Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

[jabarto]

Evolve some balls and post it.

Where the hell did that come from?

SO ANYWAY this issue is rather near and dear to my heart because it exemplifies human arrogance and narrowmindedness in a way that few other things do. Evolution is a fact; the evidence in its favor is overwhelming. There is more support for evolution than any other theory in existence. So it strikes me as hubris in the utmost when people claim that evolution wrong, as if they and they alone have found some oh so obvious fault with it. I've actually known people who don't believe in evolution - of course, one of them believed she was destined to give birth to the savior of the planet in 2012, but that's not really important - and their arguments can typically be distilled to "I didn't come from a fish/space dust/monkeys." So it really is a matter of pride more than anything. And it stands in the way of all honest scientific progress.

Of course, you can't blame this entirely on the fundies. Public education in this country is terrible when it comes to science, and most people who are knowledgeable in these matters don't have the time to give a Bio 101 lesson to everyone who asks, so it's understandable that some vainglorious fools would be ignorant of science. That doesn't make it right, though.

Also, I'm sure most people here know about it, but if you ever find yourself debating with a fundie, there's a great site called talkorigins.org that has a lot of info on evolution. Even if not, it's still good to check out once in a while to keep the mind sharp.

[Sarmatian]

I find it hard to believe that people actually argue with someone supporting creationism. It's totally and utterly pointless. They may believe gravity doesn't exist but it would still hurt if they fall from a 10th story.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where the hell did that come from?

SO ANYWAY this issue is rather near and dear to my heart because it exemplifies human arrogance and narrowmindedness in a way that few other things do. Evolution is a fact; the evidence in its favor is overwhelming. There is more support for evolution than any other theory in existence. So it strikes me as hubris in the utmost when people claim that evolution wrong, as if they and they alone have found some oh so obvious fault with it. I've actually known people who don't believe in evolution - of course, one of them believed she was destined to give birth to the savior of the planet in 2012, but that's not really important - and their arguments can typically be distilled to "I didn't come from a fish/space dust/monkeys." So it really is a matter of pride more than anything. And it stands in the way of all honest scientific progress.

Of course, you can't blame this entirely on the fundies. Public education in this country is terrible when it comes to science, and most people who are knowledgeable in these matters don't have the time to give a Bio 101 lesson to everyone who asks, so it's understandable that some vainglorious fools would be ignorant of science. That doesn't make it right, though.

Also, I'm sure most people here know about it, but if you ever find yourself debating with a fundie, there's a great site called talkorigins.org that has a lot of info on evolution. Even if not, it's still good to check out once in a while to keep the mind sharp.

The problem is that the evidence is all scientific, not concrete, and it isn't conclusive. Also, evolution is of no apparent use to most people, so they do not feel compelled to believe it.

Add to that the antagonism many popular Scientists have towards religion currently, making it an either or, and it's not surprising the theory has become increasingly unpopular.

[Fragony]

If they want to believe that fine with me, doesn't affect me in any way. I think people who believe in the Darwin theory are usually much more intrusive and intolerant towards creationists then visa versa. Why they believe it is beyond me but why should I care. But some do, why.

[Cute Wolf]

Yeah... I once get into debate with them when they held some kind of "there is no evolution seminar"... and what can I say, they are stubborn beyond belief, as they start saying that those Homo-Blah-Blah-Blah are not humans, but deformed monkeys or they are humans that their god has cursed into monkeys.

[Lemur]

Also, evolution is of no apparent use to most people, so they do not feel compelled to believe it.

Hmmm. It's the foundation of all modern biology. Do you like going to the doctor and not getting a mercury poultice or a leeching? Thank evolution. Do you like your ibuprofen or acetaminophen? Thank evolution. Sheesh, do you like having selective breeding with horses, dogs, and every grain we eat? Thank evolution.

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different.

There. Does that make you happy?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hmmm. It's the foundation of all modern biology. Do you like going to the doctor and not getting a mercury poultice or a leeching? Thank evolution. Do you like your ibuprofen or acetaminophen? Thank evolution. Sheesh, do you like having selective breeding with horses, dogs, and every grain we eat? Thank evolution.

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different.

There. Does that make you happy?

Philip is right, taking ibuprofen doesn't require a belief in evolution. Believing in evolution doesn't make you special.

I would compare evolution denial to football fans claiming their team got robbed by the refs when they didn't. Yes, it's often obviously incorrect, but they believe it because they want to and there isn't much harm in it. Everyone holds some beliefs like that, it's human nature. Not to be applauded, but it is silly to accuse them all of idiocy.

[Lemur]

Philip is right, taking ibuprofen doesn't require a belief in evolution.

In much the same sense that eating a hamburger does not require a belief in ranching.

Believing in evolution doesn't make you special.

Of course it doesn't. Denying the evolutionary process, however, when you ought to know better, does make you special.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In much the same sense that eating a hamburger does not require a belief in ranching.

Yes...?

Of course it doesn't. Denying the evolutionary process, however, when you ought to know better, does make you special.

Not if 1/3 of the US agrees with you ;)

I see an immature intellectual snobbery streak in liberalism, in america at least. Or maybe I just read too many digg comments even though I know what I'm going to get.

"I'm an atheist, religion is the opiate of the masses"
"You might be a redneck if...you watch nascar and drink domestic pisswater instead of heineken"
"Evolution is fact, idiots deny it"



It's the parallel of the holier than thou moral high ground the conservatives pull (although the liberal pull that on many issues as well).

As someone said earlier in the thread, many people are pleased with themselves for their superiority while actually not knowing much about the subjects.

So what if someone is a creationist. If they are arrogant and self righteous enough to demand that it's taught in science class, then the problem is that they are arrogant and self righteous.

Well, that was mostly on topic anyway

However, you'd have to admit that there's a certain cognitive dissonance in accepting the fruits of modern biology while denying its foundation. That antibiotic that you gave your kid to help with his ear infection? It wouldn't exist without the theory of evolution. Greg Mendel and Chuck Darwin say, "You're welcome!"

How about the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the foundation and being upset about the fruits?

"Oh no, my apple tree grew apples!"

[Lemur]

Not if 1/3 of the US agrees with you ;)

If that's the polling, I'd be interested to see how the question was phrased. A lot of people accept the role of a Creator without denying the evolutionary process. The two are not mutually exclusive, but a poorly phrased poll might make them seem so.

I see an immature intellectual snobbery streak in liberalism, in america at least.

When regurgitating political clichés, you should heave them up them accurately. Your omitted "ivory tower," "un-American," "liberal elite" and "ivy league." Other than that, well done!

How about the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the foundation and being upset about the fruits?

"Oh no, my apple tree grew apples!"

Could your example be a little more vague and unclear? Are you referencing something specific, of have you just gone all postmodern on us again?

[Kadagar_AV]

Not if 1/3 of the US agrees with you ;)

Uh, 33% believes in creationism? That says a lot about the education, no?

Maybe time to declare a "war against bad education"... However, given the succes of the war on drugs and terrorism, maybe a war against good education would be better...

I see an immature intellectual snobbery streak in liberalism, in america at least. Or maybe I just read too many digg comments even though I know what I'm going to get.

"I'm an atheist, religion is the opiate of the masses"
"You might be a redneck if...you watch nascar and drink domestic pisswater instead of heineken"
"Evolution is fact, idiots deny it"

Ok, you seem to have got some very basics wrong. Evolution is not a fact, and no one with even a moderate education would claim so. It is a theory.

Sure, it is the best one we have at the moment, and the theory includes a lot of facts. But it is still a theory.

As someone said earlier in the thread, many people are pleased with themselves for their superiority while actually not knowing much about the subjects.

Agreed, many atheists just follow the general agenda without thinking. Much like people in the past followed the general christian agenda without thinking. However, as science gets more and more advanced, less and less people feel comfortable following the christian agenda as they get ridiculed. So the mainstream choose the safe haven of science, where if you get laughed at, at least you have the majority and scientists on your side, instead of priests in funny looking clothes and a very out dated collection of books.

So what if someone is a creationist. If they are arrogant and self righteous enough to demand that it's taught in science class, then the problem is that they are arrogant and self righteous.

I agree. Would be much better to have christian schools teaching creationism and stuff... Kind of a Darwinistic approach to education, to let them get taught that and then see how well they do in the modern society, getting a job and a partner.

Would probably be the best and fastest way to minimize religion, only, the victims would be children not knowing better, so isnt really cool

[Papewaio]

Yes...?
"You might be a redneck if...you watch nascar and drink domestic pisswater instead of heineken"

Yes substituting domestic pisswater for foreign pisswater isn't always the best.

How about the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the foundation and being upset about the fruits?

"Oh no, my apple tree grew apples!"

The foundation for an apple tree is very rarely actually an apple tree. They are far more commonly grafted onto another tree. As such the foundation and the fruit are separate...

[Louis VI the Fat]

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different.

Ah, and therein lies the rub.

Rather than fruitless attempts to undermine evolution with pseudo-science, the creationists have a better answer to allegations of 'idiocy'. Namely, that evolution has still not been fully adopted into the thought of evolutionists either. Not in philosophy, in humanities, in science, in how we conceive of ourselves.
The 'created man, 'man is special' line of thought still prevails. As does the notion that life, nature, physics, existence has a goal.


When I 'fall in love', I realise and accept what modern science teaches: it is just a chemical in my brain, stimulated by scents, sights etc.
But..it is also more than just a chemical to me. Being in love means a whole thought world of literature, poetry, romantic. I willfully see the world, experience my love, from this literary perspective.

The same holds true for religion and science. One can believe man descended from apes, was not created. Yet still see man as something else too, as more than an ape. To see man, to conceive of oneself, within a framework of other, older, narratives, in the perspective of the heritage of the exploration of man in religion, literature, myth and philosophy.

Both creationists and evolutionists see man in pretty much the same manner. From the perspective of the same literary narratives. The difference isn't all that great. This shows that creationists are not necessarily idiots, no more so than evolutionists.


To be vague, for I am distinctly lacking in philosophical jargon, English vocabulary, or clarity of thought:
an apple is at once green, a fruit, food, property, sacred, delicious, a means of reproduction. All of that and much more. What matters it what it is in which perspective. Subjective an objective are not clearly separated. 'Delicious' could be taken to be subjective. Yet the biologist will say it objectively tastes good because that is a function of its reproductive means. 'Sacred' could be taken to be subjective too, or even wrong. Yet, the biologist might say that to those who depend on apples for food this strategy is objectively beneficial to ensure their survival.
Likewise, man can be described as a lump of cells, or as endowed with a soul, or sacred, an organising means for micro-organisms who are really in charge, noble, a compagnon, a bastard, a bastard again, that is, born out of wedlock or of disagreebale character, or an infinite other things. The one does not exclude the other. Man can have a soul and be descended from apes. Evolutionists are still rather more close the the former than to the latter in their thought.

The Bible should not be taken literally, but literary. In much the same fashion, much secular thought is literary, much closer to magical thinking than many expect. The true evolutionist will mate with a partner to ensure offspring. But most people will mate because they love the other, have romantic ideas, projections, passions that are not seen as a mere biological function, but as part of a literary 'magical world'. All of which is altogether much closer to assuming the loved one is a person endowed with a soul than people care to admit.

*grabs another pint and goes off to post other confusing pseudophilosophy elsewhere*

[Strike For The South]

Don't worry guys I'm a (new) biology major I'll have answers in a few years.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ah, and therein lies the rub.

Rather than fruitless attempts to undermine evolution with pseudo-science, the creationists have a better answer to allegations of 'idiocy'. Namely, that evolution has still not been fully adopted into the thought of evolutionists either. Not in philosophy, in humanities, in science, in how we conceive of ourselves.
The 'created man, 'man is special' line of thought still prevails. As does the notion that life, nature, physics, existence has a goal.


When I 'fall in love', I realise and accept what modern science teaches: it is just a chemical in my brain, stimulated by scents, sights etc.
But..it is also more than just a chemical to me. Being in love means a whole thought world of literature, poetry, romantic. I willfully see the world, experience my love, from this literary perspective.

The same holds true for religion and science. One can believe man descended from apes, was not created. Yet still see man as something else too, as more than an ape. To see man, to conceive of oneself, within a framework of other, older, narratives, in the perspective of the heritage of the exploration of man in religion, literature, myth and philosophy.

Both creationists and evolutionists see man in pretty much the same manner. From the perspective of the same literary narratives. The difference isn't all that great. This shows that creationists are not necessarily idiots, no more so than evolutionists.


To be vague, for I am distinctly lacking in philosophical jargon, English vocabulary, or clarity of thought:
an apple is at once green, a fruit, food, property, sacred, delicious, a means of reproduction. All of that and much more. What matters it what it is in which perspective. Subjective an objective are not clearly separated. 'Delicious' could be taken to be subjective. Yet the biologist will say it objectively tastes good because that is a function of its reproductive means. 'Sacred' could be taken to be subjective too, or even wrong. Yet, the biologist might say that to those who depend on apples for food this strategy is objectively beneficial to ensure their survival.
Likewise, man can be described as a lump of cells, or as endowed with a soul, or sacred, an organising means for micro-organisms who are really in charge, noble, a compagnon, a bastard, a bastard again, that is, born out of wedlock or of disagreebale character, or an infinite other things. The one does not exclude the other. Man can have a soul and be descended from apes. Evolutionists are still rather more close the the former than to the latter in their thought.

The Bible should not be taken literally, but literary. In much the same fashion, much secular thought is literary, much closer to magical thinking than many expect. The true evolutionist will mate with a partner to ensure offspring. But most people will mate because they love the other, have romantic ideas, projections, passions that are not seen as a mere biological function, but as part of a literary 'magical world'. All of which is altogether much closer to assuming the loved one is a person endowed with a soul than people care to admit.

*grabs another pint and goes off to post other confusing pseudophilosophy elsewhere*

Merci, Louis. Le meilleur encore.


I wish half of my fellow English speakers could post at this quality level in their native language. That you do it in your second speaks well of you.

[drone]

I love how a thread about the rejection of the theory of evolution in Islamic countries turned very quickly into a Christian fundie laugh fest.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm. It's the foundation of all modern biology. Do you like going to the doctor and not getting a mercury poultice or a leeching? Thank evolution. Do you like your ibuprofen or acetaminophen? Thank evolution. Sheesh, do you like having selective breeding with horses, dogs, and every grain we eat? Thank evolution.

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different.

There. Does that make you happy?

Please less invective, I had an argument with a Norwegian friend about "Objective truth" yesterday which resulted in him telling me to do something untoward with my "Christian worldview."

People get upset when I tell them I can slaughter a sheep, and can describe the process in detail, but they still eat chops. You don't need to believe in evolution unless you are a biologist, just like you don't need to believe in the Big Bang or Quantom Theory unless you are a physicist.

[Beskar]

There are important facts that everyone keeps forgetting in this debate.

While evolution seems to explain most things most accurately, and there is evidence all around us of this occuring. End of the day, it is a theory based on availible information and what are deemed facts/evidence to support this claim. End of the day, this theory is not absolute, and would get replaced when sufficient understand causes it too.


Creationism on the otherhand, is an absolute belief which is not wrong or cannot be wrong, that invisible being or beings created everything from nothingness simply into existence at the mere existence of their thought. It is not based on evidence, facts or a colloboration of various things. It is infact, believed solely on a text which originated from a text where there were 7 different versions of creation, with this one being taken as the 'right and absolute one', because they believe everything written by man about this said invisible being.


Now, look at this carefully. Evolution might not be the end answer, but it doesn't claim to be, though it is one of the best we came up so far to explain everything. Creationism is an absolute answer based solely on the word of some one who just wrote down on a piece of papyrus or lamb skin from a time long forgotten.


The reason Creationism is foolish, is because regardless of facts, evidence, or understanding, they just ignore it. They don't attempt to be understanding or even try to, they see it as a threat to their ingrained religious dogma. The issue is not whether or not evolution is the answer, arguably, it is not even whether or not creationism is either. It is the argument of understanding and attempting to understand the world around us.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are important facts that everyone keeps forgetting in this debate.

While evolution seems to explain most things most accurately, and there is evidence all around us of this occuring. End of the day, it is a theory based on availible information and what are deemed facts/evidence to support this claim. End of the day, this theory is not absolute, and would get replaced when sufficient understand causes it too.


Creationism on the otherhand, is an absolute belief which is not wrong or cannot be wrong, that invisible being or beings created everything from nothingness simply into existence at the mere existence of their thought. It is not based on evidence, facts or a colloboration of various things. It is infact, believed solely on a text which originated from a text where there were 7 different versions of creation, with this one being taken as the 'right and absolute one', because they believe everything written by man about this said invisible being.

Creationism, I think, is the work of unimaginative religionists. It is dogmatic thinking, that does nothing to further either scienctific or theological debate alike.

For sheer annoying power, little beats the Sunday school trained pseudo-biologist with an internet site and exited presentations of how the eye couldn't have evolved, how the Flood explains geological events, and how Noah could've stored all those dinosaurs in his ark by not taking massive adults aboard but just the eggs.

Only to then insist this must be taught at schools. (Few ever want the 'controversy' over astrology to be taught in science class).



Now you've got a reply to your post!

[Samurai Waki]

^ I feel like I don't even need to contribute after Louis's Posts.

At the end of the day, it's essentially two separate entities intruding on one another's respective territory. If Creationists could keep their argument in the land of religion, and evolutionists keep their argument in the land of Science, I hardly see what difference it could make.

[Lemur]

You don't need to believe in evolution unless you are a biologist, just like you don't need to believe in the Big Bang or Quantom Theory unless you are a physicist.

Hmm, well, nobody needs to believe anything in particular. It's just a question of being functional, and dealing with the real world as effectively as possible. You can certainly live a long, healthy and productive life while believing in Young Earth creationism, but you're right, best not to get involved in medicine, bacteriology, pharmacology, nursing or any field that derives from modern biology.

However, you'd have to admit that there's a certain cognitive dissonance in accepting the fruits of modern biology while denying its foundation. That antibiotic that you gave your kid to help with his ear infection? It wouldn't exist without the theory of evolution. Greg Mendel and Chuck Darwin say, "You're welcome!"

[Louis VI the Fat]

one of them believed she was destined to give birth to the savior of the planet in 2012

Haha! Stupid fundies.

It is I who'll save the planet in 2012, not some baby.


---------

Hmmm...on second thought, it does improve your chances of getting some in 2011. I must keep an eye out. Maybe hang out more in New Age clubs by then.

[Viking]

Haha! Stupid fundies.

It is I who'll save the planet in 2012, not some baby.


---------

Hmmm...on second thought, it does improve your chances of getting some in 2011. I must keep an eye out. Maybe hang out more in New Age clubs by then.

No need to wait until 2011, start faking you spirituality today.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Evolve some balls and post it.

Where the hell did that come from?

Don't worry, that's just Dave being charming. No offense intended, I'm sure. I think he likes you.

[Devastatin Dave]

Don't worry, that's just Dave being charming. No offense intended, I'm sure. I think he likes you.

If someone comes in here and says a large segment of the world's population is suffering from "idiocy" but doesn't fully explain thier position, regardless of they say its a "rant" they need to have their habitat adjust in a way for their scrotum to turn into a testical holding organ. I don't believe in evolution, not because I'm a creationist, but because their are as many holes in the theory as a brothel in Amstradam. If someone wants to show off to an international forum about how "enlightened" he is compared to us knuckle dragging neanderthals that want bend to his beliefs, bring forth thy nutz and speaketh upon thine flock.

and yes, I like the new guy.

[Fisherking]

To a cretin extent Dave is right...

There are examples of micro evolution but we have no firm evidence of macro evolution.

Believing either in evolution or what ever is an act of faith.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Catholics almost universally agree that evolution sounds like a solid micro-explanation of God's creation in relation to the spiritual macro-explanation contained in the Bible. I truly don't see what the hold up is here with our proddie neighbors.

[Beskar]

Creationism is pretty dumb, unless you are going to argue like the Sumerians did, that aliens came down and had sex with female apes, and the hybrid resulted in Homospiens.

[gaelic cowboy]

Creationism is pretty dumb, unless you are going to argue like the Sumerians did, that aliens came down and had sex with female apes, and the hybrid resulted in Homospiens.

Cool that probaly means that the phrase get your hands off me you dam dirty ape was uttered in ancient sumer

[Beskar]

Cool that probaly means that the phrase get your hands off me you dam dirty ape was uttered in ancient sumer

Sort of the otherway round. Even though they were vastly old, they believed that gods came from another world and had sex with female of the species for whatever reason, thus giving birth to Homosapiens. Because of this mingling, it is argued this caused the big evolutionary jumps which biologists find hard to explain, because of receiving certain genetic information.

If this sounds too confusing, I will put it this way. Do you remember the final of Battlestar Galatica? Think of it like that. (this will get Lemur at least. knowing what I am on about)

Pretty impressive from a religion from 4000 odd BC.