America is doomed

Those numbers are pretty close to the other polls I've seen on the same subject (responses vary a little depending on how you word the question).

 

That is terrible. Most Americans believe fairy tales and are working their entire lives to impress superheros in the sky.

I can't think of anyone in my personal or professional circles that believe in creationism. But I'm going to ask. I'll be a pain in the ass, this Christmas!

 

That question is retarded in so many ways. How are they defining human? Do they mean the purely physical nature of the human body, are they talking about societal and intellectual evolution, are they talking about the spiritual evolution that a religious person would believe in? We are assuming that the question is about the human body, but aren't intellect, society, and (if you are religious) spirituality integral parts of a human being as part of humanity and not just homo sapiens?

That said, even if the poll were clearly limited to scientific, physical evolution, I'm sure the support for Creationism would still be absurdly high.

 

The only person I ever got into a discussion about this with was my extremely liberal democratic, extremly Catholic aunt who was shocked that I believed in evolution. I did not have the heart to tell her that so does the Catholic church.

 

Polls like this are old news. Gallup has been doing one like this since the 80s I think. The numbers have not changed.

I bet had you done a similar poll at the turn of the last century, the numbers would look REALLY bad. I bet we have improved since then.

All this has to be taken into perspective. While there is a large swath of the population that rejects evolution, has the belief in creationism prevented our molecular geneticists from doing the work they need to do? Our ecologists? Our biologists, biochemists, medical researchers, paleontologists, physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists?

The fact is, where the rubber meets the road, the really smart people have the upper hand where it really counts.

When the creationists start to dictate the course of general scientific inquiry (by the way, this excludes embryonic stem cell research, where there is a moral issue apart from any set of non-scientific beliefs like creationism), then I would start to worry.

As it is, it's not worth losing a second of sleep over.

 

More reason to support school choice.

 

As long as they teach it in "Cowardly supernatural responses to Science" class, I've got no objection.

 

The result that you refer to says creationism and evolution with the other choice being creation only, why wasn't there a evolution only option?

 

BenReilly: Yeah...I'm concerned too! How can 35% of the folks be so wrong and believe their parents were monkeys!

God bless!

IntheNet

 

Well, you have Creationism, which is what a lot of kids learn growing up in church, and you have Evolution, which is, odds are, something taught to them later on. Right or wrong, the kids' gut reaction is going to be to side with Creationism if they don't see a compelling enough argument for Evolution.

I don't have a lot of faith in people, to be honest. I don't trust them to inform me about God, and I don't trust them to inform me about scientific theories. Religions seem to be constantly augmenting their stances. The scientific community seems to prove its old ideas wrong every five years or so. I have a religion. I have scientific ideas. I don't trust the majority to keep me informed concerning either--there's too much to gain by both sides by sending waves of hollow, unsubstantiated, and unchecked information at us. For the most part, it's politics. They want to recruit you to their side, regardless of how they have to do it. That's not to say all involved are bad--I'm convinced there are truly good people out there trying to promote their religious views, and I'm convinced there are truly good people out there trying to promote their scientific views.

I don't believe in evolution as it's presented in most circles, and I don't believe in the creation as it's presented in most circles. I don't focus so much on the so-called evidence (both sides can present a litany of "information" to support their theories) as I do on the holes in their arguments. I realize I'm being a little harsh here--100% proof is difficult to find for most things--but, again, I tend to be wary of faceless majorities. I hate sentences that start with, "Religious experts say..." or, "Leading scientists find that..."

Sure, I have faith in some things both religious and scientific (as odd as that may sound...some theories can never be technically proven and thus some trust must be employed). But on this matter, I'm remembering that I'm a Missourian. Show me.

 

The liberals seem so disappointed not to be descendants of apes.

 

Again, who cares?

As long the kids that go to MIT, Cal Tech, etc., get taught what they are supposed to be taught.

This is where the future is.

 

With all due respect, this is about as superficial as you can get.

Look, this notion that "evolution" is just a unproved theory is a bunch of hogwash. Experiments with fruit fiies have basically proven it. Generational adaptation is about as proven as any scientifc fact.

Meanwhile, bedrock scientific truths aren't going away. DNA is for real. Galaxies and the red shift are for real. Atomic physics is for real. E=mc2 is for real. Chemistry is for real. Biology is for real. Electronics, printed circuits, electricity are for real.

 

There's a difference between adaptation and evolution in the genetic sense. Adaptation is the augmentation of what you already have to lead to an overall net benefit. Evolution is the addition of genetic information to lead to an overall net benefit. The former has always been apparent. The latter has not. Tests are ongoing to try to spark a genuine positive mutation--not a freak one-shot thing that doesn't improve the gene pool; that's not evolution; evolution, by the definition of the term, is passed on for the good of the species--and have failed. You can make a fruit fly grow legs out of its eyes, but you can't make it grow something it doesn't, in one capacity or another, already have.

...none of which either prove or disprove evolution.

Look, this is exactly what I was talking about--you say that the argument is already over, that you have proof. Well, other people think they have proof in what they believe also. They'll contend with your "facts". You'll contend with their "facts". No territory will be won or lost. Things will be status quo ante bellum.

What gets to me is the pretentiousness of both sides. Both popular religion and popular science have been horribly, horribly wrong in the past. Neither of you have great track records despite your merits and achievements. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Why should anyone believe you now?

 

You know, it's funny. It's not that I'm really doubting the veracity of those statements, but popular scientists also used to say that phrenology was accurate, thalidomide was a-ok, and GRID was only existent in homosexuals.

Declarations of absolute truth haven't always been popular science's strong point.

 

And you know who disproved those?

Other scientists.

You don't get too many research breakthroughs from the College of Cardinals. (And they suck in the BCS.)

 

Boy, what Balderdash.

So if you're wrong before, you have to be wrong now?

Then no one is right, and we are in a sea of groundless relativisms.

No great track records?? Tell, what do you think of Niels Bohr's track record? Einsteins? Jonas Salk's?

Gimme a break.

 

I'll tell you. What is not real? Human or predecessor was not here 60 to 300 thousand years ago. That is real. Cave people was not here with dinosaurs and people don't come from Africa. We came up out of the ocean at a rate and atmosphere played with some. All this was 10 to 30000 years ago tops. I am not here to say "Don't answer questions." but we have progressed in 3 thousand years. It is hard to believe remainder was stagnation. People did not come across Alaska. There was journeyman. That climbed and slept in conditions with nature. This person tried to walk across Alaska into Russia. It is 21 day walk (I could be off on this). He got to day three and called U.S. Coast Guard (a little bitty ole tent and boots and hikers equipment yes i am sure gortex was invovled). Where is million man march for Alaska? If god created the Earth, it had to start with single cell organisms. They communicated and evolvled. Once information is understood. It does not slow down until hunger is met. There is no way around it. Why is ailments so dominate? They don't stop.

 

Keller Starts to Worry

Although, admittedly, this is not JUST the (mis)directing of science by creationists; the soulless cash whoring totalitarian capitalists who move this administration are in league with these self-blinding dogmatists, and many are both, pursuing greed because, well, it's what God wants for them, what God, through the great Jesus-wielding American Dream, TOLD them to do.

x (the particles of dust comprising the Oort Cloud) - (the particles of dust used to make Adam)