Posted on 11/19/2004 10:40:08 AM PST by jcsmonogram
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- Some 145 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, controversy about the validity and implications of his theory still rages. Darwin personally encountered much resistance after his book was published in 1859. Seventy-nine years ago, the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee brought the issue of exactly where human beings came from into sharp public focus in the United States. Indeed, as recently as this month, a court case in Cobb County, Ga., dealing with the treatment of evolution and creationism in school textbooks received nationwide publicity. November's National Geographic Magazine asked on its cover: "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then proceeded to devote 33 pages to answering that question.
Darwin might be surprised to find such debate still raging nearly a century and a half after he published his book. He might also be surprised to find that even today there is significantly less than majority agreement from the American public that his theory of evolution is supported by the evidence.
Gallup has asked Americans twice in the last three years to respond to the following question about Darwin's theory:
Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is – [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
Don't forget that Dawkins calls us survival machines and sophisticated robots.
Nature Magazine (May 8,2003), in an article entitled, The Buck Stops Here claims that free will is a subjective illusion.
Daniel Dennett claims that humans are zombies without consciousness (Consciousness Explained, 1992).
It is also worth noting that any worldview that puts more effort into denying reality than explaining it really isn't something to take seriously.
Thanks for that additional source.
Actually, a great number of Christians, Jews and ather religious people believe Evolution was God's tool. The Pope, for instance.
The danger occurs when Creationists force secular government schools to teach Creationism side-by-side with Evolution. Those kinds of schoolroom discussions quickly descend to asking whether God exists at all. THAT is dangerous, in that young children may make up their mind for a lifetime that God doesn't exist because of a decision made in that secular classroom.
Religious people can disarm this danger by first teaching children that there are no conflicts between science and Genesis. Problem solved. Those children, perhaps of non-believing parents, are then open to learn of God with no artificial stumbling block called Creationism.
I don't know what denomination you are, but I know of none that says you have to believe in a specific interpretation of those first two chapters in Genesis. I see nothing wrong with believing that "God did it", and just leave it at that.
Yes, abosolutly, Man is special. Genesis says that. But Genesis doesn't say what molecules God manipulated over how many years and with what tool boxes. Genesis doesn't even say God created the molecules first. Molecules and Evolution are the small unimportant details.
Non-responsive. Again, what is your definition of species? Note that "ape" is not a species.
Fascinating. Loopy as all get out, but fascinating.
But that is the point. If you don't look at things with the same reference, you get different answers.
Consider creationism and evolution as 2 Euler circles that not only don't intersect, they don't even mathematically "kiss". So one man's "4" is another man's
"11".
tractionless troll Memorial placemarker
The new species doesn't have to be more complex.
It's far deeper than that. There is a heliocentric theory that explains why if the rotatee is farher out from the center, it rotates slower. This is not true in geocentric theory. None of the equal area or elliptic orbit rules obtain in a geecentric theory.
As a example, the moons of Jupiter obey the farther out rule in a heliocentric theory but not in a geocentric theory. All theories are not created equal.
Or degrades us.
Teaching that humans are another group of animals fighting to survive leads to the belief in superior races and eugenics.
So? You say that like it's a bad thing!
I still fail to see, though, how some will harshly deny evolution without giving thought to the fact that it was part of the Creation process....
MEANING that yes, the first life on this earth was created by God, but over time they began to evolve via adaptation to their environments. I don't see why that's nothing that can't be believed, and in a sense, Creationism is, in and of itself, a theory. And in reality, "survival of the fittest" does make sense--the lion with the bigger teeth and greater speed will outrun and outkill the lion without.
Just a thought. (Throwing out the "Why can't we all just get along" spiel)
"loss of genetic information"
Huh? Where did you find this? The fact is that most mutations don't even modify the existing gene product in a significant way.
I meant to say, "the fact that it could be part of the Creation process". Appy-polly-loggies......at least I still have time to don an asbestos suit.
Just what "special" school did you attend?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.