Most Americans Agree with Evolution [new poll]

"they" should be "he or she" Need AM coffee!

The point is that [by your actual or pretended lack of understanding this simple joke, for example] you demonstrate that while others might have evolved, you haven't yet.

A hypothetical argument that doesn't work. I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a hard time finding ANYBODY who doesn't *believe* in gravity.

... Which is kind of weird if you think about it -- 31 percent of seculars don't accept undirected evolution.

The percentage of scientists in all fields who agree with evolution is around 95%, the percentage in the life sciences is around 99.8%.

What percentage of Christian denominations accept the ToE? 50? 75? 90? What percentage of Christians do? Same question about the various flavors of Islam and Muslims.

The so-called controversy seems to be restricted to differences among religious sects. I really don't see why scientsts should take the anti-evolution activists seriously until the theologians have come to 99.8% agreement as well. OK, 95%. And some peer-reviewed evidence would help, too.

A hypothetical argument that doesn't work. I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a hard time finding ANYBODY who doesn't *believe* in gravity.

Walter Wright's Push Gravity: "Wright's basic idea -- which he says is borne out by his experiments and calculations -- is that gravity doesn't emanate from the earth's core, it comes from the sun. He argues that the sun, because it is a huge mass in a constant state of combustion, emits forces which push or 'squeeze' objects toward the earth -- like Newton's apple. [...] his novel ideas have made him a sort of guru to what he calls his 'following' of teenage science students, sci-fi fans and even some physical scientists he calls 'unbrainwashed' by Newtonian physics."
There is no gravity in deep space: "Planets and stars can't form from gas floating in space because there is no gravity in space that can clump it together. If you think I am mistaken, I asked my girlfriend who is a biology/chemistry major, and a creationists, to describe to me gravity. She described gravity in a similiar way to me: only celestial bodies have gravitational forces in our universe. This is why there is no gravity in deep space. My girlfriend will major with 3.98 in science studies, so she knows what she's talking about. Now gravity doesn't exist between anything but celestial bodies, so atoms can't have gravity, and are held together by, as my girlfriend described it "not as gravity, but the atomic force between matter." Therefore it would be impossible for planets to form by random clumping of particles because there is no gravity in deep space. Liquids are made by the rate of collisions between atoms. We can't even "clump" gas on earth where there is gravity, how can you do it in freaking outer space where the concept of gravity is nil? I mean in the voidless wonder of outer space, how in hades is there a gravitational pull? Remember, it's a game of rolling the die and having to get one number out of a million. And gases move from a high density to a low density, thus that disproves the idea that gases could 'clump' in outer space. My knowledge of physics is quite limited, but to me it seems logical: only a defined mass can have a gravitational pull. I have the following questions for you scientists: 1. If gravity is a potent force that would cause gases to come together, why didn't all gas clump in outer space? 2. As my evidence speaks to the fact that gas can't clump on Earth, where gravity is much more potent. Thus, how could it occur in deep space? Clearly god created the universe."
Teaching the Fa : "In other words, although it's no longer in Earth's environment, it is still connected to the realms of other particles in the Three Realms. Only this way can it be stable there. This is the reason why a satellite can stay there. Of course, the same interconnection exists in objects of the same weight but of different volumes. An object that has a small volume but a high density has the same amount of interconnection as an object that has a large volume, so it feels like they weigh the same. There are many other aspects of this if I'm to go into detail. What I was trying to tell you just now is that "gravity" doesn't exist."
The misquided scientifically accepted theory of UNIVERSAL GRAVITY is ABSURD : "Current theories (and that is all they are) on Gravity say that gravity is relative to the mass of an object. So by that logic, the Sun would produce 1,000's of times more gravity than say, the Earth. A gravitational field that strong would eventually suck everything into it (like a black hole). It would constantly draw orbits of planets, comets, etc. closer to the sun. It would suck the Moon right out of orbit around the Earth. But this is not the case. It is a PROVEN FACT that our solar system is EXPANDING. The Earth IS NOT GETTING CLOSER to the Sun. Now let's look here on Earth itself. If gravity was responsible for keeping us DOWN TO EARTH then while I am standing upright in the United States people around the world in Australia would be UPSIDE DOWN. Additionally people in Europe and Russia would be on their sides. That is absolutely proposterous and probably the reason humanity believed the Earth was flat for as long as they did. [...] Gravity is ABSOLUTELY NOT a DIRECT EFFECT of an OBJECTS MASS. If it was you would not be able to drop a peanut and a gold brick at the same time, from the same height (inside a vacuum) and have them both hit the ground at the same time. Which by the way has been PROVEN over and over again. To boot the Sun would pull us off the surface of Earth, thru Earth's atmosphere, freeze us in the vastness of space, pull us towards the Sun for us to thaw just before we impacted the Sun and burned to Death."
Gravity Does Not Exist: "Mr Martin, of Austin Drive, Didsbury, a former labourer turned amateur scientist, has spent five years trying to get someone to publish his view that gravity does not exist, but without success."
Atlantis Rising: "In this issue we have articles claiming that heavy skyscrapers cause earthquakes, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by oil drilling, the Templars worshiped John the Baptist as the Messiah, pyramids are actually giant radios, and that gravity doesn't exist, among other odd ideas."
Notes from Another Universe: Letters from crank theorists—often handwritten or manually typed, exhaustively diagrammed, up to a hundred pages long—have inundated university science departments for years. Neel Shearer, the graduate assistant who filters physicist Stephen Hawking's e-mail, says that Hawking receives "hundreds of letters a month, at least, mostly theories about how the moon doesn't rotate, why gravity doesn't exist, how to go faster than the speed of light." [...] Judging from the reams of odd theories sent daily to science journals, universities, and researchers, science cranks are more prolific than ever. This is true despite a discouraging silence on the part of the recipients. The author of one atmosphere-based theory of gravity estimates that he has mailed 5,000 copies of his work to physicists over the past 15 years but received just two replies. Presentation is part of the problem. "GENTLEMEN ARE YOU INTERESTED IN SEPARATING VALUABLE CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS FROM THE SUNSHINE RAY?" demands one impatient correspondent. [...] The few who did answer were single-minded. One retired commercial diver answered all my questions with an uninterruptible monologue on gravity (it pushes rather than pulls, he said).
Also see Google search for 'gravity' at crank.net

Any student is going to find both points of view in the world, they ought to find it in school. That's the way it was taught to me 20 years ago and no one was broken by it.

No problem with teaching ID or creationsism in a philosophy or religion class. But these subjects lack merit under the current definition of science and should not be taught as science. Doing so will only confuse students by teaching them material that fall outside the axioms of scientific investigation. That's why there is more to the controversy than simple evolution/creation. The definition of science would have to be changed to the point of being meaningless and the last 200 years of scientific progress would be undone. All kinds of pseudoscience would be introduced as science and the education of our children would be severely compromised. As for teaching true 'controversy' in evolution, you would need to be teaching things on the cutting edge of research and that would be in a graduate level course in biology, not something highschoolers would be equipped to understand.

... I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a hard time finding ANYBODY who doesn't *believe* in gravity.

If you believe that "micro-gravity" (on the scale of the solar system or a star cluster) acts just like "macro-gravity" (galactic and galaxy cluster scales), then one has to accept the existence of "dark matter".

There is nothing comparable in biology.

(ping to Rades, he knows this stuff a lot better than I do)

I think we would all like 'science' to admit that it is poorly equipped to project its own set of myths back into the unobservable past.

'Science' does the exact same thing that it criticizes.

Teaching pseudoscience is a violation of the law by a public servant. The way to deal with that is impeachment for high crimes.

That's a pretty harsh sentence for teaching ins a subject area that changes by the day. Today's *scientific facts* are tomorrow's creationist lies. What are you going to do, string up anyone who might inadvertently now teach that Pluto is still a planet?

I googled around for science curriculum guidelines and nowhere did I find that *science* is required to be taught in science classes. The guidelines specify which topics are required to be covered in certain classes but is silent on topics outside that. They do know specify what CANNOT be taught, only what is needed to pass the finals, regents, whatever. So there is no limitation on covering material outside the required topics; it doesn't say you can't add, teach, or address them.

Besides, we're dealing with high school education majors who are teachers. Does their opinion and consensus on what exactly constitutes *science* agree across the board? And if so, whose is it that's being applied that way? Someone has to decide what science is. Whose standards are they and where did they come from? What ultimate authority decides these matters? What about theories that are controversial, like string theory and relativity? There's disagreement there so how can you prosecute someone for teaching something that's *not science* when the guilty verdict would depend on the opinion of the jurors. Should we then not teach those subjects in school to avoid the risk of teaching something that someone does not consider *science*?

I know many deeply religious people who believe that evolution is compatible with religion.

It might be compatible with Religion; but it's hardly compatible with the BIBLE.

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

Acts 17:26-27

26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If there were no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

Acts 17:24-26

24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Timothy 2:13

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Was Paul WRONG about these???

If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

2/3's of your tagline didn't print out!

Although I am the proud progeny of an ape, I could not care less what polls say about evolution, one way or the other. Polling plays no part in the scientific method. If it did, then the Muzzie's belief that 72 virgins await them in heaven would be a scientific fact.

I think it is completely possible that God made evolution happen.

Which 'GOD'?

The CHRISTIAN veiw of this 'creator' is quite different than the one Evolution allows one to believe in.

Isa 48:3 ... I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of My mouth, and I shewed them; I did [them] SUDDENLY, and they came to pass.

Indeed!!

Genesis 1

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

This is a GOD who creates by speaking; but; how LONG did it take?

Now Jesus was a man who had God-like powers. Was HE God? The Book says so.......

NIV Colossians 1:13-17
13. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

NIV Revelation 4:11
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

NIV Revelation 10:6
And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, "There will be no more delay!

Notice that when this man speaks, things happen RIGHT NOW! Not after some times passes and the body heals itself.

NIV Matthew 8:2-3

2. A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
3. Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately he was cured of his leprosy.

NIV Matthew 21:19
Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

NIV Mark 1:41-42
41. Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
42. Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.

NIV Mark 5:41-42

41. He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
42. Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.

NIV Mark 10:51-52

51. "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him. The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
52. "Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

NIV Luke 5:13

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And Immediately the leprosy left him.

NIV Luke 5:24-25

24. But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." He said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."
25. Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.

NIV Luke 8:44

She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and Immediately her bleeding stopped.

NIV Luke 13:12-13

12. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity."
13. Then he put his hands on her, and Immediately she straightened up and praised God.

NIV Luke 18:42-43

42. Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."
43. Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

NIV Acts 9:33-35

33. There he found a man named Aeneas, a paralytic who had been bedridden for eight years.
34. "Aeneas," Peter said to him, "Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and take care of your mat." Immediately Aeneas got up.
35. All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.

NIV Matthew 8:13
13. Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

NIV Matthew 15:28
28. Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant; how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???

50% of the folks who 'believe' in Evolution graduated in the lower half of their class.

...Should we then not teach those subjects in school to avoid the risk of teaching something that someone does not consider *science*?

Since over 99% of biologists agree with the ToE and say that both factions of the anti-evo coalition are pseudo science, it shouldn't be too hard to get the consensus of scientific thought, suitably simplified, into the curriculum.

ID and /or one or more flavors of creationism could be taught in the history of science, or in discussions of the scientific method - Biblical/Koranic creationism (at least the Great Flood story) was disproved in the early 1800's and ID is a good example of an untestable, hence unfalsifiable and non-scientific, claim. They're also suitable, IMO, for current events discussions, or rhetoric classes.

A hypothetical argument that doesn't work. I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a hard time finding ANYBODY who doesn't *believe* in gravity.

However, it is still "gravitational theory". There is far more direct evidence for the theory of evolution than gravitational theory.

From a christian point of view I really don't think God cares except that you believe what his Son put out.

I agree whole heartedly!

John 6:28-29
28. Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

One thing we know for sure: gay "unions" do not result in reproduction of homo sapiens. In fact, their diseases work against evolution.

That's a pretty harsh sentence for teaching ins a subject area that changes by the day.

The only "sentence" is removal from public employment and a lifetime ban on public employment - no jail, no fines, no ban on owning firearms or loss of any rights.

Today's *scientific facts* are tomorrow's creationist lies

Not at the level of detail suitable for a HS class. A few details change as new data is unearthed, but with the exception of the genetic data and a few fossils, the simplified, HS-level biology from 25 or even 50 years ago has hardly changed.

If FR is any indication, tomorrow's creationist lies will be just like yeaterday's

Was Paul WRONG about these???

Yes he was.

(Except for 1 Timothy. Paul didn't write it, so it's not fair to blame him.)


	Jul. 2006	Jul. 2005
Evolved over time	51%	48%
Existed in their present form since the beginning of time	42%	42%
Don’t know / Refused	7%	10%