One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[dshix]

It definitely wasn’t science that told you that. i’ve found proof myself. heck, proof of evolution is literally built into the walls of my house. It is everywhere you look and i bet you see it every day even. You just have to know what you’re looking at.

You said something, but didn’t actually prove anything. Do you really think you can talk your way out of proving your claim?

A theory is a body of evidence that explains how and why something is a fact. Evolution has been directly observed occurring. Therefore, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the body of evidence that helps explain how and why the fact happens.

Sorry, you got it wrong. Permit me to explain with a bit of Scientific Method 101.

There are three levels which an explanation of something can take: hypothesis, theory, or scientific law.

An explanation of something is a hypothesis when it is an evident and logical explanation of all the facts, and any evidence available points towards the truth of the hypothesis.

A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has been thoroughly corroborated, with much empirical evidence to back it up, and many scientists have done corresponding experiments and/or observations which have unanimously supported the hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the scientific world generally accepts something as truth because it has been sufficiently backed up by EVIDENCE.

A theory becomes a scientific law when it has been so perfectly backed up and supported by every experiment imaginable, that the scientific community accepts that it cannot not be true.

---

Evolution has not received the level of scrutiny necessary to be considered a theory, nor is there enough evidence to say as such. Further, there are many other explanations which are equally proven (that is, not very much at all) and thus we can’t reach a solid conclusion.

Thus, evolution is a hypothesis. If you wish to counter this, please reply in your next post with actual evidence.

Completely and utterly incorrect.

_

Its not faith. That you assume it is only goes to show how little you know about it.

_

sorry, but it is patently obvious that you do have a prejudice by your term usage and your very standard creationist talking points.

Hmm.

These three statements have revealed to me that this is more of an emotional link than a scientific one for you. You have departed entirely from trying to convince, and resorted to simply asserting greater knowledge.

Your first quoted statement was an assertion that I was wrong “completely and utterly” wrong, but you made no effort to back it up. I conclude that I worked you up.

Your second quoted statement asserted I knew little of the topic at hand. You said this without knowing me at all, and once again you made no effort to “enlighten” me in my ignorance.

Your third quoted statement made an opinion on my beliefs and stated I must have a prejudice. I contend that this is purely your perception based on your obvious emotional attachment to this topic, and I insist that I honestly have no preconceptions or bias against evolution. I simply wish for it to be proven by FACTS, not be emotional and circumstancial arguments.

In conclusion, I ask that you respond to this post with empirical evidence to back up your opinions. If you do not do so, or I perceive that you have no interest in a scientific discussion, I will not respond again to your posts in this thread.

 

[hope19]

I thaught there was less people who rejected evolution theory, so it is a good news for me.
It is impossible that life began with the chaos. Life had not appear alone. Only God can create life.

 

[TRH1292]

If you reject evolution, you must do so purely from the physical evidence and not from any religious perspectives. Many reject Evolution because they say it contradicts our faith, but the Church starting with Pius XII has said many times that this is not the case. So if you continue to say that Evolution is incompatible with our faith, you are contradicting Pius XII and others. You can’t pull all the strings to show evolution is against our faith when the several Pope’s have said it is not, within the range of certain enumerated conditions.

 

[hope19]

What are the conditions?

 

[Farsight001]

You think he is using it improperly? Well, you’re mistaken. ID is not in any way restricted to creationism. I am not a creationist, yet I use the term all the time.

“Intelligent Design” can be used perfectly in the context of theistic evolution. If evolution is true, which I have seen little proof to suggest, then I believe in theistic evolution.

No, it really can’t. According to the people who invented the term and according to multiple court cases pertaining to the issue. Its pretty much a done deal. ID, despite what some people want, is literally creationism in disguise. There was even a young earth creationist textbook back in the 70’s and early 80’s, and pretty much the day the court case Edwards v. Aguilard declared it unconstitutional to teach young earth creationism in public school, they edited the textbook with a computer search>find all>change to function that produced hilarious typos. A more recent federal case Dover v. kitzmiller, where some school authorities tried to force ID into public schools determined also that ID was creationism re-branded - and this decision by a young earth creationist judge appointed by Bush himself.

The bolded is your problem. No, micro does not always add up to macro. As a matter of fact, when the prefixes are applied to words to signify a large or a small scale, they do not have a strictly mathematical meaning in the same sense that they do when used as prefixes for numbers.

I don’t know what to say other than that you really should check this again. Micro and macro actually have very specific mathematical meanings.
Tera = 1,000,000,000,000.
Giga = 1,000,000,000
Mega = 1,000,000 (also sometimes referred to as MACRO)
Kilo = 1,000
Hecto = 100
Deca = 10
Deci = 0.1
Centi = 0.01
Milli = 0.001
MICRO = 0.000,001
etc.

Colloquially, micro also means small and macro means large, and lots of small things, when added together, get a large thing. It boggles my mind that you don’t see this.

No number of microscopes will add up to a telescope.

Not even remotely an accurate comparison. They are tools for looking. Not volume measurements. Of course no number of microscopes will add up to a telescope. But enough micrometers will add up to a macrometer EVERY TIME. (or megameter). enough microliters will add up to a macroliter EVERY TIME. And enough microevolutions will add up to a macroevolution EVERY TIME in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

So, your contention that since evolution happens on a microscale means it MUST happen on a macroscale is unproveable. I won’t say it is false, because it may not be, but you can’t simply make that assertion without some kind of evidence, of which you have none.

It is a mathematical and logical necessity, not an assertion. Denying this is denying very basic logic - frankly, logic even kids who can’t yet count can still grasp. The only thing I can think of to explain why you don’t understand this is that you’re having me on for a laugh.

 

[dshix]

No, it really can’t. According to the people who invented the term and according to multiple court cases pertaining to the issue. Its pretty much a done deal. ID, despite what some people want, is literally creationism in disguise. There was even a young earth creationist textbook back in the 70’s and early 80’s, and pretty much the day the court case Edwards v. Aguilard declared it unconstitutional to teach young earth creationism in public school, they edited the textbook with a computer search>find all>change to function that produced hilarious typos. A more recent federal case Dover v. kitzmiller, where some school authorities tried to force ID into public schools determined also that ID was creationism re-branded - and this decision by a young earth creationist judge appointed by Bush himself.

This is an interesting post. There were some very informative bits of information in there.

I will do further looking into this; I had not understood ID to have such a particular connotation.

 

[Farsight001]

You said something, but didn’t actually prove anything. Do you really think you can talk your way out of proving your claim?

You really think I can scientifically prove something as large as this on an internet forum? Get real. You want the proof, you have to be willing to look for it yourself. I can only explain so much and lead you to where to look if you want (and it looks like you don’t), such as the nylon eating bacteria experiment, among many others.

Sorry, you got it wrong. Permit me to explain with a bit of Scientific Method 101.

There are three levels which an explanation of something can take: hypothesis, theory, or scientific law.

An explanation of something is a hypothesis when it is an evident and logical explanation of all the facts, and any evidence available points towards the truth of the hypothesis.

A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has been thoroughly corroborated, with much empirical evidence to back it up, and many scientists have done corresponding experiments and/or observations which have unanimously supported the hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes a theory when the scientific world generally accepts something as truth because it has been sufficiently backed up by EVIDENCE.

A theory becomes a scientific law when it has been so perfectly backed up and supported by every experiment imaginable, that the scientific community accepts that it cannot not be true.

Not even close. Theories, in the world of science, rank above laws. Laws are mathematical constructs that typically work. If a law and a theory contradict each other, because the theory has so much evidence to support it, they throw out the LAW. Look at the theory of relativity and the law of gravity. Sure, they teach the law of gravity to kids still, because basically ot works. However, not universally. The theory of relativity fills all the holes, is entirely superior, and thus in advanced science, the law of gravity isn’t even really mentioned anymore.

Evolution has not received the level of scrutiny necessary to be considered a theory, nor is there enough evidence to say as such. Further, there are many other explanations which are equally proven (that is, not very much at all) and thus we can’t reach a solid conclusion.

No offense, but I’m not going to believe a person who doesn’t even know where laws sit compared to theories in the world of science, and I’m going to strongly recommend that no one else does either. No offense meant (honestly), but it’d be like listening to a person who doesn’t know how to do long division try and teach me advanced calculus.

Hmm.

These three statements have revealed to me that this is more of an emotional link than a scientific one for you. You have departed entirely from trying to convince, and resorted to simply asserting greater knowledge.

Please leave the psychoanalysis to those of us with degrees in psychology.

Your first quoted statement was an assertion that I was wrong “completely and utterly” wrong, but you made no effort to back it up. I conclude that I worked you up.

You made no effort to back up the comment to which I was replying, so I saw no need to put effort into backing up my own statement. Please don’t try to hold me to a standard you don’t feel the need to hold yourself to.

Your second quoted statement asserted I knew little of the topic at hand. You said this without knowing me at all, and once again you made no effort to “enlighten” me in my ignorance.

Why would I have to know you? If a kid comes up to me and angrily insists that 2+2=22, I know he hasn’t learned how to add yet. If you come here making the statements you have made, I can just as easily know that you don’t know a thing about evolution (or, now, the scientific method, either)

Your third quoted statement made an opinion on my beliefs and stated I must have a prejudice. I contend that this is purely your perception based on your obvious emotional attachment to this topic, and I insist that I honestly have no preconceptions or bias against evolution. I simply wish for it to be proven by FACTS, not be emotional and circumstancial arguments.

You can contend whatever you want. I used context clues and observed your speech patterns to deduce your motivations. I was being purely investigative and not at all emotional. Again, please leave the psychology to the psychologists.

 

[freeRadical]

You really think I can scientifically prove something as large as this on an internet forum? Get real. You want the proof, you have to be willing to look for it yourself. I can only explain so much and lead you to where to look if you want (and it looks like you don’t), such as the nylon eating bacteria experiment, among many others.

Not even close. Theories, in the world of science, rank above laws. Laws are mathematical constructs that typically work. If a law and a theory contradict each other, because the theory has so much evidence to support it, they throw out the LAW. Look at the theory of relativity and the law of gravity. Sure, they teach the law of gravity to kids still, because basically ot works. However, not universally. The theory of relativity fills all the holes, is entirely superior, and thus in advanced science, the law of gravity isn’t even really mentioned anymore.

No offense, but I’m not going to believe a person who doesn’t even know where laws sit compared to theories in the world of science, and I’m going to strongly recommend that no one else does either. No offense meant (honestly), but it’d be like listening to a person who doesn’t know how to do long division try and teach me advanced calculus.

Please leave the psychoanalysis to those of us with degrees in psychology.

You made no effort to back up the comment to which I was replying, so I saw no need to put effort into backing up my own statement. Please don’t try to hold me to a standard you don’t feel the need to hold yourself to.

Why would I have to know you? If a kid comes up to me and angrily insists that 2+2=22, I know he hasn’t learned how to add yet. If you come here making the statements you have made, I can just as easily know that you don’t know a thing about evolution (or, now, the scientific method, either)

You can contend whatever you want. I used context clues and observed your speech patterns to deduce your motivations. I was being purely investigative and not at all emotional. Again, please leave the psychology to the psychologists.

You seem like a very proud individual. Nevertheless, the current empirical evidence for macro evolution is scant at best and is not enough to convince me. Once they can explain the evolution of the eye then I will look into the theory more but until then it’s not worth my time. There’s a good book by David Beirlinski called Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions in which he talks about the lack of evidence for evolution. In particular he talks about the complex evolutionary processes that must occur for a water based lifeform to transition to a land based lifeform. He concludes it’s impossible because there is just so much that must be changed and there is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record that can account for such a change. Furthermore, he also talks about power plays in the scientific community and how scientific peer review basically keeps any dissenting views to the scientific majority consensus from ever be published. For example, a scientist who doesn’t believe in the current consensus regarding climate change is basically ostracized from the scientific community. If you really do have an open mind I suggest you read that book.

 

[dshix]

You really think I can scientifically prove something as large as this on an internet forum? Get real. You want the proof, you have to be willing to look for it yourself. I can only explain so much and lead you to where to look if you want (and it looks like you don’t), such as the nylon eating bacteria experiment, among many others.

Not even close. Theories, in the world of science, rank above laws. Laws are mathematical constructs that typically work. If a law and a theory contradict each other, because the theory has so much evidence to support it, they throw out the LAW. Look at the theory of relativity and the law of gravity. Sure, they teach the law of gravity to kids still, because basically ot works. However, not universally. The theory of relativity fills all the holes, is entirely superior, and thus in advanced science, the law of gravity isn’t even really mentioned anymore.

No offense, but I’m not going to believe a person who doesn’t even know where laws sit compared to theories in the world of science, and I’m going to strongly recommend that no one else does either. No offense meant (honestly), but it’d be like listening to a person who doesn’t know how to do long division try and teach me advanced calculus.

Please leave the psychoanalysis to those of us with degrees in psychology.

You made no effort to back up the comment to which I was replying, so I saw no need to put effort into backing up my own statement. Please don’t try to hold me to a standard you don’t feel the need to hold yourself to.

Why would I have to know you? If a kid comes up to me and angrily insists that 2+2=22, I know he hasn’t learned how to add yet. If you come here making the statements you have made, I can just as easily know that you don’t know a thing about evolution (or, now, the scientific method, either)

You can contend whatever you want. I used context clues and observed your speech patterns to deduce your motivations. I was being purely investigative and not at all emotional. Again, please leave the psychology to the psychologists.

And that’s why neither you, nor the internet, nor any other person I’ve met on the internet, has convinced me of the truth of evolution. They insist there is more evidence then there actually is, and they devolve to making statements of personal intelligence, rather than actually citing an example of empirical evidence for evolution.

I can find whole websites with actual BULLETPOINTS which give proof for the Big Bang. I can find whole series of websites that expound upon the evidence for the boundless discoveries of biology, geology, astronomy, oceanography, etc.

I have yet to see a single website which has a comprehensive list of provable, empirical facts which support evolution. I have looked, and not found. I have asked people like you, and have not been given.

What am I to conclude? The few websites I do find that have some kind of case for evolution have messy facts or incorrect figures.

No. The onus is on you to prove it. The onus is on you to give comprehensive evidence for it. No matter how many times you say I am indescribably ignorant, or I cannot possibly understand this if I don’t understand that, the fact remains. You have not actually done something as simple as cite a single reason for your case.

I am not going to play name calling game with you, as you appear to wish. I am simply going to sit, and wait. For evidence.

I believe Evolution is a fine hypothesis. Given that God is not cast out of the picture, I think it is a perfectly good, reasonable, and even probably explanation of some of the facts. But it remains unproven, and if people like you keep talking the way you do, I wonder if it will ever be.

Bye for now; logging off for tonight. Hopefully you give me something to actually chew on in the morning, instead of more worthless talk.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Once they can explain the evolution of the eye then I will look into the theory more but until then it’s not worth my time.

I’ve never understood the creationist fascination with the eye. Its actually a pretty lousy organ as far as organs go. Especially the human eye. Still, there are living examples of every stage of such an evolution so its not even an issue seriously raised by anyone anymore.

There’s a good book by David Beirlinski called Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions in which he talks about the lack of evidence for evolution. In particular he talks about the complex evolutionary processes that must occur for a water based lifeform to transition to a land based lifeform. He concludes it’s impossible because there is just so much that must be changed and there is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record that can account for such a change.

Apparently he’s unfamiliar with amphibious fish.

 

[vz71]

Of what? You were not specific enough for me to know what you are referring to.

Thought so.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

Why is accepting that the earth is much older than implied by the bible so threatening to one’s belief systems? I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely curious. Even Darwin didn’t give up his faith.

Another question is why doesn’t the bible explain the scientific things we now know, such as the simplest life forms, single celled animals? Or that our own bodies are made up of cells? Or the organic compounds that reoccur in all living things?

The best answer I can think of is that the bible was never meant as a scientific text. Can you imagine the inspired human writers of the bible grappling with these ideas when their best technology of the time revolved around growing things from seeds? If God had tried to explain these things to them, can you imagine how much they would have gotten wrong? No microscope to see the cells, no electron microscope to see a double helix structure of DNA. Not easy. But we have free will and curiosity, which together, helped us solve so many amazing mysteries of the world around us. We should embrace all discoveries and let them help us appreciate God’s work.

Of course, the topic at hand is evolution, which is difficult to prove because it happens over a very long time.

People frequently get mixed up between natural selection, one of the mechanisms for evolution, and selective breeding, as in breeds of domestic animals. It isn’t the same. Natural selection takes a long time. Once an animal is conceived, it’s traits are fixed and it cannot change. Anything that happens to that animal during it’s lifetime will not change the next generation, which goes against the popular misconception about natural selection (there is an older theory that suggested this). It’s offspring may have a random mutation which makes it a better fit than it’s parents, but that also takes a very long time to become a dominant enough trait in a population to mark it as a favorable “selected” trait. You can demonstrate much more rapid selection in microbes, but it is very difficult to apply that to complicated organisms.

There really is very compelling evidence of evolution in fossil records. There is no longer a ‘missing link’ in the human fossil record, which further backs up these claims. It is truly the best theory we have that explains the fossils of everything from the ancient amphibious creatures to dinosaurs to strange mammals that existed before our time. We can also see, in more recent fossil records, the evidence of certain traits becoming more dominant in a population over time which suggests natural selection as a mechanism for change. We can now look at the DNA of animals and humans and see the specific series of mutations that have become dominant in a population. All very clearly point at the evolutionary theory and a major mechanism for change within species.

Now, the platypus. Everyone jokes that he must be God’s little joke to confound zoologists. Here is a creature that has a duckbill, beaver-like tail, covered all over in fur, lays eggs, and is venomous. As the geeky t-shirt says, “Go home, evolution, you’re drunk”. No one can explain THAT one!

None of these theories should be threatening to anyone with faith. How much more mighty is a God who creates DNA and RNA that CAN mutate and allow organisms to adapt over time? I always think of every discovery in science as a way to take a peek at God’s desk.

Peace to all.

 

[estesbob]

How did something come from nothing.?
How did life spring from non-life?
What is more important? The"how"or the “who”

 

[colmywaykurtz]

You are mistaken, as according to evolution, since EVERYTHING is a transitional form, they are quite abundant.

Well, the part in quotes wasn’t meant literally. It just refers to transitional forms that would be so obvious that even the most hardened skeptic couldn’t deny them. There DOES seem to be a shortage of THAT sort of “transitional form.”

 

[colmywaykurtz]

So absence of proof we have to take it on"faith" that these transitions occurred?

No, but it would mean less exclusive reliance on the forms of proof of evolution more traditionally relied upon–morphological and c l a d I s t I c evidence–and making more room for more recently-developed forms of evidence, such as the evidence from gene markers and electro p h o r e t I c similarities.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

How did something come from nothing.?
How did life spring from non-life?
What is more important? The"how"or the “who”

How, indeed? Life on our planet is carbon based. Molecules of carbon bonded with other organic molecules to form the first amino acids. What caused them to bond? There are basic attractions but organic molecules left alone in a room will not form life without external forces. Where did the energy required come from? How did they collect together into a basic system that supported all the energy requirements for each component? There is plenty of room for God in these ponderings. Randomness can only get us so far.

 

[Farsight001]

You seem like a very proud individual. Nevertheless, the current empirical evidence for macro evolution is scant at best and is not enough to convince me. Once they can explain the evolution of the eye then I will look into the theory more but until then it’s not worth my time. There’s a good book by David Beirlinski called Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions in which he talks about the lack of evidence for evolution. In particular he talks about the complex evolutionary processes that must occur for a water based lifeform to transition to a land based lifeform. He concludes it’s impossible because there is just so much that must be changed and there is no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record that can account for such a change. Furthermore, he also talks about power plays in the scientific community and how scientific peer review basically keeps any dissenting views to the scientific majority consensus from ever be published. For example, a scientist who doesn’t believe in the current consensus regarding climate change is basically ostracized from the scientific community. If you really do have an open mind I suggest you read that book.

If you keep acting like there is a functional difference between micro and macro evolution, no one who knows their stuff is going to take you seriously. Every tidbit of evidence for micro evolution IS evidence for macroevolution because there is NO DISTINCTION between the two. They are the same darn thing - a term of measurement - with the only difference being on of scale.

And Berlinski? He knows about as much about evolution as a five year old knows about quantum mechanics. Try an actual expert, please. Read one of the thousands upon thousands of books chock full of evidence for evolution or some of the literally millions of scientific studies on the subject, and then try and tell people the evidence is scant. Berlinski TOLD you the evidence was scant. He was wrong.

As for peer review - how does it keep dissenting views out? Dissenting views, provided the study was performed well, are published all the time. Even ID advocates have gotten a couple things published in scientific literature. They tend to act incredulous because they think people are keeping them out, but what’s really happening here is that they have barely tried to submit any papers. Only every 1 in 50 or so papers submitted to scientific journals get published. This is a clear cut case of people complaining about unfair treatment only because they don’t know how the system works.

And btw, people who doubt climate change get published all the time. Berlinski really has no idea what he’s talking about. Notice how his PhD is actually in philosophy, not a science? There’s a reason for that.

 

[Farsight001]

And that’s why neither you, nor the internet, nor any other person I’ve met on the internet, has convinced me of the truth of evolution. They insist there is more evidence then there actually is, and they devolve to making statements of personal intelligence, rather than actually citing an example of empirical evidence for evolution.

No one is insisting that there is more evidence than there actually is. We are merely suggesting that you actually go look for the evidence instead of acting like you don’t have to look because you already “know” it isn’t there. Again, look up the nylon eating bacteria experiment, also referred to as the E. Coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment. It’s got all the proof just by itself that anyone should need.

I can find whole websites with actual BULLETPOINTS which give proof for the Big Bang. I can find whole series of websites that expound upon the evidence for the boundless discoveries of biology, geology, astronomy, oceanography, etc.

I have yet to see a single website which has a comprehensive list of provable, empirical facts which support evolution. I have looked, and not found. I have asked people like you, and have not been given.

I would have to posit that you have been given ton’s of links, but per above, since you have per-assumed that the evidence doesn’t exist, you have not bothered to look at them. These two are great ones - evolution.berkeley.edu/
talkorigins.org/

No. The onus is on you to prove it. The onus is on you to give comprehensive evidence for it. No matter how many times you say I am indescribably ignorant, or I cannot possibly understand this if I don’t understand that, the fact remains. You have not actually done something as simple as cite a single reason for your case.

And that’s a double standard. You object to me not providing any evidence to support my claim (though I actually have), while you yourself refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim. I’m not playing that game. If you’re going to decide that you don’t need to provide evidence, then neither am I. You do not deserve special treatment here.

I am not going to play name calling game with you, as you appear to wish. I am simply going to sit, and wait. For evidence.

I haven’t called you names and i have provided evidence. This really illustrates my position above - that you are so sure that the evidence doesn’t exist, that you don’t even bother looking at it or taking it seriously when it is presented to you.

I believe Evolution is a fine hypothesis. Given that God is not cast out of the picture, I think it is a perfectly good, reasonable, and even probably explanation of some of the facts. But it remains unproven, and if people like you keep talking the way you do, I wonder if it will ever be.

The e-coli experiment quite proved it, as have many other experiments. Like I said, I provided the evidence. Now you need to be willing to look at it.

 

[Farsight001]

Thought so.

Thought what?!

Dude, I was not playing a game to avoid answering your question. I am not some evil evolution proponent looking to deceive and trick you in any way possible. I really didn’t know what you were referring to and REALLY was asking you to be more specific so I could answer your question. Exactly what are you looking for proof of?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

My 2-cents. :twocents:

I believe in a combination of evolution and creationism. The theory - and it is just a theory - of evolution only explains how things changed over time. It does not answer the question of how it all began.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea than man’s ancestors go back much further than 6000 BC which is more or less when Genesis is supposed to have happened. If the Adam and Eve story is true, it may be the first *recorded *incidence of man and woman, but not necessarily the first man and woman.