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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

Someone said that was the result for britain earlier, I don't know what the real number is.

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!

"At first I thought that the only people who didn't believe in evolution were a very small handful of Protestants in the southern USA. I thought that this was just another one of those issues for which people in Europe laugh at us. I was a fool; idiocy respects no borders.

...

it's understandable that some vainglorious fools would be ignorant of science."

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?

If you believe in evolution, you should not be surprised at the resulting human psyche. An aptitude for religious and irrational beliefs evolved in us.

Don't you think it's odd that the people who make the biggest fuss about evolution seem ignorant of the fact that our minds evolved?

I think the "Oh no, my apple tree grew apples" comment conveyed that quite clearly

Times like this, I wonder why I actually do serious posts and why don't I just post "bollox" in reply to every post to anyone I disagree with.

Quote someone and add "You're wrong because:" to the beginning of your post.

[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.

[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.

[Beskar]

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.

It plays perfectly into this territory. The nations of Science and Religion are at war over the minds (+souls) of people, for their valuable resources and to institute control.

[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

[Ironside]

If you believe in evolution, you should not be surprised at the resulting human psyche. An aptitude for religious and irrational beliefs evolved in us.

Don't you think it's odd that the people who make the biggest fuss about evolution seem ignorant of the fact that our minds evolved?

I think the "Oh no, my apple tree grew apples" comment conveyed that quite clearly

Evolution is also infamous for its dead ends. And with changes in what's evolutionary benefical.


Personally I'm a bit towards the other direction and finds it very benefical to view all systems as evolutionary systems.

[CBR]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

[Mooks]

Bah! That's not real debating. I could just as easily go to a fundamentalist site and get a few facts and quasi-theories and through them around with some Dawkinesque guy doing the same. How many people having these atheist v fundamentalist (which is what they are usually about) flame wars on the magical world of the internet actually have a solid, well-rounded understanding of the theory of evolution, as opposed to just shouting some facts that prove how right they are?

Fun fact though, if you actually go to Richard Dawkins official website, your be corrected quick on any arguments you have against evolution. Theyre not kidding over there with science.

[Aemilius Paulus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

Ugh, thank you, it seems that every other day in the Backroom I have to explain to people that the scientific definition of a theory is nearly opposite of the popular definition...



In other news, addressing the original thread title, the disbelief of evolution is rising in the US, with only 39% stating directly "they believe in evolution" (this would answer your question, Lemur). Quite embarrassingly so, and ever more farcically, all the Christian/creationist sites are mentioning this with glee, while I guffaw, since all they succeed in doing is persuading me that Americans are stupider than I previously gave them credit for... (my apologies to all the Americans here - I am not big on stereotyping Americans in the popular manner, but c'mon, with such statistics, how is it possible to refrain from making such a statement?)

This is the official Gallup article. Read it. It has a score of other polls on the topic of creationism vs. evolution. The big worry in the article is the fact that only 29% of the evolution non-believers can tie the name "Charles Darwin" to the concept "evolution". The other 71% have no idea what link the name "Charles Darwin" has to evolution. Basically, they have no idea who Charles Darwin was. Therefore, they do not even understand the basic concepts of the theory they (at times) so vehemently reject. That is the worst type of denial: ignorant denial. They are stupid and ignorant. It is one thing to reject a common scientific fact, and another thing to reject it, without actually understanding it.

And such ignorance is common. Jesus Christ, if I had as little as a the defunct half-pence for every time I heard "yeah, well, I do not believe we descended from monkeys" I would be richer than Warren Buffet+Bill Gates... It is literally the most common phrase an American utter upon hearing 'evolution'. Unless I am mistaken, even some of the Backroomers here said that. WRONG. Evolution does not say that, get it right!

[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.

[Centurion1]

^ Yeah its going to happen whenever the word Evolution and well thats about all you need..........

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

Its OK to bash Christians and mock them. We all know what happens when you mock the religion of peace.

[drone]

Its OK to bash Christians and mock them. We all know what happens when you mock the religion of peace.

I'm beginning to think Fragony is right...

[Samurai Waki]

Its OK to bash Christians and mock them. We all know what happens when you mock the religion of peace.

they start a colony in guyana?

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

Well, religion as religion....

Does it matter if you throw logical thinking out the window because of God, Allah or The Pink Invisible Unicorn?

The exact name and characteristis of the superstition is not really the point.

The big question is how horrible it is that, at this modern day and age, we still have a large part of the worlds population who still have a medieval world view

[Strike For The South]

Well, religion as religion....

Does it matter if you throw logical thinking out the window because of God, Allah or The Pink Invisible Unicorn?

The exact name and characteristis of the superstition is not really the point.

The big question is how horrible it is that, at this modern day and age, we still have a large part of the worlds population who still have amedieval world view

My views certianly aren't medieval nor are my veiws any buisness of yours unless I make them so.

So NAH

[Kadagar_AV]

SFTS, I didnt know you were anto-evolution?

I believed you were one of the modern christians who somehow make god and evolution go hand in hand...

and as to:

my veiws any buisness of yours unless I make them so

Have I in any way said otherwise?

[Strike For The South]

SFTS, I didnt know you were anto-evolution?

I believed you were one of the modern christians who somehow make god and evolution go hand in hand...
?

Considering I'm a biology major, it would be diffucult to be anti--evo

And to answer your question I do not find Christianity and Evo to be mutually exclusive.

[Kadagar_AV]

Considering I'm a biology major, it would be diffucult to be anti--evo

And to answer your question I do not find Christianity and Evo to be mutually exclusive.

So... Uh... Remind me of what in my post you were arguing against?

[Strike For The South]

So... Uh... Remind me of what in my post you were arguing against?

I just like making your e-life difficult.

[Kadagar_AV]

I just like making your e-life difficult.

Well, as long as you come out of it without looking silly...

[Viking]

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.

Islamic ID/disbelief in evolution has very little influence in the western world. As such, few here is going to know to much about it; and has thus naturally little to contribute with.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

There's no real disagreement about the islamic countries being fundamentalist, and the OP didn't exactly dwell on it.

Besides, saying bad things about islam sounds xenophobic even when it isn't, and that's one of the main "liberal sins".

[Ironside]

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.

Indeed, the thread was moving completely fine with a general religious fundie laugh fest, until some boring christians came with "I don't belive in evolution" followed up with "I'm christian and belive in evolution and there's no conflict between religion and evolution".

Short summary. The acceptance of evolution depends a lot on education and the acceptance of the idea of that humanity is not that special (something that Louis already decribed is hard to accept for anyone). Any religious belif humanity as Gods chosen will then have a tendency be used as an enforcer to maintain the idea of humanitys chosen uniqueness.

Now, this is fitting on both muslim and christian countries and since our resident muslims have been silent on the matter and our christians have already braught the subject up involving christianity, it's a natural development of this particular thread. Keeping focus purely on muslims would've killed the thread already due to lack of new input.

Now, I would like DD mention some of those holes in Amstradam's brothels and in particular how they disprove evolution.

[Kadagar_AV]

I find this a beautiful thought...

Somewhere in the world, at this very time, a scientist is working on his minds full capacity to further humanitys knowledge one more step.

At the same time, a priest (or imam, or whatever) is telling people about a very very old book.



We don't have enough fundamentalists on this board... We only have Zain, and he doesnt put up much of a fight.

The rest are just religious pickers, pick this, leave that...

Can someone invite a true fundie? It would further the discussion...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I find this a beautiful thought...

Somewhere in the world, at this very time, a scientist is working on his minds full capacity to further humanitys knowledge one more step.

At the same time, a priest (or imam, or whatever) is telling people about a very very old book.

Knowledge vs Wisdom?

[Centurion1]

its is very logical to be able to accept evolution and Christianity.....