One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is inaccurate. There is no scientific evidence that we are, right now, apes.

Peace,
Ed
The classification system (invented by young earth creationist Carl Linnaeus) that we use today defines us quite noticeably as apes. (which, again, was Linnaeus’ doing). In EVERY WAY, we are apes. Don’t like it? Evolve into something else. But suggesting you are not an ape is akin to suggesting that you are not a quadruped.
 
Can you elaborate?
This topic is brought up so frequently here, I sincerely don’t understand why it’s important. It is not vital to most human beings and I am talking about so-called macro-evolution. I doubt most people remember half the science they’re taught in school.

Peace,
Ed
 
Like most educated people I believe in micro evolution, that is, species change over time to adapt to their environment. However, I do not believe in macro evolution, that is, species change into other species. If you really looked into the evidence, you would see there is no evidence that supports species completely change into other species. There are too many gaps in the fossil record.
Much of the current thinking in evolutionary theory takes into account the lack of “transitional forms,” and postulates more drastic transitions, if I’m not mistaken.
 
I believe evolution is silly.
Checked out the images, seems to also downplay the Big Bang Theory,
which was realized by the Catholic priest named Monseigneur Georges
Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître. I don’t think Science is silly.

I don’t believe in a dishonest God who would set up the universe in such
a way so as to let us see and discover ideas like the Big Bang and Evo-
lution etc if they were indeed false.

I believe the words of Paul, that nature testifies of God, and to
me, Evolution and the Big Bang don’t X God out of the picture,
and I hate it when Creationists swear that they do.
 
I honestly don’t care about the evolution hypothesis. Could be true, presuming it is understood in a way that does not obstruct God from the picture, but it also could be quite false. And, seeing as there is little or no physical, substantial, *empirical *evidence for it, I’d wager the probability is more on the side of false.

I don’t “reject” it, however. I just don’t think it is worth my time since it is utterly without merit.
Whoever told you that there is little or no physical, substantial, or empirical evidence for it lied to you.
 
This topic is brought up so frequently here, I sincerely don’t understand why it’s important. It is not vital to most human beings and I am talking about so-called macro-evolution. I doubt most people remember half the science they’re taught in school.

Peace,
Ed
Vaccinations, transplants (especially of pig parts), and dozens of other medical advancements, plus literally thousands of other scientific advancements are not important or vital to human beings?

Now are you going to elaborate or not? Asking me a question, and the refusing to clarify when I ask you to is not exactly recommended behavior.
 
I honestly don’t care about the evolution hypothesis.
THEORY, not hypothesis. Creationism is a hypothesis,
one that has never been verified by real scientists. Evo-
lution is a theory, which is a well-substantiated explan–
ation of some aspect of the natural world, Creationism
is not. Why? Because it is a hypothesis based on the
literal interpretation of Genesis.
 
I believe evolution is silly.
Concerning your “thumbnail” thing on atheism, Christianity, as far as I know, believes that there was absolutely nothing except for God, doesn’t it?

Some say that God made us out of dirt, don’t they?

Well, to make us out of dirt, God had to make the dirt first, didn’t He?

Did God make the dirt directly out of nothing or did God use some process to make the dirt?

Just how, among other things, God came up with the dirt to make us with is what science is about.

Science is the study of the physical universe.

To me, science is simply the study of how God put all of this together, science is a God-given activity that we are able to pursue because of our God-given mental capabilities combined with our God-given physical attributes.
 
Much of the current thinking in evolutionary theory takes into account the lack of “transitional forms,” and postulates more drastic transitions, if I’m not mistaken.
You are mistaken, as according to evolution, since EVERYTHING is a transitional form, they are quite abundant.
 
Much of the current thinking in evolutionary theory takes into account the lack of “transitional forms,” and postulates more drastic transitions, if I’m not mistaken.
Sometimes drastic transitions, yes, but other times the environment just
isn’t set up so as to preserve fossils, and the corpses just decay. That is
also a good explanation.
 
Not commenting on God is not the same thing as rejecting God. Mathematics doesn’t comment on God. Is it false too?

Also, you ARE an ape right now. as am I, as is every human being.
Funny thing you mention Mathematics, because Creationists erroneously
have tried to use math to show how impossible Evolution is, just because
the odds are REALLY small, but I still think God can beat those odds us-
ing Evolution to form his creatures.

It’s FUN seeing Creationists . :rolleyes: .
play with their big numbers! :rotfl:
 
God created Humans from nothing (so he could infuse a soul in each one of us). None of my ancestors were related grunting apes that look like Homer Simpson. :rolleyes:

I reject Evolution and I am proud! If it leaves GOD completely out of the picture it is false!
Perhaps plants created humans and other animals as a means to spread pollen and seed. Or perhaps being made of material from dead stars, we are simply the means by which stars come to know themselves.
 
Science in most cases just shows us how God made it or shows us the things that God has made available for man to discover.

It shouldn’t affect the average person as to how it happened. Whether it’s evolution, creationism, or something else. In a way, the fact that people are so unwilling to see evolution as a plausible way in which God created man pushes many people away. It becomes Science vs. God when in fact religion and science should have little to do with each other unless science is being abusive of the natural order of things. So many atheists use evolution as a way to disprove God and the people who have this need to believe that Genesis, which was written like four thousand years ago, is 100% factual are creating this argument when there is not need to be one.

These are things that should not affect our spiritual life and identity, IMO.
 
Not commenting on God is not the same thing as rejecting God. Mathematics doesn’t comment on God. Is it false too?

Also, you ARE an ape right now. as am I, as is every human being.
Pax Christi!

I can make really great ape sounds!

By the way, do any of you really believe we were put in this world to study for a history test?

God bless.
 
ok so here I am on the fence.

On one hand What some call Micro-evolution is undeniable (again, look at dogs) and it’s not that big of a leap to go to Macro-evolution when you add billions of years.

And the hubble telescope has proven the universe is billions of years old. Sorry, but if something is 10 billion light years away, we are seeing what happened 10 billion years ago in the telescope. Case closed

If you look at Genesis with an open mind there is room for evolution. So my faith is not threatened by it.

I have heard (on discovery channel) that science says humans sky rocketed in advancement about 50,000 years ago, just all at once. So I can see God using the process and then infusing a soul.

scientists almost unanomously say EVOLUTION.

And they are a lot smarter then me.

O.K., sounds good. But this is science, and I am from the show-me-state so show me the evidence.

But they always give me an example of micro-evolution. I don’t have a problem with mico-evolution. What I want is evidence of MACO-evolution. And, quite frankly, at that point there is a lot of dodging and insults.

If you really press them the say museums. But the museums are more artist rendition then actual bone. The amount of actual fossilized bone that we have is very small. In fact all the actual fossilized evidence in the world can fit in the back of a pick-up. And it looks like a bunch of rocks. So I say how do they know this is what they think it is. Especially since over the decades what said rock supposedly is has changed. Several times

So in the end we are left with “We are the scientists, we are smarter then you, just accept it”

Sorry but I have a problem with that.

Especially when you have instances such as piltdown man and Nebraska man which were heralded for decades as real missing links, but then turned out to be frauds.

And the best evidence for a missing link today, Lucy, is highly suspect.

I’m sorry but unless someone can show me real evidence for MACO-evolution, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a nice theory and thats it.
 
Checked out the images, seems to also downplay the Big Bang Theory,
which was realized by the Catholic priest named Monseigneur Georges
Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître. I don’t think Science is silly.

I don’t believe in a dishonest God who would set up the universe in such
a way so as to let us see and discover ideas like the Big Bang and Evo-
lution etc if they were indeed false.

I believe the words of Paul, that nature testifies of God, and to
me, Evolution and the Big Bang don’t X God out of the picture,
and I hate it when Creationists swear that they do.
Of course it crosses God out of the picture, especially when science textbooks go beyond what science can say and into personal worldviews.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)"

You don’t have to be a creationist to notice the blatant bias.

Peace,
Ed
 
Frankly, most educated people know that micro and macro are imaginary constructs. You think there is no evidence of species changing into other species? Sure there is. Some museums have buckets of proof in their gift shops that they give away for free, that’s how common it is. And lets not forget the famous nylon-eating bacteria experiment that gave proof years ago and is continuing to give more and more.
Please give specifics.
I would like to review such proof for myself.
 
Improvement? Why do we have to believe that humans “evolved over time?” Why can’t we simply believe that we share a common ancestor with certain species and leave the when and the how to further investigation? The question is just too limited and limiting to be useful, IMHO.
You can believe whatever you want… but that doesn’t mean it’s correct.
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - One-third of Americans reject the idea of evolution and Republicans have grown more skeptical about it, according to a poll released on Monday.

Sixty percent of Americans say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” the telephone survey by the Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life Project showed (Click pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/ for the full survey).

But 33 percent reject the idea of evolution, saying that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” Pew said in a statement.

news.yahoo.com/one-third-americans-reject-evolution-poll-shows-191426764.html
The theory of evolution still has a lot of explaining to do, if it’s not going to allow any possibility of intelligent design. The following link gives some details about the human eye. Granted it was written in 1986, but even back then the writer dealt with the atheists’ favourite complaint about the “retina being inside out.”

creationmoments.com/content/design-human-eye

When evolutionists can explain how the eye, along with all the necessary paraphernalia for us to interpret vision (spaces in the bone for nerve canals, cross over links to each hemisphere, the filtering out of “noise” by the retina, the immense number of calcuations that are required ie. information theory), came to be without any chance of intelligent design, then I’ll start believing them. As far as I’m concerned, they’re nowhere near the mark.

The writer does mention computer chips, which obviously have moved a long way since 1986. But they haven’t “evolved” either - every inch of progress has been the result of intelligent design, as is the case with every other bit of human progress.

We’re pretty keen on claiming credit for own intelligence (which is a gift when it’s all said and done, so we can’t boast anyway), but we’re loathe to credit God with having any intelligence.
 
Science in most cases just shows us how God made it or shows us the things that God has made available for man to discover.

It shouldn’t affect the average person as to how it happened. Whether it’s evolution, creationism, or something else. In a way, the fact that people are so unwilling to see evolution as a plausible way in which God created man pushes many people away. It becomes Science vs. God when in fact religion and science should have little to do with each other unless science is being abusive of the natural order of things. So many atheists use evolution as a way to disprove God and the people who have this need to believe that Genesis, which was written like four thousand years ago, is 100% factual are creating this argument when there is not need to be one.

These are things that should not affect our spiritual life and identity, IMO.
I find that knowing more helps my spirituality a good deal. Embracing science is for me a way to come to know myself and to know God. It never suited me well to think of God as a stern bearded figure from a Byzantine Apse sitting on a throne. Religion became less of an abstraction and more of an experience by seeing God in the world around me, which is what science helps me to do. Curiosity seems to be inbuilt in us by our creator, and I think exploration is a fulfillment of our curiosity. This is just my personal experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top