Posted on 03/08/2006 1:45:50 PM PST by rface
We're not "evangelists", although I suppose it might look that way to someone who himself sees everything through the prism of religion.
And 43% is quite a respectable amount of support for a complex technical topic like this one. Heck, it's a higher level of support than the percentage of Born Again Christians who are willing to register as Republicans, it's higher support than the percent of Americans who think the Iraq war was the right thing to do, and it's higher than the percentage who think the Iraq war is going well, and it's higher than the percentage of people who agree that Islam encourages violence. Complex issues often have trouble achieving an overwhelming percentage of support, no matter how true they are, because it's hard to put all the relevant facts before the entire public such that everyone is acquainted with all the pertinent information, and because conflicting premises and beliefs will undercut acceptance of any issue that touches on some people's hotbuttons.
People have a hard time accepting that their existence is just the result of a very big accident.
You really need to learn some evolutionary biology before you attempt to critique it -- describing it as "a very big accident" is really inappropriate and inaccurate.
It is impossible to build any rational society or morality on a foundation of meaninglessness.
I agree, but you're entirely mistaken if you think that understanding and realizing the validity of evolutionary biology requires in any way the acceptance of "meaninglessness".
Even purely naturalistic origins are entirely consistent with the statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
You truly are more than a pretty face.
Well done!
I don't know, but I've seen a LOT more basic typos, grammar screw-ups, and obviously incorrect "facts" show up in the news and in articles over the past five years or so. It's like they've decided they can save money by not hiring editors or something. Or they've gotten lazy, thinking that passing something through the computer spell-checker covers the bases well enough that they don't need a human to bother to error-check it.
Meanwhile, perhaps you could use a "proofreaeder" yourself. ;-) [Murphy's Law of Typos: Any comment about grammar or spelling errors will itself contain at least one grammar or spelling error.]
Why is the word "exactly" only used in the question in relation to the Bible? Why isn't it used in the first question in regards to evolution? You know, like "exactly" like Darwin said. Polls suck and this one is no different.
I have seen many skulls in my life- including several apes and monkeys. The photos of the skull fossil cast looks FAR more like an ape skull than any sort of human skull. In fact, most Chimpanzee skulls look more human....
It's going to take a LOT more convincing evidence than an ape skull to prove evolution of humans from apes...
Curious also that the poll itself presents only three possibilities, offering no answer for those who neither accept the theory of evolution nor accept the Biblical creation account. It is as though the pollsters forgot that Christianity is not the only religion practiced in the United States.
I don't see how these two items relate. Science isn't about building cultures, it's about building knowledge.
Actually the details will be argued until we manage to see it happen. Until then we have theories, theories that given the amount of data available are probably wrong. What the threads are normally about is of no concern to me, I was talking about a specific way the questions could be phrased that would make someone who actually does believe evolution occured to answer the question with a "no", for me that would involve phrasing the question so it pins on a specific mechanical explanation.
PT should be predicting earthquakes one of these days, that's the useful stuff. They're still far off from that but that should be the eventual goal.
Because God is not the realm of science, much like how biology is not the realm of religion. They're in two seperate worlds, and should be. Science is about mechanics, God is about prime motivation.
My explanation lies in the faith and beliefs of Christianity, as I have explained before.
It's interesting to get on these threads and see folks who will defend scientists to the death.
What I always get is a response like I've seen here...with your thinking we'd live in mud huts, etc...This is ridiculous. It's appalling to me that people have this condescending attitude....And quite arrogant to think that humans have all the answers to creation, etc.
The theory we evolved from apes has never been proved. Period. And, no, I'm not going all over the web looking for posts that explain evolution.
And to your point, I do sometimes throw up my hands....Again, some people think that scientists have ALL the answers, and they just dont.
Scott
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
I think we're just going to disagree about this. Parents have the responsibility to rear and educate their children, but the state has the responsibility to make sure that all citizens can read, write, figure, and understand their duties and rights as citizens.
At one extreme, thereare Muslims who deny education to their girls. I consider thsi child abuse.
IMO, learning elementary science is as important as literacy, numeracy, and civics.
BTW, do Amish use lightning rods?
Feel free.
It's interesting to get on these threads and see folks who will defend scientists to the death.
It's also interesting to get on these threads and see folks who will attack scientists and wish they'd die.
What I always get is a response like I've seen here...with your thinking we'd live in mud huts, etc...This is ridiculous.
It seems a reasonable conclusion based on what you *appeared* to be saying. If that's not what you *meant* to say -- if someone has misunderstood your comments -- feel free to expand on what you actually meant. If it *is* what you meant to say, then you should own up to it instead of faulting others for pointing out that such a position has very bad consequences for the search for knowledge.
It's appalling to me that people have this condescending attitude....
It's appalling to me that you would rather huff about how "appalling" it is rather than clarify whether you actually meant what you appeared to be saying, and/or discussing the points that were raised about the consequences of such a position.
And quite arrogant to think that humans have all the answers to creation, etc.
Actually, it's "quite arrogant" for you to make such an accusation when no one here has said anything that could be (mis)read in such a way. Gosh, that's a really big chip you have on your shoulder.
The theory we evolved from apes has never been proved. Period.
Nothing in this real world *is* ever "proved". Period. That's an unachievable standard in this real world. Proof is only possible in artificial realms like mathematics. Your cheap excuse to ignore 100+ years of discovery and knowledge on that topic could equally be used to dismiss out of hand *ANY* and *ALL* kind of human knowledge whatsoever. It seems that we were not misreading your earlier posts after all.
True, human/ape common ancestry has not been "proved" (nor has anything else). On the other hand, the fact that we have evolved from apes has been established and validated beyond any reasonable doubt, by vast mountains of evidence and research along multiple independent cross-confirming lines. But I see that you have no interest in actually learning anything:
And, no, I'm not going all over the web looking for posts that explain evolution.
Enjoy your mud hut, while you sit there and mumble, "it ain't been 'proved', so you don't know nothin' at all and I don't need to even pay attention to anything I don't care to think about that might clash with what I *want* to believe". Never mind the evidence, it's only reality, it can't trump your beliefs if you refuse to look at it.
And to your point, I do sometimes throw up my hands....
Yes, that's much easier than learning, I understand.
Again, some people think that scientists have ALL the answers, and they just dont.
Again, you wave this accusation like a talisman, despite the fact that no one has made that claim. Is that all you have to help you ward off the huge number of answers we *do* have that you'd prefer not to have to face?
For lurkers who missed earlier posts:
scottdeus12 made a statement to the effect that only God should understand the universe. I pointed out that if we followed that perscription, then we'd be living in mud huts.
scottdeus12 believes that my attitude is condescending. I merely think it's self evident, that if we didn't have the understanding to build modern technology that can deliver two-by-four boards cheaply to my lot, that we'd be living in mud huts.
I do love the sentence: The theory we evolved from apes has never been proved. Period. And, no, I'm not going all over the web looking for posts that explain evolution.
Would that more creationists were this honest to say out loud that they don't understand science, and are unwilling to learn.
Isaiah 55:8
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
So with this in mind, why would I trust science to explain creation.
And what mud huts have to do with it is still ridiculous.
I just thought everyone should know that the figure was probably 12% for those who believe evolution was not guided by God. http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
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.