Newsweek poll: 48% of Americans don’t believe in evolution
posted at 2:57 pm on March 31, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: 1 2 Next »
What will Rosie be in 50,000 years?
HerrMorgenholz on March 31, 2007 at 2:59 PM
The Venus of Willendorf.
spmat on March 31, 2007 at 3:03 PM
There’s a world of difference between the evidence for microevolution and macroevolution. Perhaps the question should have been more specific.
liberty on March 31, 2007 at 3:05 PM
It’s obvious one God made everything, including humans. How do I know this? A book tells me. How do I know it’s true? The book tells me it’s true.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Scary stuff.
uptight on March 31, 2007 at 3:15 PM
How could 27% of Agnostics/Atheists think it was a God guided process and 13% of them think God created people in present form? That means 40% of Agnostics/Atheists believe in God. WTF?! Another garbage poll…
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Scientifically, evolution is a non-starter. I will not bore you with the thermodynamic impossibility of the process. It survives (with environmentalism) as the religion of the left-abortion as its sacrament-and public school teachers as high priests. Evolution requires more faith to believe in than belief in God.
Valiant on March 31, 2007 at 3:19 PM
There you go on believing that evolution can’t coexist with God. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion; methinks you’ve been reading too much Ann Coulter.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Yeah, a few things in the poll do contradict.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 3:22 PM
How can Atheists answer 27% that God guided the process and that 13% say God created man in his present form?
AP maybe you say speak to this?
CharlestonCritic on March 31, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Sorry, TheBigOldDog beat me to it.
CharlestonCritic on March 31, 2007 at 3:24 PM
28% Republican, 37% democrat. Oh yeah, there’s a poll that’s accurate…..
Capitalist Infidel on March 31, 2007 at 3:24 PM
There should be a big headline:
Survey finds 40% of Atheists and Agnostics believe in God!
These polls are garbage and the authors don’t even take the time to sanity test the data before the publish them.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 3:26 PM
13% of agnostics/atheists believe in creationism? Maybe they’re confused about what an agnostic or atheist is. Probably confused about a lot of things.
I would have expected the plurality would have selected God guided process, but I don’t know how long evolution has been taught in schools.
frankj on March 31, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Atheists and Agnostics should have been listed seperately. It didn’t make any sens to lump them together and lead to weird and confusing numbers.
greggish on March 31, 2007 at 3:32 PM
My arguments against evolution have nothing to do with God. I was explaining why the left latches on to the belief so tenaciously and outright hatred of God certainly plays into their evolution/Earth is God theology. I am guilty of being in love with AC’s brain, though she needs to throw back a few cheeseburgers to make her body more attractive.
Valiant on March 31, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Ah, no, not really. They both do not believe in God by definition. To have a poll where 40% give answers that essentially acknowledge the existence of God tells you there is a large, fundamental problem with your survey methodology.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 3:37 PM
I used to believe in evolution as long as it was guided by God.
Not any more. There is absolutely no evidence that one species can turn into another species by natural selection, or that something less complex can turn into something more complex.
Intelligent design is what created all the species on earth. A great book on the issue is The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. It blows away a lot of other myths about science as well that liberals would have us believe.
januarius on March 31, 2007 at 3:44 PM
So just that I completely understand you–you believe that some outside force (be it a god of any kind or something else) came to Earth and personally placed every single species that was and will place every single species that will be. Is that correct? And if not, what is correct?
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 3:46 PM
AP, they’ll never vote for you as president, but #19 is proof that you are a good guy :)
A few of you already addressed the atheist/creation percentage conflict/beliefs…
I’m always amazed at the “don’t know” percentage.
Independents are 25% and will again determine the outcome in 2008.
I’m shocked at the number in favor of the Iraq bill/s, from all 3 groups.
spmat, a big THANK YOU for the endorphin release :) :) :)
Entelechy on March 31, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Here you go:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof.htm
All you need to know and beyond
Ropera on March 31, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Job 38:4
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth declare if thou hast understanding
.ect… feel free to read further
.
That BOOK as you call it, is the Word of God, and is two thirds Prophecy. No matter how ridicules the prophecy is, it always comes true. The Word of God has never and will never be wrong. Like Enemies throughout history Russia and Iran becoming friends. Yes, even that was foretold!
Pro 9:10
The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord, and acknowledging the Holy One is understanding.
abinitioadinfinitum on March 31, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Seems to me (as one of those agnostic/atheists) that the response should be 100% “Don’t know”
Ann on March 31, 2007 at 4:02 PM
methinks that poll was broke.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Did God evolve or was he created?
uptight on March 31, 2007 at 4:06 PM
48%?
Looks like the War on Christianity isn’t going as well as some would hope, no?
Which is not surprising. We survived the Romans, we survived Islam, we’ll survive a bunch of pinheads worshiping themselves as well.
Misha I on March 31, 2007 at 4:07 PM
I just read the entire poll and wonder what the connection is between the political questions and the religous questions – are they saying it’s Bush’ fault there are atheists?
Ann on March 31, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Bravo. At least if you go by the actual definition of “know.” I know that I can’t know, and I know what I believe.
If only the believers in Darwin’s Great Conjecture would admit to the same but, then again, that would interfere with their self-worship and navel-gazing.
Misha I on March 31, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion;
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Problem is that evolution is being presented in our shcools as fact not a theory and the staunch supporters of evolution are fanaticaL in their belief.
docdave on March 31, 2007 at 4:12 PM
The poll is a joke.
I’d fit in the category of borderline atheist/agnostic. Let’s just say while I’m willing to believe there might be some superior being I don’t think it gives much thought to what we do or say from day to day. I certainly don’t find any of the human run churches and their take on God to be the answer for me–quite the contrary as most of the organized religions I’ve gone to searching for an answer have done more to turn me away from any religious belief system than anything else. I also don’t go around feeling like I am some sort of intellectual superior and that religious people are dunces. Religion is a personal thing and I respect those that believe the way they do–and my “lack of belief” is my own personal thing and wish others to respect my position.
I don’t like the evolution/atheist crowd insisting I believe one way, nor do I appreciate someone trying to convert me or save me. Prefer both groups just leave me alone in that area.
Like Ann above I think the results should have 100% Don’t Know.
Faith1 on March 31, 2007 at 4:14 PM
People can answer “Do you believe in God,” with at least some degree of certainty, but on a question of whether a “god” exists I don’t think anyone can know for sure.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 4:17 PM
“So just that I completely understand you–you believe that some outside force (be it a god of any kind or something else) came to Earth and personally placed every single species that was and will place every single species that will be. Is that correct? And if not, what is correct?
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 3:46 PM”
That is exactly what I believe. That God is the creator and owner of everything!
Ther are plenty of good studies and some are on DVD such as Icons of Evolution and The Priviledged Planet that demonstrate the impossibility of us complex being arriving here by chance or crawling out of some primordial sludge. Liberals have dropped the actual name of Darwin’s Theory because it is racist. Darwin was trying to prove blacks were inferior. Darwin faked drawings that are still being shown to kids in school today! So I think parents who care should do what my husband and I do and that is to show our kids videos and books on creationism that are actually backed with sound scientific proof.
CCRWM on March 31, 2007 at 4:22 PM
haeckel
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 4:34 PM
I can’t argue belief so I’ll pick this part. Reason/logic cannot mesh with revelation/religion. It’s not logical and you cannot reason that some unseen and unknown being (aside from being in a book that says it is true) created everything. It is logical to argue that evolution, in Darwin’s sense of the theory, isn’t accurate because facts and evidence can be used to back up claims, but you cannot logically say that the 10 Commandments were personally handed from God down to Earth.
A Darwin today isn’t regarded as someone who was completely accurate, he’s popular because he advanced the theory and was the first to submit at least some sort of evidence. In high school I don’t remember being taught anything about Darwin except that he was a scientist who had some theories, and in college I remember that Darwin was never mentioned when discussing evolution in geology. I think his importance in modern day evolutionary theory is overblown/overstated by people opposed to evolution.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 4:36 PM
^ Books on creationism backed with scientific proof? Please…
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 4:36 PM
no such thing.
question begging which assumes that complexity nessesarily indicates design perhaps, but proof? no. science? no.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I think the headline focuses on the wrong aspect… because 48% sounds like roughly 30% less than other polls I’ve heard cited before… as always it’s partly to do with the way the question is asked.
I think your headline should have read: ONLY 13% Believe In Darwinian Evolution, and a Big Bang Billions of years ago. That at one point there was just too much nothing, that it exploded in to everything, then rain came, and it landed on rocks and life just happened, and a few billion years later here we are.
As always I have to point out that evolutionary assumptions are shattered by actual studies daily. But because evolution is a religion, it’s priests insist on desperately trying to make the data fit their prewritten story… even though more often than not it doesn’t.
I can’t count the science articles I’ve read where an assumption about how something evolved was tossed out the window after actual study of a particular species were done. Though the studies don’t show anything about how something evolved, just that it couldn’t have the way they had assumed, they still somehow always stick the e-word back in there… Like “Showed it must have evolved faster” or “must have evolved differently”, etc. etc. This is religious devotion to the evolution story, NOT SCIENCE. If evolution theory holds that XYZ happened to animal ABC and made it the way it is today, but actual study of ABC proves that XYZ couldn’t have happened. That doesn’t mean that it evolved by PQR. Just reported the facts learned. Report the data. Leave the irresponsible story telling out of it.
This is the problem with Darwinists. They don’t allow criticism and refuse to debate. The second you question evolution, they shout “RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST!” because they’re too weak in their position scientifically to defend it. All we want to do is talk about the science, and keep teaching limited to science, and leave the storytelling out of it, especially when the story’s assumptions are being overturned at an alarming rate.
From tiny points to large ones, evolution is looking more and more ridiculous by the day.
Darwinian Evolution – Falsified, unknowingly by it’s own followers
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200612.htm#20061214a
Just last month Darwinists admitted that they have to abandon Darwin’s “Tree of Life” because it just doesn’t work… But they said, it’s okay because it was a “ladder” used to help evolution gain “acceptance”. Wow! Yeah, that’s science… right?
Now let’s watch our Darwinist friends desperately attempt (and fail) to show us macroevolution
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200703.htm#20070328a
Also, consider why the nonacceptance of evolution disturbs these Darwinists so much… Why should they care? I could find you dozens of pieces on “science” organizations getting together to discuss their frustration with the fact that people still aren’t buying their story, and gathering together to understand why, and figure out new ways to
trickconvince people.RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 4:38 PM
If you unable to look at creation and the diversity of life and not see some type of intelligence or design behind it, I would say you are just dense. But then to claim this denseness is scientific with no shred of proof is beyond absurd.
Show me some proof for this
religionscience of evolution. In 150 years since Darwin, there is no evidence that natural selection will produce a new species.I have a master’s in education policy from UVA, so I have studied education history. “Progressives” in the late 1800s and early 1900s decided that if they could advance their causes they would have to make them “scientific” and couch them in scientific and often incomprehensible terms. Therefore you had subjects like teaching to sociology that were made into “scientific” studies (for example what John Dewey did to education theory), and many people fell for it. Therefore, bad “progressive” ideas were scientific; tried and true knowledge was old fashioned and unscientific.
It is the same with evolution. Nothing about it even rises to the level of theory. All the evidence shows some kind of intelligent design, yet liberals have convinced us that one is “scientific” and the other “religious.”
januarius on March 31, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Learn the Bible in 24 hours
.
.
Nonfactor
so You will have some understanding of what You don’t know
God Bless
abinitioadinfinitum on March 31, 2007 at 4:42 PM
http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/learnthebiblein24hours/
abinitioadinfinitum on March 31, 2007 at 4:42 PM
^ Okay RightWinged, why don’t you email a random set of university biologists and ask them what they think?
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 4:43 PM
So, about 1/4 of those who don’t believe in God, believe God created man? Something smells inaccurate.
Look, we know dinosaurs existed, cavemen did, and trees don’t sprout out overnight. I believe God is responsible for evolution.
amerpundit on March 31, 2007 at 4:45 PM
For the same reason I won’t email a bunch of universtiy scientists and ask what they think about global warming.
How many times do we have to tell you people “consensus” isn’t science, and if there’s any lesson history has taught us, that’s it.
I prefer to actually look at the science, rather than have someone repeat what they’ve been told, for fear of losing funding and jobs. I prefer to read the work, even of these Darwinists, and interpret the actual science, without all the built in bogus assumptions.
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 4:46 PM
this unfortunately is the level of rebuttal too much of the right is satisfied with when it comes to contemporaneous issues as well.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Theistic evolutionist here and ready to be pummeled by both sides!
I am a global warming skeptic though.
John on March 31, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I would like to know why you think that there needs to be an intellegent creator behind the essence of human life for our existence to make sense.
I’m not a geologist, but while taking many geology classes in college certain images and evidence has stuck with me, the most profound being that of the horse. Look up the evolution of horses, read journals, see pictures; don’t read articles in newspapers or magazines, pick up scientific journals that describe the facts and make the decision for yourself. There are many other, less practical examples of evolution, but I just don’t want to look for them or spend my time writing a lot about them when most people who read what I have to say will ignore it (or call me dense).
And one little comment about the topic/poll – I would bet that a majority of Americans, a majority of people anywhere, wouldn’t know how old the Earth is or know how long ago dinosaurs lived, or even what exactly Pangea is.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I know The Bible pretty well. I went to Harvest festivals when I was young, I can still name all the chapters of The Bible in order, and my aunt and uncle are the types of people who hand out little copies of the New Testament to kids at school. Assumptions are fun!
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 4:53 PM
No, the rebuttal is if you want to be this dense, go ahead, but show us some proof that natural selection creates new species. You can’t. Then you do what liberals are so great at doing: totalitarianism. Ban all mention of intelligent design in public schools and only teach your religious belief of evolution.
januarius on March 31, 2007 at 4:54 PM
If God-fearing folks can believe that God came into being without “intelligent design” (or has always been in existence), then why is it such a leap of faith to believe that the Universe evolved without “intelligent design”(or has always been here)?
The argument for intelligent design seems to hinge on the premise that, as the life is so complex and beautiful God must have made it. But this cop-out logic stops there. It isn’t extended to the deity they believe in.
I would say it’s a natural progression. If God created the Earth and stars, omething must have created God. You can’t have it both ways. Either everything is created by a superior being or everything is evolving on its own.
uptight on March 31, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I have to join in with questioning the credibility of this poll. Who were these self-identified Catholics? As a long-lapsed Catholic who returned to the Church about 4 years ago, the question about creation has one answer: God created Man. I am not here to start an argument about Creation v. evolution. I am pointing out the abnormally high number of responses that absolutely don’t reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church.
That is directly from the CCC(Catechism of the Catholic Church). A poll that has 11% saying God had no hand at all, is obviously using people that are claiming to be Catholics and are not that at all. The God just had a hand in the process number is unrealistic. I interact with a lot of Catholics in my Parish, and 3 others in my area, I have never heard anyone state a belief other than creation by God.
ps..I did a quick search on an online CCC and evolution came up with 0 hits. Creation on the other hand, well you can see for yourself, if you’re interested
still468 on March 31, 2007 at 5:01 PM
jan,
evolution is not a “religion”. it’s not even asserted to be a known fact by it’s informed proponents. it is a theory; one which is more plausible than “god did it”. you defend “god did it” by suggesting that disbelievers aren’t trying to believe hard enough. this is not science.
the “adjustment of social texts” so to reverse black to mean white and vice versa is a post-imisseration marxist strategy.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Unless you have had some sort formal biology training, I question your ability to “interpret the actual science” in a way that would produce a more scientifically sound conclusion than the thousands of professional biologists would.
Also, the global warming debate is different in that the idea of “man-made” global warming is a recent phenomena, while evolution is supported by the fossil record which spans a few billion years.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 5:06 PM
As attached as the scientific community is to evolution, the fact is that there is really no scientific alternative. It is all well and good for someone to say that God made everything that is how it is, but for a religious scientist, the question is How did God do it? Show a true scientist a miracle, and even if he acknowledges that it is a scientifically impossible miracle, he will still try to figure out how it worked.
Whether the evidence supports Evolution (big E) or not, the evidence Is clear that the universe is far more than 6,000 years old. As I do not believe that the God of the Bible would have created the universe with “false age.” That would make him a liar in deed and a trickster who could not be trusted. Since the Creation and the Creator cannot logically conflict, I believe that the Genesis creation account is meant to be a non-literal account of how God created the world. In fact, some aspects of the story indicate exactly that. That does not mean that I do not beleive in the literal resurrection of Christ. I do believe that Christ did rise from the dead literally, because the Bible is very clear that that can NOT be taken any other way, and every attempt to disprove the Resuurection has been flatly discredited. (Which does not, of course, mean that it has been proven scientifically)
So do I believe that God used evolution to create humans? Yes, I do-until someone comes up with a better explanation that fits the facts that we do have. But I do wish the Evolutionists would be less dogmatic about the whole thing.
Lancer on March 31, 2007 at 5:08 PM
to assert that “god did it” you must first, bfore proving the “did it” part, prove that there is such a thing as “god”. then you have to prove that he did it.
intelligent design theory is an attempt to approach the question in reverse; saying that the existence of god is provable because he did it. but intelligent design has yet to prove that “it” is demonstrably originated from crative intelligence. it’s main conciet – that there is such a thing as “irreducable complexity” has been dismantled by evolutionary biologists whohave produced a models of how flagellum, for example, may have evolved molecule by molecule.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 5:13 PM
It’s more than just interpretation though, because what the “scientists” are doing. I just want the science reported, not the baseless storytelling. As I said:
As I said, I could literally find you thousands of examples of this. And this isn’t an interpretation of the data… it’s taking contradictory data, and not allowing it to simply be what it is… but insisting on forcing it back in to a theory where it only proved it didn’t belong. Even if the whole evolution story were true, these assumptions NOT based on evidence, but based on assumption still wouldn’t be science.
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 5:14 PM
There might be a reason for that you aren’t seeing.
The problem with that is that all of his research rests on the assumption that a god exists, which he can’t even prove.
And I’d charge you to find me a miracle that is “scientifically impossible.”
Whenever I see any religious person make claims like this (My holy text has proven to be wrong so I’ll just say that it is purposefully wrong) I just get a ringing sound in my head saying “cop out, cop out, cop out.”
As opposed to The Bible?
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 5:17 PM
As always happens, and as I predicted earlier… the evolutionist loses the scientific debate.
Hey Nonfactor, when did I EVER say anything about God or the Bible in this thread? Yeaaaah. Wake up dude.
And by the way, the Bible isn’t baseless. Archaelogy constantly confirms many stories in the Bible. But that really has nothing to do with anything.
The main point, is that you weakling evolutionists can’t ever stop yourselves from screaming “religion!” whenever anyone disagrees with you. It’s sad really.
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I like to think I’m a creationist, but I cannot defend it logically anymore. The best I can say is that there is intelligent design.
Spend some time on this site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Especially reading the debates between creationists and evolutionists. Creationists really come off as “truthers” and I think that, as much as anything else, shocked me a little bit.
lorien1973 on March 31, 2007 at 5:29 PM
now, here the difference between a scientific theory and a teleological belief: “may have evolved” does not prove that flagellum evolved that particular way and does not make that claim. what it does do is disprove that flagellum is “irreducably complex”.
you can believe what you want. that’s not my problem. what is my problem is that much of the right is addled with similar “because it is” reasoning they pick up from religion. when applied policy debate, this sort of militant incuriosity means that 90% of the movement are mere consumers of a product created by a tiny, underfunded, underappreciated elite. if this elite does not pave the path for the consumers, the consumers don’t go there; “there” being the places from which the institutions of our republic and traditional thought are being attacked from, e.g., the philosophy department, the literature department, the journalistic establishment, the arts, increasingly, information technology, etc..
haveing christianity as a proxy for a real social theory worthy of a modern, secular republic is destroying the conservative movement. as we speak, everything we are discoursing in, from the form of the blog to the way jan made her argument that creationism is the “real” science while science is the “real” religion, is a milleu constructed from the left.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I guess now is not the time to tell you that my comment was in jest, not an actual argument for or against evolution. I saw a (in my view) stupid comment, laughed, and replied to it.
I’ve seen you use this argument multiple times in many other threads. We all you that you’re arguing for creationism, you’ve admitted to as much previously.
The funny thing is, in this case, I’m right. You are arguing in favor of religion, and not just religion in general, Christianity. I can accept the fact that even some non-religious people don’t believe in evolution, but because I know that you are a religious person I found it apt for me to say “As opposed to The Bible.”
Thank you. I have no problem with people believing that a god created the Earth. I have no problem with scientology either; so long as the people who participate are willing to admit that their belief holds no logical ground. Believe away!
Funny you mention that; it’s the same thing with conspiracy theories as it is with religion (for me). I have no problem with people believing 9/11 was an inside job, but their arguments aren’t logical.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 5:34 PM
“obviously the drunk with the polyester beard at the mall isn’t the real santa. he does report to santa though.”
…and so the magic of christms morning is preserved another year.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 5:37 PM
That is not entirely true. There is an ongoing experiment. It consists of a lizard dropped onto different islands and observing changes to its physical make up. After 15 years the lizards are well are adapting to their enviroment. One island produced lizards with longer legs, another produced a lizard that was faster, etc. The reason you won’t hear much about it is because it answers the how could we possibly have so many animals if they were all in the arc during the flood. Rapid mutation of course. This study is proving that it is possible.
Theworldisnotenough on March 31, 2007 at 5:41 PM
rightwinged is obviously one of those evolution skeptics who adopt the alien spore model. how dare you assume he’s defending biblical creationism.
btw, rightwinged, your premise that evolution must be proved absolutely or abandoned as unscientific is a red herring. this can be cleared up by reading and rereading the chapter explaining scientific method in any beginning science text untill it is understood: a theory is not a fact.
jummy on March 31, 2007 at 5:44 PM
When did I ever “scream religion?” You can try to poke holes in evolution theory all you want, but until you can provide a more scientifically sound theory, you really don’t have much to stand on.
Also, for the people who think that since life is so complex that there must have been an intelligent designer, have you ever studied the inner workings of a single atom? It is amazingly complex, and to determine fundamental atomic quantities like energy levels often requires hours, sometimes days, of computers running calculations.
Therefore, to assume that the sum total of uncountable numbers of interactions of uncountable numbers of atoms would result in combinations (organisms) that possess a level of complexity that is straightforward and easily understood by us is unfounded, IMO.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 5:44 PM
You can try to poke holes in evolution theory all you want, but until you can provide a more scientifically sound theory, you really don’t have much to stand on
No, sorry, that’s not the way science works. You don’t have to accept a theory just because you don’t have an alternative. You are free (and expected) to point out the flaws in any theory. Science then sets out to address those flaws. That’s the way the process works.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I’ve got to bounce for a while, but NonFactor, you’re still doing it. You’re afraid of the science because it doesn’t work with evolution, so even after I expose you for being the weak evolutionist you are for immediately whining about religion… you continue doing it!
Anyway, keep repeating your same kool aid lines folks, catch you guys later
RightWinged on March 31, 2007 at 5:54 PM
.
You do if you want to convince people that you are right and they are wrong.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Agnostics often believe that God might exist. They just claim they cannot be sure.
There’s even such a thing as a Christian agnostic.
Esthier on March 31, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Why is that necessary?
Esthier on March 31, 2007 at 5:59 PM
The Losos lizard experiment is here . These lizards do not represent new species. No one is arguing against natural selection and adaptation. Subspecies adaptation does not men make.
Valiant on March 31, 2007 at 6:02 PM
There is no point engaging RightWinged in this argument. You have only to look at his “science” then you’ll understand his theory. The “science” says evolution is impossible. Just live with it.
kmcguire on March 31, 2007 at 6:02 PM
No, not quite. Because even the atom had to come together at some point, and if it as complex as you claim, it can’t have been a simple process.
Esthier on March 31, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Overall, clearly a crappy poll.
Evolution as science is not perfect, but the nature of science is that it changes as more facts are found and more tests created. It is an inductive process.
The nature of religion is that it does not change. I am a spiritual person, but anyone suggesting there is greater evidence for creationism compared to Darwin’s theories is living in the same kind of looney bin as the “9/11 truthers”.
doufree on March 31, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I should be clearer. You don’t have to accept any model if you don’t want to. But if you are unable present an alternative model to the one you are attacking, then I think it makes your overall position less solid – it would be more like arguing for a modification of what you are attacking than proving that it is unsound in entirety.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 6:08 PM
If they are “not sure” God exists how can 27% think God does exist and guided the process? At best, an agnostic can say “Don’t Know.” Sorry, your explanation makes no sense and neither does this poll.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 6:12 PM
It’s not simple at all, and if you stay on your track and go to the actual origin of the universe you reach the limit of scientific inquiry. But that is not evidence of a higher being, is it?
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 6:15 PM
TheBigOldDog
They lumped Agnostics and Atheists together which isn’t correct. Agnostics believe in a God, they just don’t follow any organized religion. So yes, it’s plausible that the Agnostics/Atheists groups can believe God guided the process.
To me, I believe it’s kind of hard to ignore evolution. The science is there.
bentman78 on March 31, 2007 at 6:25 PM
It is entirely possible to not be sure something exists and yet still believe that it does.
For instance, I do not know that I’ll live to see tomorrow, but I believe that I will.
Esthier on March 31, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Agnostics believe in a God
They do? Somebody better tell them that
Agnostics a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 6:28 PM
That’s not my argument. You’re trying to prove that those who say the universe is too complex to have not been created by are wrong because it is actually more complex than they even realized.
How can that be a valid argument?
Esthier on March 31, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Right, they’re not committed to either idea, which means they have no problem believe either as well.
Agnostics are very versatile.
Esthier on March 31, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Agnostics and Atheists do not believe in God by definition. Therefore 40% of them can’t think something they do not believe in or are not sure about, created them in some fashion. It is completely illogical. If they think God had a hand in their creation, then they ARE NOT agnostics or atheists by definition.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 6:34 PM
When you are “not committed” you answer “Don’t Know/Not Sure.” That is the very essence of being agnostic. If you answer God had a hand it it, you are saying you do know and it was God.
I can’t believe I even have to explain this. The Poll is garbage.
TheBigOldDog on March 31, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I think a lot of people have trouble with evolution because it makes them feel unimportant or forces them to confront questions that make them uncomfortable.
Denial of evolution is an act of self-delusion.
It is just as large of an act of self-delusion as the 9-11 truthers perform. They want 9-11 to be a massive conspiracy cause they can’t deal with the fact that 19 men could do something so horrific. The massive conspiracy is simpler to understand, makes terrorism less scary than the truth.
Evolution deniers do the same thing. It is easier to believe in a ham-fisted deity that made Man out of dirt 8000 years ago than to rely on the scientific method.
OK deniers I have a question…do you think that in 50 years your case will be stronger or weaker? If you think stronger tell me what evidence will come to light that will make it so.
In fact it will just grow weaker. Our knowledge of the genome and biological processes will continue to exponentially increase, time is not on your side.
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 6:37 PM
So…
…XBox 360, or PS3?
Vinnie on March 31, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Actually, i created you all.
Have to say……it wasn’t my best work.
forged rite on March 31, 2007 at 6:38 PM
While I am on my soap box:
Rightwinged: Bible might have some archeological value but that does not make it scientific text.
Januarius: Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistance bacteria? HIV? Lactose intolerant Asians? Things mutate everyday. Natural selection works. I can here you now “Well it is not in the fossil record blah, blah, blah”. Did you know that it is really, really hard for a fossil to form anyway? Most living things don’t become fossils they become dirt or worm food or oil or coal or bunch of other things.
Docdave: And the deniers aren’t fanatical?
Valiant: I would definitely not be bored by your “thermodynamic” theory. I would laugh myself silly.
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 6:39 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
OK, that has to be the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Misha I on March 31, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Misha: Down Boy! Remember overcoming denial is the first step to recovery.
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Not only that. I’ve actually created some in the lab as an exercise in genetic manipulation.
Of course, no matter how much we tweaked the little buggers, they were still E.Coli at the end of the day. Now, if we could’ve turned them into hummingbirds, on the other hand…
Still HIV.
…still refusing stubbornly to become anything other than Asians.
Now, we could go on like this all day, but let’s not. Nobody is denying natural selection or random mutations.
But I’m still waiting for those E.Coli to turn into something other than E.Coli.
If it happens, please let me know.
Misha I on March 31, 2007 at 6:52 PM
And thus illustrated is the gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.
Nonfactor on March 31, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Misha: OK give me 100,00 years and I will give you whatever you want. Those are examples of adaptations that take only a few months to a couple thousand years. Major changes take longer (of course). How about this HIV used to not infect humans it used to be a monkey virus (SIV) than BAM! it mutated and now have HIV.
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Oh and don’t forget all those other viruses that suddenly jump species. See virus and bacteria are good examples because they breed so rapidly.
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 7:00 PM
All it takes is some serious study, and you realize that Darwinian evolution is unworkable; it cannot explain the incredible complexity of life organisms and is not supported by the fossil record. One way to look at it is that Darwinian evoilution is nineteenth century scientific theory that has been shredded by twentieth century science. As Professor Michael Behe (the author of “Darwin’s Black Box”) has explained, intelligent design right now is the best theory to explain the data.
Phil Byler on March 31, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Er, Liberrocky, what new species have lactose intolerant Asians mutated into?
There has not been one new species found that changed because of natural selection. All most people want is that intelligent design be taught alongside the
religiontheory of evolution in public schools.januarius on March 31, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Phil: As I have said before fossils do not form easily. 99.9999999% of livings die and biodegrade thus become dirt and not fossils. When there are large numbers of variables, a few simple rules and lot of time complexity systems emerge spontaneously.
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 7:17 PM
januarius: I was using examples of mutations with which people would be familar. It is not a far leap to understand how mutations can lead to new species…well not a far leap for most people. See SIV to HIV example.
Cheers!
liberrocky on March 31, 2007 at 7:19 PM
What I find really amazing about the evolution deniers is that they will readily accept “micro-evolution” like antibiotic resistance and the like, but refuse to believe that lots of micro-evolution yields macro-evolution. The thing that distinguishes species is their ability to mate and produce offspring. Keep one species apart for long enough under sufficiently different conditions and they’ll undergo enough micro-evolution to become differentiated and incapable of interbreeding. To take an familiar if unnatural example, consider Great Danes and chihuahuas. Same species but physically incapable of interbreeding. Give them time and reasons to be big and small and they’ll be different species.
kmcguire on March 31, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I am not trying to “prove” anything – I am merely pointing out that saying that animals are so complex that nature could not produce them by evolution is silly – atoms and molecules are ridiculously complex, so you might as well say that they were “intelligently designed”, but in fact we all know they occur naturally.
WisCon on March 31, 2007 at 8:30 PM
My main disagreement with intelligent design is that I cannot fathom any being of intelligence claiming credit for this screwed up world.
Faith1 on March 31, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »