Newsweek poll: 48% of Americans don’t believe in evolution
posted at 2:57 pm on March 31, 2007 by Allahpundit
It’s red-meat Saturday! Come and git it.
Lots more at the link. Note question 18.
Update: 27% of agnostics/atheists think God guided evolution? And 13% think he created humans in their present form?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Very well. In 100,000 years, if that comes to pass, then I’ll admit that I was completely wrong and change my position. Is that fair enough?
They’re still viruses, right?
So the hypothesis of evolution is NOT about the adding of information and the transformation from goo to higher lifeforms?
Damn, I must have been reading the wrong textbooks then.
Careful with those goalposts. They can really mess up your back if you keep running around with them like that.
Misha I on March 31, 2007 at 8:38 PM
LOL
Maybe we’re just a rough draft.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Matter appearing out of nothing spontaneously?
Damn, I REALLY have to revise my views here. Is there anything that evolution CANNOT do?
Misha I on March 31, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Figures lie and liars figure.
That is all. Move along.
Pilgrim on March 31, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I’m pretty sure you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 8:47 PM
If you don’t believe in evolution, I dont know what to say.
I sincerely wish people that stupid didn’t share my politics.
triple on March 31, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Oh, goody!
An evolution versus creation versus intelligent design thread!
These are always so much fun.
Slublog on March 31, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Some brilliant evolutionist explain to me how evolution, or life for that matter, is possible with the reality of entropy. Don’t be afraid to get technical, my Ph.D. is in biochemistry and there are many of us uneducated scientists who think the whole argument is bunk. The theory keeps undergoing radical changes just to survive. If you believe evolution, you really must consider spontaneous generation.
Valiant on March 31, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Condescension doesn’t work with me, son. I invented the concept.
Misha I on March 31, 2007 at 9:13 PM
http://tinyurl.com/3a8h4q
But I don’t see why you feel you need to limit the theory of evolution to entropy alone. How is a god possible given the reality of entropy? Sure, they are questions you can ask, but to act as if they’re the only questions to ask isn’t true. There are many other answers on “how” that don’t have to do with entropy alone.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 9:18 PM
What is that supposed to mean? “his science”? I’m just talking about actual science (yeah, the stuff done by your guys), without the storytelling and assumptions built in. Why are evolutionists so opposed to this? I can’t understand why you guys have such a problem with just honest reporting of findings and data, and require wild speculation to make things fit back in to a theory that evidence says they do not.
Let me ask you something though… if evidence comes forward that contradicts evolutionary theory (read: assumptions), should not just the finding be reported? Do we really need wild speculation and guesses as to how the contradictory evidence fits with evolution. If you’re fine with the irresponsible speculation then you’re a religious evolutionist.
Clearly no amount of evidence will ever overturn evolution, because the theory itself is the one thing that is clearly evolving. Do you people really not see this? Thousands and thousands of articles are written every year in all of the top science journals. More often than not they turn evolutionary assumptions on their heads. From tiny things to large staples of evolutionary theory… But no matter what, the evolutionists always take guesses as to how the evidence can still fit with evolution (when more often than not the evidence says nothing about evolution, other than that the assumptions were wrong). There is no room for questioning the theory, and you people know it. No matter what the finding, the evolutionist will ignore it’s real implications, and speculate on evolution.
I don’t know your personal politics, but you’re playing a liberal game.. and as long as you’re doing so… how about you just don’t reply to me.
Your comment is beyond dishonest and you know it.. which is why you left out what you were responding to. You should be ashamed of yourself:
I’ll accept your apology for your distortions. I CLEARLY only answered the evolutionist’s comments on the Bible but noting that I WAS NOT using it as a science text, but his contention that it is baseless storytelling was false, because as we know, archaelogy confirms much of the Bible all the time. That has nothing to do with scientific study of origins, and I never claimed it did. But I don’t expect honesty from a Darwinist in the first place, the entire religion is about ignoring the hard evidence before your eyes, and following constantly debunked assumptions off the cliff.
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 9:30 PM
It is hilarious (and sad) that some people will flock to the scientific community to prove the 9/11 truthers wrong, but then turn on those same institutions when the subject of evolution or the origin of the universe comes up.
“Oh Mr. Physicist, come prove Rosie wrong, but don’t you dare say that life can occur naturally!”
Ridiculous.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Woah, back up there. I didn’t apologize for anything because I didn’t need to, and I certaintly didn’t distort anything when I said “As opposed to The Bible.”
And this has to do with evolution, how? I told you I made my “As opposed…” comment as a joke I couldn’t resist, but what does the archaeology of The Bible have to do with evolution? Some parts in The Bible are based in fact therefore all of The Bible must be factual? That’s a fallacy in case you didn’t know.
Then what’s the point of talking about it? Did you need to bring it up to defend The Bible against my joke? Do you think that because some people in the stories in The Bible existed The Bible isn’t full of baseless stories? You realize you’re making a huge deal about a joke that was based in fact (The Bible is full of baseless stories).
We’re still talking about Christianity, right? I joke, I joke.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Ridiculous.
How dare you question the theory of evolution! How dare you!
How dare you question the theory of human caused global warming! How dare you!
How dare you question that the earth is the center of the universe! How dare you!
How dare you question the constancy of time! How dare you!
Science is all about questioning ad testing. Otherwise, it’s religion.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 9:49 PM
“Science” and the “scientific community” are two entirely different things. We have no problem with science, how many f-ing times do we have to tell you that? We have a problem with extrapolating ideas that aren’t seen in the evidence, to force contradictory evidence to fit back in to a theory thousands and thousands of times.
And what the hell does a physicist know about life emerging spontaneously?
When we use science (in part) to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, we aren’t using the “science community”, we’re using known science… not an everchanging (and thus impossible to ever disprove) story.
Hey genius, reread that comment… I WAS TALKING TO LIBERROCKY! In order to thoroughly mock his dishonesty, I needed to lay out your entire exchange with me on the Bible thing from earlier, because he dishonestly asserted that I was using the Bible as a scientific text… not only did I not do that, it was YOU who brought up the Bible, and I responded, and later explained that the Bible isn’t baseless story telling the way evolution is, because much of it is verified by archaelogy… Again, this has NOTHING to do with this conversation, but was an interesting quick sidebar, that lead to Liberrocky’s dishonest comment.
But I wasn’t talking about you apologizing Nonfactor, please reread the comment.
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 9:51 PM
These scientists try to “make the data fit their prewritten story” and yet they also toss out assumptions. It’s cognitive dissonance as a criticism of science.
Yeah, it happens daily, yet you still love to link to that epistasis story. It’s still wrong. The creationist site you linked describes the results as such:
The report said no such thing. It is mind-boggling that they would describe it in such a way. What they did was to read the report without understanding it, and twisting it the way they want. First of all, the experiment only involved mutating the gene responsible for encoding TEM-1 in E. coli. TEM-1 is a beta-lactamase that is responsible E. coli’s resistance to ampicillin. This was a test of how many mutations one protein-encoding gene can take before it stops functioning. This does not lend itself to generalizations of all mutations, particularly since the experiment was not designed to determine beneficial mutations, only negative. The reason this is so is because the measure of fitness is the percentage of E. coli that survives contact with ampicillin, which can never be higher than 1. So the experiment wasn’t designed to determine increasing fitness. But their biggest mistake was simply ignoring natural selection, one of the key concepts of the theory of evolution. The E. coli under selective pressure didn’t show a change in fitness. The creation safari people just don’t get it. They act shocked that the E. coli that is not under pressure to resist ampicillin isn’t as resistant as E. coli that has been under selective pressure by ampicillin. That’s simple natural selection, and that’s what the study shows. For some reason they think that the mutational load (throughout the entire organism, they seem to believe) will just continue to increase and increase, without regard to natural selection. And this study showed (without particularly trying) that selective pressure keeps that from happening. (The report in question is here (pdf) with supplementary material here (pdf). I defy someone to read those and still say with a straight face that the authors don’t understand their own paper overthrows the Theory of Evolution. Here’s another fool that doesn’t understand his own work.
Maybe the nonacceptance of evolution disturbs them because of all the nonsense and lies that gets thrown around by the creationists. Maybe they would like kids to get proper instruction in science instead of the conspiracy theories provided by creationists. Maybe scientists Bershtein et al. might get a little peeved by misinterpreting papers they’ve put a lot of hard work into by fools who don’t understand them. It’s a stumper.
dorkafork on March 31, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Bwahahaha… It’s for the chilllldren…. Bwahahaha
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 10:40 PM
What’s a total Christian?
Pam on March 31, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Yes, and evolution still stands up to those tests.
Funny how those same standards do not apply to creationism.
Somehow, the theory that genetic natural selection weeds out bad traits over time seems SOMEHOW more plausible than “god did it.”
triple on March 31, 2007 at 10:52 PM
creationism is religion. A belief in God and his word. It is not science. You either believe it, don’t or aren’t sure.
That said, anybody who thinks current scientific thinking in any discipline is “truth” simply does not know much about science and its history and would do well to read “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by T. Kuhn.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 11:04 PM
I’m all done on the evo-creo wars.
Anyone who wants to understand this really should Google up a few concepts: 1) the definition of science, i.e. what differentiates it from a belief system, 2) within that, there’s a concept called ‘falsifiability,’ 3) what is a scientific theory, and 4) the notion of “proof” versus “acceptance after overwhelming evidence.”
If there any sincere ID’rs, Creationists, evo-skeptcs, or however you characterize yourself, who want to understand this stuff, you should google up those phrases as a starter.
commissar on March 31, 2007 at 11:05 PM
RightWinged: You crack me up.
1) if you don’t want to be replied to then don’t post comments.
2) I don’t know how stating a fact (like the FACT that the bible is not a scientific text) is playing a liberal game. You seem familiar with it so why don’t you tell me the rules.
3) My politcs in a nutshell: P J O’Rourke, Allahpundit, Dennis Miller, South Park ya feel me? Good
Liberrocky…bringing science back!
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Truthers vs Reality. I dunno, I’m siding with reality anymore. I just need to square the peg in my head.
Creationism isn’t part of being a conservative or a liberal, democrat or republican. It’s just a belief. I’m not sure why people want to link the two.
It doesn’t mesh with global warming either. They aren’t the same thing, at all.
lorien1973 on March 31, 2007 at 11:37 PM
1) Your dishonesty continues. I have no problem being replied to, but as I said, if you’re going to be dishonest in your response, don’t bother. I never submitted that the Bible was a scientific text, but you’re pretending that I did. It’s like Joe Wilson calling Bush a liar because Saddam didn’t buy Uranium from Niger, when all Bush said was that he SOUGHT the stuff.
2) State all the facts you want, but don’t act like they’re a response to anything I’ve said, because they’re not. I already explained why you’re acting like a lib.
3) I don’t really care about your politics, I only mentioned that I’m not familiar with them before pointing out the liberal tactic you used, so you’d realize I’m not accusing you of being one.
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Valiant: Spontaneous Generation? Great use of a loaded phrase.
We are not talking flies from spoiled meat here.
Things emerge from randomness all the time. Entropy is not the word you need to learn ectropy which is the tendency of dynamic systems to grow more organized.
If you are a scientist you would understand that self-organization is a common phenomenon.
Cheers
Liberrocky…getting more organized all the time!
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 11:48 PM
dorkafork, that’s a lot of information to go through point by point in those links for this little debate here, and I’ll even let you claim victory on that single point if you’d like, simply because it’s really not worth the time, because we’ll both come away thinking the same things.
And by the way, I’m not even saying the scientists don’t “understand” their own findings, I’m saying their belief in evolution doesn’t allow them to see the forest for the trees.
As for this:
That’s not it at all. Creationism or even criticism of evolution isn’t allowed in schools (generally). And these guys aren’t talking about schools anyway… just in general. They complain about generations still not marching to the evolution drum (as seen in this poll), not about what they’re being taught. Make no mistake, kids are being taught evolution… but they aren’t buying it. And that is the complaint of the evolutionists we see meeting every few months, whining about this fact. My question was, why do they care? Why do they care if I or any other private citizen believes in evolution or not? Do they have a problem with people having a set of morals, a belief in good vs. evil, etc.? Do they really need us to all believe we’re just unimportant animals, the result of millions of years of unguided random mutation? How does that benefit them to have non-evolution believers, come over to their side of the fence?
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 11:56 PM
RightWinged, do you have a rational explanation for the difference in horses over time if it wasn’t evolution? Or is the only rebuttal to this based not in reason, but religion?
I’ve read the answersingenesis site information on it so I will respond to some points in it before you make your case:
I love how they say “supposedly” when we have evidence and we can carbon-date the age of fossils. Just a side note.
Maybe for other species, but for the horse we have near-complete fossil skeletons including teeth & facial structure and hooves which are the most important.
Just another side note; I love how they’re quoting someone from 1841.
And radioactive half-life; they conveniently left that out.
Now they’re assuming that a species that evolves from a previous species can’t live with that previous species. Evolution doesn’t state that the original species immediately dies out after evolution takes place.
The “Lots of different horses” segment is laughable. We’ve seen examples in recorded history of one animal breeding with another forming a different animal or even human races breeding with other human races.
So, RightWinged, feel free to address the issue of the evolution of horses and get back to me.
Nonfactor on April 1, 2007 at 12:06 AM
By the way, if you guys don’t understand what I’m talking about when evolutionists do studies that show nothing about evolution (and often shows that their evolutionary assumptions were wrong), still put evolution language in where it doesn’t belong, this was one of the more recent, but as I said, if I was to spend the time, I could provide you with thousands just like it and worse.
Here’s a write-up in Live Science
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070319_gliding_lizard.html
There wasn’t any evidence for evolution presented, but the article ends with this quote from the scientist:
Why didn’t he say it’s amazing to see “nearly identical structures….” and leave out the words “evolution making”… because the data didn’t say anything about the identical structures evolving in different animals, it just showed similar structures in them.
Do you guys understand the problem with this? That’s not science, and this type of crap is rampant, and often much worse (though sometimes a little tougher to decifer when it’s done, this example is just pretty straight forward).
How about all the things that are taught in science classes that shape opinions of students, but years later are overturned when the data comes back after real studies are done? The only reason these things are taught is because they fit the evolution story. Your side generally likes the excuse “it was the best information available at the time”… But it’s not information, it’s assumption invented to fill holes in the theory. Once again, what’s wrong with just teaching what we know and can test and observe? Why is it necessary to have the “millions of years” story to go along with it? Who does that benefit?
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with a set of morals. NEWS FLASH – You can have a set of morals and believe in evolution.
No, you don’t all need to believe it, just like people don’t need to believe that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job.
Who said it would benefit them?
Nonfactor on April 1, 2007 at 12:14 AM
That’s a lot of work Nonfactor… why should I spend the time when you refuse to answer my points about why evolutionary assumption is tossed in by scientists, when the findings actually say nothing about it… among other things?
That said, I may or may not look in to this, but I love how you evolutionists like to focus strictly on things you bring up, and ignore things our side brings up. You’ll pull out one or two sentences out of lengthy comments, and then you’ll move on to whatever you want to say, and demand we spend time responding specifically to each of your points? This is half the reason I didn’t respond at length to dorkafork above.
As for this:
Wow.
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Rightwinged:
Thanks for calling me a liar! But lets look at your quote:
If I made assumptions about this statement then I apologize but I was not being dishonest.
And for that liberal thing you keep spouting, lets look at two liberal favorites you use: Scare Quotes and Name Callin’
Need examples?
Oh and Rightwinged let me be honest with you…you just got pwned!
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Rightwinged: One other thing… what is your theory anyway?
If not evolution than what?
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 12:21 AM
If there is a disproof of evolution, it’s the intelligence level of most answering this poll.
The Pope said evolution is a perfectly acceptible theory and yet many Catholics in the poll don’t even know it has been permitted for them to believe in, even theoretically?
But, as noted, the agnostics and atheists tallied are even dumber.
The pollsters need to ask the exit question:
Do you think the human mind, at its current level, is capable of understanding the totality of the meaning of the Universe?
If anybody says yes, hit the trapdoor switch.
(Essentially, believing you know such profound answers means you haven’t looked deep enough into the shallowness of the cranium, yet.)
profitsbeard on April 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM
I don’t know, but why do they care if generations aren’t buying in to evolution if not for the benefit of someone? What’s the difference to them?
You can say evolutionists can have morals all you want, but where do they come from… were they evolved too? If I believe in evolution, I could do virtually anything and not have a guilty conscience (unless I evolved a conscience too). Laws? What laws. I’m just another animal, a product of evolution. Screw your laws.
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM
No, it was dishonest, because you chose to ignore the context. End of story.
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 12:24 AM
It’s not about that. I have no “theory”. I have a problem with assumptions and storytelling being taught as “science”.
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Rightwinged:
You don’t understand how morality can exist without a deity?
That is just sad.
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Do animals have morals?
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Genesis 1:12 says “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
Now why isn’t marijuana legal? I mean …. well you know… God said it was good…
Bradky on April 1, 2007 at 12:34 AM
They did on Happy Feet.
Bradky on April 1, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Oh boy, Bradky’s here… they’re all converging. Time for me to crack open a silver bullet and check out.
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Where everybody knows your name…. Top of the evening to you RW.
Bradky on April 1, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Believe it or not some people don’t need to be threatened with eternal damnation to possess morals. There are many immoral people who don’t believe in evolution, how do you explain that? Morals aren’t universal; there isn’t a guideline that says “torture is bad” or “killing is good.” Morality is what humans make of it.
Nonfactor on April 1, 2007 at 12:44 AM
After reading Dune Messiah, I fear she may be the god-empress.
Coyote D. on April 1, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Worst. Dune reference. Ever.
Nonfactor on April 1, 2007 at 1:17 AM
All humans are animals
Some humans have morals
thus you get the picture
Many have addressed the idea of morality without a deity
For more info check out aristole, spinoza, hume, kant, and mill.
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 1:35 AM
I love ethical theory, too bad not many subjects come up in the news for us to talk about it.
Nonfactor on April 1, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Nonfactor: I thank you for all your support today. It was like a tag team match in a steel cage.
Liberrocky…Libermania running wild
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 1:53 AM
I really don’t understand your objection to this as “crap”. I understand you think evolution is incorrect, but it’s just a news story on a scientific discovery, and the researcher is quoted mentioning “evolution”, which is uncontroversial among scientists. And the paper itself was published in the “Evolution” section of the PNAS. But I guess you would have them rename that section.
dorkafork on April 1, 2007 at 1:54 AM
So the thousands of biologists the world over are all accepting this horribly inaccurate theory, and none of them can see it. And further, you, with no formal biology training knows better than they do, even though you cannot present an alternative model. That’s freaking brilliant man.
Oh, and here
WisCon on April 1, 2007 at 3:58 AM
Is that supposed to be sarcasm?
William
William2006 on April 1, 2007 at 4:13 AM
I’d be curious to know what percentage of Americans believe in rock and roll heaven.
saint kansas on April 1, 2007 at 5:44 AM
I know thats where I am goin’
Liberrocky …ROCKS!
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 8:46 AM
So ectropy + entropy balances out and the second law of thermodynamics is invalidated? Or is it only invalidated for Darwin’s finches? Which, btw are still finches. I’m outta here.
Valiant on April 1, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Valiant:
Not all dynamic systems become less organized.
One common example is the snowflake. If develops a very organized pattern from random drops of water. Do snowflakes violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Liberrocky
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 12:04 PM
It’s obvious that evolution created life, including Mankind, How do I know this? A several books tell me. How do I know it’s true? These same books tell me it’s true.
RedinBlueCounty on April 1, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I’m reminded of the story of a bunch of mice living inside a piano. They wondered where all the beautiful music came from. One ventured out to see and discovered that when the strings vibrated, out came the music. He proudly reported back to his fellow mice that it’s the vibrating strings that make the music and that was the end of it.
Darwinism is the same way. We all listen to the same beautiful music of creation but the Darwinists only go as far as the vibrating strings ignoring the maestro at the keys.
Mojave Mark on April 1, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Good analogy, mind if I copy it?
RedinBlueCounty on April 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Who is to say that evolution isn’t beautiful? Maybe to you; maybe when people see the size of the Milky Way they feel insignificant, not me.
And of course your analogy assumes there is some greater creative force without any proof. We aren’t mice and life isn’t full of beautiful music waiting to be silenced by scientists.
Nonfactor on April 1, 2007 at 1:04 PM
RedinBlueCounty: You raise a good point. What you are asking is a question of epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, truth, belief and justification.
I don’t think this is an accurate statement. A competent scientist does not use a book to tell him if something is true*. A scientist should examine all the evidence presented and apply the tools of logic to determine the probability of a conjecture.
Liberrocky
*Actually a scientist should rarely ever use the word “true”. A scientist should speak in terms of probability. There are only two things that are true because without them you can’t really think and those are the Law of Idenity (A=A) and the Law of Noncontradition (a thing cannot be both true and not true)**
** Some would also argue for the Law of excluded middle (“P or not-P”) but this has come under attack from constructivists.
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Mojave Mark: I give the mouse credit. He at least investigated the issue and with in the limits of his knowledge he made a reasonable conjecture based on the evidence.
liberrocky on April 1, 2007 at 1:40 PM
I always like to burst peoples bubbles on evolution being a theory. It isn’t. Evolution is a hypothesis based upon a philosophy, not theory or fact.
A scientific theory “is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.” Evolution is descriptive, not predictive. There are logical inconsistencies with it (read Stephen Gould, who attempted to explain these problems). And it is completely untestable because it describes a process but is non-predictive.
At best it is a hypothesis. In reality, what is taught in academia is nothing but philosophy (specifically, metaphysics). I’m not one who believes that evolution is anti-Christian. But I also don’t believe that folks should pass off some personal opinion as scientific fact.
cmay on April 1, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Websters and every other source with more than one definition I found disagrees with you. Your definition may be true in mathematics, but it is different in science.
From Websters:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (the wave theory of light)
Nonfactor on April 1, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Evolution can be predictive, it predicted where a fossil like Tiktaalik would be found.
And maybe you should read Stephen Jay Gould. He described evolution as both fact and theory, and gives a pretty good description of what makes a scientific theory.
dorkafork on April 1, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Actually, that’s a paleontological prediction. I notice that these scientists didn’t have a sketch of what the fossil should have looked like before they found it. That would have been an prediction that supported evolution as a theory. A “prediction” that occurs afterward is called a description.
I only brought up Gould because he went further than anyone else I know of in reconciling some of the problems with evolution. But he still fell short.
BTW, I especially like how Gould comes up with his own definition of fact:
As I originally said, I don’t believe that folks should pass off some personal opinion as scientific fact, even if that means changing the definition of “fact” merely to make it fit your opinion (as Gould obviously does).
cmay on April 1, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Nonfactor,
I suggest that you get a better dictionary. From American Heritage:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
cmay on April 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM
You’re proving my point. The findings have nothing to do with evolution, other than that evolution is assumed.
There isn’t evidence for evolution here, it’s assumed. And why mention this assumption as fact? Does this benefit anyone? Why is it necessary to submit assumption in a science article, rather than just saying “Alternatively, gliding lizards had….”?
It suggests nothing of the sort… but when evolution is assumed, the evolution language MUST be included.
Again, you’re proving my point for me… they’re not only using evolution language they put it in the evolution section… not because there are intermediate fossils or any evidence that this creature evolved from another, but because evolution is assumed. And that language has nothing to do with science, and benefits the reader in no way.
RightWinged on April 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM
As a christian, I believe that I have a soul. Is it correct to assume that those of you who don’t believe in creationism and/or intelligent design also believe human beings don’t have souls? (and as a corollary there is no afterlife) Does this make evolution anti-christian?
(otherwise, I’m not disagreeing with you cmay)
Ramblinrog on April 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I believe that God created man from preexistent matter. The Bible clearly states this (man was created from dirt). Everyday observation confirms this (the way we are conceived, the need for food and water for our bodies to grow, etc.).
God directly creates the soul. By an act of Divine Will, that soul is united to our bodies.
I don’t see that evolution is necessarily anti-Christian. If you believe that the creation narrative is literal, then there is a problem. But many Christians believe that it is allegorical, especially since there are two separate creation stories. Not to mention the faulty science in those narratives about there being a vault of water above heaven.
cmay on April 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I will give $1,000 dollars to the first person that can demonstrate the evolution of the ball-and-socket joint, using the Darwinian model. The fact that many species, both alive and extinct, share a similar homology – is NOT proof of evolution.
The ball-and-socket joint is critical to the locomotion and therefore survival of almost all land-dwelling vertebrates. It is incumbant upon the Darwinist to prove how such a basic bio-mechanical mechanism could evolve over millions of years. Anything less than a smooth ball in a concave socket, from the get-go, would be useless. Those geometric shapes cannot evolve. The same mechanical design in your grandmother’s hip replacement is the same design in a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Nothing has changed and there is ZERO evidence of its development in the fossil record.
The Zoo Keeper on April 1, 2007 at 5:57 PM
No, it was a prediction based on the theory of evolution. They set out to find a particular intermediate form. They knew what area to look in, and what geological age range it would be found. They also knew where to look because they knew what it would look like, and from size and shape of the limbs determine its habitat. (Here’s an essay by one of the researchers, another fool like Stephen Jay Gould who just doesn’t understand evolution. By the way, I think it was incredibly dishonest of you to portray him as a critic of evolution, and accusing him of “changing the definition of “fact” merely to make it fit (his) opinion”. For those that don’t want to click through, Gould gave a good example: “I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”)
See you guys in the next evolution flame war. Or as I suppose I should call it the “don’t say evolution because we have to pretend that long-standing theory is just an assumption because it doesn’t meet RightWinged’s scientific standards” flame war.
dorkafork on April 1, 2007 at 7:19 PM
I AM AN INSOMNIAC, DYSLEXIC, AGNOSTIC THAT STAYS AWAKE ALL NIGHT…WONDERING IF THERE IS A DOG.
Ropera on April 1, 2007 at 7:33 PM
dorkafork,
Actually, I spoke in praise of Gould because he made strides toward solving some problems with evolution. But even Gould could not work through all the inconsistencies and his solutions were hypotheses (untested theories).
I fail to see how the above quote from me indicates that Gould was anti-evolution. Once again, he attempted to explain the apparent problems with previous evolutionary hypotheses.
As for Gould changing the definition of “fact”, he admits to doing it in his essay. Are you illiterate? Please re-read paragraphs 5 through 7 in his essay where he redefines “fact.”
You claim that:
The website claims different:
If that sounds familiar, it’s exactly what I claimed it was.
And even from the same website (from a commenter called McDarwin):
Maybe they didn’t because they are not fools and realize the limits of their research.
Once again, I’m not against evolution. Just bad science.
cmay on April 1, 2007 at 8:48 PM
dorkafork,
Just got done with reading Shubin’s article again. He doesn’t claim that he made predictions based on evolutionary “theory.” In fact, he seems to state that it’s a daunting task to make predictions based on evolutionary theory:
So, now we have to change the meaning of the word “fact” and we have to accept that making predictions requires a sixth sense. Sounds like Shubin is relying more on faith in evolution than science.
cmay on April 1, 2007 at 9:17 PM
No matter which road you choose one must account for one’s own existence. This brings one back in time to the uncaused cause. For the Darwinist the uncaused cause is an inexplicable explosion occuring for an unknowable reason. For the Christian the uncaused cause is God who existed before existence itself because that was His nature.
The deeper question, given the two different starting points, is; what is man’s purpose and meaning in the life that is?
The Darwinist must answer that there is no meaning apart from the “now” whereas the Christian knows his purpose and meaning in life are intertwined with the purpose and meaning of his Creator. The Darwinist ultimately has no authentic hope whereas the entire life and even death of a Christian is inextricably intertwined with the hope of both a “now” and an eternity spent with a loving God.
Mojave Mark on April 2, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Here’s a question: Why would humans evolve the idea of God? Somewhere along the line, some humans were born with the idea of God and others weren’t, and those that were, were more equipped to find a mate… somehow?
By the way, is money something we evolved as humans? Because the rich, especially heirs to fortunes have the ability to survive much easier than anyone else, yet they can be the fattest and stupideset people on the planet who never do anything but eat and watch TV. Will those who didn’t evolve money die off (in the next millions of years)?
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Because people want to feel like their lives are out of their control. When things go bad they want to know that it wasn’t their fault, when they need luck they can pray to something. Look back all the way to the ancient gods to the modern gods; they share the idea that there is some force larger than them that ultimately has sway over their lives. An exception I see is in the Norse gods where even the gods will eventually be defeated, not widely appealing, and thus it isn’t around today. Propose a religion with no heaven or hell and nobody will want to believe in it; propose a religion where you are rewarded after you die and you’ll have people clamoring to be a part of it.
Ideas don’t evolve in the sense that you’re born with an idea; ideas come to life through nature. When I was born I wasn’t a Christian, when you were born you weren’t a Christian, when Osama bin Laden was born he wasn’t a Muslim. We didn’t have these ideas in our heads at birth; they were put in our minds throughout our lives. If nobody was there to tell you that there was a certain god all you might have is a concept of something bigger than yourself (until you name that concept as a specific god).
I can’t believe you seriously asked that.
Nonfactor on April 2, 2007 at 2:02 AM
I wasn’t talking at all about religion, just the idea of God, which you seem to admit comes naturally to us. By that definition, you submit that we evolved it?
And I was mainly joking about evolving money, but I thought it was interesting that the more money you have, the better equipped you are to survive. By evolutionary logic, money is an evolved quality.
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 2:08 AM
No. To clarify, the idea of God isn’t natural to all people. If people use logic they will dismiss the idea of any type of god (Muslim God, Christian God, Greek gods, etc.). In my first answer I should have said “some people” in the beginning.
The thing about that is that poor people still have children who will most likely be poor who will have children et cetera, so I don’t think that over time poor people would die off unless there arose a situation where you needed to have $50,000 or die.
Nonfactor on April 2, 2007 at 3:34 AM
Well, people who don’t have money go to bed hungry and can’t afford healthcare… unless they’re scumbags and illegals who just skip out on their tabs.
As for the God thing… Why do you think this is unique to humans?
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 3:55 AM
And to clarify, I’m not saying why do YOU think this is, I mean to point out that it is unique to humans, and ask you (who seem to agree) your opinion on why this is the case?
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 3:56 AM
Aristotle reasoned his way to a single, personal God with no Jewish influence.
cmay on April 2, 2007 at 6:46 AM
How dare you elevate Aristotle to the position of Nonfactor. Please, I know Nonfactor, and Aristotle was no Nonfactor!
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 7:55 AM
Actually, I think it was Aquinas who first tried to mesh logic with the idea of (specifically) the Christian God. He makes a very liberal argument for moral values, but a not-too convincing one for the idea of God.
And lets not forget that Aristotle also tried to reason that retards should be slaves.
I think the concept of god is unique to humans because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Humans are the most advanced form of life on Earth and I haven’t seen any badger temples yet. But this isn’t to say that if there are other forms of life in the universe that they would also not have a concept of god.
When I first started studying Aristotle I thought I would finally agree with some ancient philosopher, but nope.
Nonfactor on April 2, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I understand the question could have been read two ways, which is why I attempted to clarifyl, but it obviously still didn’t come through the right way.
I’m in agreement that the idea of a God is unique to humans, and I’m asking you why you think it worked out this way? I mean, you just said we’re the most advanced form of life… that being the case, wouldn’t our advanced brains, with the ability to reason toss the idea of God aside? I know you think you have, but why isn’t the rest of the world as smart as you? Are you more apt to mate, because your highly evolved reasoning skills leave the rest of us mere humans in the dust?
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 4:06 PM
You’d think people would do that (disregard the idea of a god), but the idea of eternal pleasure/happiness after our short lives or the idea that our lives our out of our hands is too appealing, even for reason.
It’s not that I’m more evolved; everyone has the ability to accept or reject the religion they are taught (or not taught) as a child. I chose to reject it based on reason and logic, this does not mean that I’m genetically more advanced, it just means that I used my reason and rejected it. I think everyone knows that religion and revelation cannot be explained through logic and reason, but the religious people (in my opinion) are okay with that and accept the idea of a god anyway.
Nonfactor on April 2, 2007 at 5:57 PM
again, you’re mixing up the idea of God and religion… but this thread is dead, so let’s no go around in that circle again.
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Till next we meet.
Nonfactor on April 2, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Do threads have souls??
Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2