to specieization, not because science has no idea about this sort of thing (see: abiogenesis). You can't cite something the theory deliberately doesn't address as a failure of said theory, especially since not mentioning the origins of life has no bearing on the truth of evolution.

econdly, evolution on the macro scale especially, is foundationally based on millions and millions of small, almost imperceptible mutations happening over and over, for a long, long time. The lack of progressive fossil records that detail such systemantic progressions certainly casts some degree of doubt. For you to just dismiss that issue because the "fossil record is incomplete," and because you can take a stargazers view of certain fossils and create your own chain requires a degree of faith on your part. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but you can't deny that much.

Again, you're trying to say I'm being unreasonable by having the gall to disagree with you, which is a bullcrap argument. I and others have shown you the transitional fossils, yet you stubbornly continue on. I point out that there's much more evidence for macroevolution other than the fossil record, yet still you refuse to see reality. I'm not the stubborn one here.

The explosion of life associated with the pre-Cambrian era is simply difficult to answer. Essentially, we have a documentation of simple organisms and then in an amazingly short period of time, we have an explosion of more complex organisms. WhY? Evolution isn't in any way "proven" wrong here, but it is a legitimate question to ask and one which isn't easily answered with simple evolutionary theory -- either micro or macro.

But this isn't true. There were complex organisms prior to the Cambrian explosion. Your line of attack here simply isn't true.

You can dance around the issue all you want, the fact remains that there are still some major unanswered questions with evolution on the macro scale. Scientists acknowledge this. Thus it is still considered a theory.

That is not what it means to be a scientific theory!!!!!!!eleventy!!!![/i] As has been explained to you before, theories do not "graduate" to become something else. Theories are, in fact, the most complete explanation of the current evidence on any topic. You're using this term to condemn evolution without having the slightest idea what it means.

I'm not going to go around and around on these same issues. These are some unanswered questions which cause concern with general macroevolutionary theory. If you choose to disregard them all, then fine. But don't try to convince everyone else that you are somehow smarter than the scientific world. They acknowledge the issues and have postulated some ideas which might, down the road, be proven accurate. But at this point we still don't know.

Nice rhetorical flip there. Sorry, but you don't agree with the scientific consensus on the this matter, you can't simply bring that to you side because you said so. Of course there are uncertainties and limits in our knowledge of evolution, it's just that nothing you bring up falls into that category. All the points you bring up are standard creationist talking points.

One thing I do agree with you, though, is that this discussion is pointless. Mods, lock it up.

[hifigator]

Enough is enough, but one last clarification:

Bando wrote:

But you're citing this as a failure of evolutionary theory, which is bullEdited

No, you are the one full of crap. I NEVER said it was a "failure" of evolutionary theory. In fact I specifically said that none of these "prove" that evolution did or didn't happen at any level. I merely pointed out that there are unknown areas, which at least with what we know now could throw a monkey wrench into current evolutionary theories. But that would only lead to better theories, correct? I would think that would be a good thing.

In any case, I didn't do what you accuse me of and you didn't really address my questions, instead choosing to say "that's not a problem." We are now at a standstill.

[hoya9797]

Aug 26, 2008 16:00:38 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Secondly, evolution on the macro scale especially, is foundationally based on millions and millions of small, almost imperceptible mutations happening over and over, for a long, long time. The lack of progressive fossil records that detail such systemantic progressions certainly casts some degree of doubt. For you to just dismiss that issue because the "fossil record is incomplete," and because you can take a stargazers view of certain fossils and create your own chain requires a degree of faith on your part. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but you can't deny that much. (well, you can, you deny everything that doesn't fit with your own views, but honestly reasonable people won't)

How many times do you need to be shown examples of transitional fossils before you'll stop claiming they don't exist?

[The Stig]

Aug 26, 2008 15:25:10 GMT -5 hifigator said:

On Edit: Stig, when you say "basic concept of evolution," I think that is another way of saying microevolution, and I agree with your suggestion.

I mean both microevolution and macroevolution, so no I don't agree with what you said.

By the basic concept of evolution, I mean the concept that species evolve into different species. That's almost universally accepted in the scientific community.

The debate is about the details. For example, one scientist say Species X evolved into Species Y and Z, while another might say that Species Y is unrelated. One scientist might say that evolution occurred at a gradual and consistent pace, while others argue that the pace was inconsistent, with some periods of rapid change and others of long-term stability. But those debates don't alter the fact that almost everybody agrees on the basic concept that species evolve from different species.

From a scientific point of view, education is fact and ought to be taught in science classes as such without any disclaimers. A responsible teacher, especially at a religious school, should probably tell students that evolution doesn't negate their religion, but things like stickers in textbooks saying that evolution is just a theory and shouldn't be believed are just wrong.

[HealyHoya]

Aug 26, 2008 13:14:02 GMT -5 Bando said:

Aug 26, 2008 12:12:14 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I didn't mention the thermodynamics issue, because as you said, we discussed it before, and agreed to disagree. As was the case then, and still the case now, it is not proof one way or the other. I don't understand why you can't get that much through your thick skull. Maybe you haven't evolved past your avatar. In any case, the "explanation" why evolution happens here is essentially the tremendous amounts of energy put into our system from the sun. But that explanation merely raises 2 other questions. The first is simply that an influx of energy doesn't routinely generate the tremendous amount of "order" that is fundamentally necessary for the likes of humans to evolve from the simplest of single cell organisms. Does that mean that it can't? Certainly not. But it is at least a question worth discussion. Secondly, one could argue that though we would die without the heat from the sun, it wouldn't come from a lack of order. In fact I think some would argue the opposite. If for some reason, the sun were to die out, then I would think that might lead to a situation where those with the most resources to protect themselves, heat themselves etc... would survive longer. Now obviously, that wouldn't be a very long time without the energy coming from the sun, as we would drop well below zero almost immediately. But hypothetically, it would seem that those with the most resources and the most intellect would be able to devise a system to survive the longest. That would seem to be a sort of minor scale survival of the fittest wouldn't it? But without the enerygy from the sun, we shouldn't be evolving at all, right?

Finally, the only point all along is that there are still a lot of unknown and uncertain areas. Thus blind belief in evolution -- specifically macro evolution -- takes faith. That has been the whole point all along. You refuse to acknowledge that much, even though you keep proving that very point.

How to conduct an argument, by HiFiGator:

Step 1: Ignore whatever your opponent says, and don't respond to their points.
Step 2: Restate your thesis ad infinitum.
Step 3: Accuse your opponent is being completely unreasonable for having the temerity to not agree with you.
Step 4: Repeat until any substantive discussion has been killed.

Am I missing anything?

Yes -- 3a: Reference, often completely unnecessary to point being made, to University of Florida.