Doing the head counts on who accept evolution...

[loverofhumanity]

I want a little statistics on the number of people who belong to religions, are either theistic and non-theistic type, and accept evolution as the explanation that explain biodiversity, natural selection and mutations (or any other evolutionary mechanisms).

This statistics will show to the creationists that they shouldn't generalised evolution are only accepted by atheists and agnostics.

So this poll is not for non-religious atheists or agnostics. So I would ask atheists to refrain from voting. They can, of course, talk about the results.

I'm a Baha'i and we accept some of both. We accept evolution but parallel evolution so we were never an ape and we also accept that God created evolution but not that we were created in 7 days as we believe that is more a metaphor than an actual seven days.

 

[Deeje]

The evidence is so overwhelming for the basic ToE that no serious scientist questions its basic validity today.

And that is the point, is it not? "No serious scientist questions its basic validity" because that is what science teaches and students and teachers alike assume that it must be true. If you don't accept it, there is ridicule and humiliation. Peer pressure works....and not just with teenagers.

In my anthropology course, the problem I had was deciding which material I couldn't cover because of not having enough time. IOW, the evidence is that immense plus more.

It isn't a shortage of information that is the problem....we are drowning in it! But if the presumption is that evolution is a fact and not just a theory, then everything written is based on a pre-conceived idea, rather than on provable facts. If the original premise is false, then all conclusions thereafter will be false as well, no matter how convincing they sound or how much material is written to support it.

OTOH, even though I honestly wish it weren't so, there simply is no objectively-derived evidence for "intelligent design".

Are you surprised that we humans cannot quantify a power such as the Creator possesses? Objectivity is not what is used to determine his existence.....we have five God-given senses to do that....and an intelligence that is reflective of his to a limited extent. Sometimes humans get carried away with that limited intelligence and assume that they know way more than they actually do. Its what human egos are prone to do.

However, I certainly am not going so far on this to assume that there cannot be an "intelligent designer(s)". [maybe check out my signature statement at the bottom of my posts to see where I'm coming from on this]

It is good not to close our minds on the possibility of his existence. Because in this time period, according to the Bible, there is a separating work going on among us humans. There is also a separating among the separated to ascertain who will be worthy to keep living to enjoy what the Creator has in store for this earth and beyond.....obviously that falls into the category of "believe it or not". He forces no one to believe in him.

BTW, thanks so much for the ad-block link as it really has helped out a lot!

Its working beautifully for me too. No more frozen screen and slow loading. Flash Player is the culprit. If the advertisers just had still ads instead of a lot of little videos playing simultaneously, it wouldn't be so bad. Glad I could help.

 

[Deeje]

The topic is biology thus biologists can review it and for the majority have rejected ID. Try again. Evolutionist is not a discipline, it is a label for one view within the greater scope of biology.

If biology is reviewed by other biologists, who by and large accept evolution as an established fact, then who can be counted on for an unbiased opinion? Someone who opts for ID when the proof is right under our noses every day, will be ridiculed as an uneducated moron. What public school or University allows ID to be even mentioned?

IMO evolution is a belief just as ID is a belief, because there is nothing but conjecture to support evolution and nothing but faith in the visible creation to support ID.

Science suggests what might have happened....but there is no "evidence" that conclusively proves any of it.

 

[Shad]

If biology is reviewed by other biologists, who by and large accept evolution as an established fact, then who can be counted on for an unbiased opinion?

Accepting evolution does not make them biased, its makes them competent biologists.

Someone who opts for ID when the proof is right under our noses every day, will be ridiculed as an uneducated moron.

Behe in the Dover Trial was never ridiculed. His arguments, and those of ID, were shown to be unscientific.

What public school or University allows ID to be even mentioned?

Some Christian and public schools with Christian board members have attempted to place ID into schools. However the same problems comes out. ID is not science.

IMO evolution is a belief just as ID is a belief, because there is nothing but conjecture to support evolution and nothing but faith in the visible creation to support ID.

Your opinion is wrong. One is a scientific idea with evidence to back it up. The other, ID, is a religious view worded in a way to make it sound like it is science when it is not nor does it have evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

Science suggests what might have happened....but there is no "evidence" that conclusively proves any of it.

If you had actually taken a course in biology it would have provided you examples of just what you are asking for. One type of flower in Washington state has branched off into two new species. Sorry I forgot the name as this was an example in a textbook from years ago.

 

[Deeje]

Accepting evolution does not make them biased, its makes them competent biologists.

In whose opinion are they competent? Other scientists? LOL Peer review again? Fan club anyone?

Behe in the Dover Trial was never ridiculed. His arguments, and those of ID, were shown to be unscientific.

"Unscientific" is another word for "rubbish" in the scientific community. Being accused of promoting things that are "unscientific" is designed to achieve humiliation. But the fact that YEC was advocated as the alternative, speaks for itself. I am not an advocate for YEC at all.

I believe that balance is required and for the creation story to be told within the limits of what the Bible says and what science knows. There is a meeting point that most people have not considered.

Some Christian and public schools with Christian board members have attempted to place ID into schools. However the same problems comes out. ID is not science.

Not everyone can afford to send their children to private or "Christian" schools. Many of these teach evolution anyway.
ID can be presented scientifically. Where the Bible touches on areas of science it is accurate. The Genesis account is very accurate if it is taught correctly. The creative periods were not 24 hour days. The opening verse in Genesis could have taken place billions of years ago. ID is not rubbish just because science says its unscientific. If explored to the same degree as evolution instead of being dismissed as myth, it becomes quite reasonable as an explanation to many....blind faith plays little part in it.

Your opinion is wrong. One is a scientific idea with evidence to back it up. The other, ID, is a religious view worded in a way to make it sound like it is science when it is not nor does it have evidence that can stand up to scrutiny.

Evolution assumes a lot with very little in the way of actual evidence. It make-believes it is science fact, when in reality most of it is science fiction, especially when it comes to interpreting the findings of ancient creatures long extinct. Without the suggestions accompanying the diagrams and graphics, there would not be much at all. There are a lot of different creatures that once existed, but no one can say with any certainty that they evolved from one another. That is pure guesswork. An assumption is not a fact.

If you had actually taken a course in biology it would have provided you examples of just what you are asking for. One type of flower in Washington state has branched off into two new species. Sorry I forgot the name as this was an example in a textbook from years ago.

You seem to forget that I have no problem with adaptation because these are fairly minimal changes within species. The "kind" stays the same, no matter how many varieties are produced within it. Its when science starts to go beyond what it can actually prove that we run into the fiction. The two new species were still flowers.

 

[Shad]

In whose opinion are they competent? Other scientists? LOL Peer review again? Fan club anyone?

Competent as in they demonstrate an ability to comprehend methods of their field, evaluation of evidence using the field's standards and can make rational conclusions.

Peer review works more often than not. You are just upset that your religious view is rejected even when published by peer-review. Ironically IDers have been attempting to get into peer-review desperately for years.

"Unscientific" is another word for "rubbish" in the scientific community.

No. It just do not follow the criteria set. Art isn't scientific but hardly rubbish. Cry wolf more.

Being accused of promoting things that are "unscientific" is designed to achieve humiliation.

No accused of but admitted to in court by it's only academic supporter of note.

But the fact that YEC was advocated as the alternative, speaks for itself. I am not an advocate for YEC at all.

Which is based on the Bible and interpretation rather than science, at least in America.

I believe that balance is required and for the creation story to be told within the limits of what the Bible says and what science knows.

Your creation story isn't special. There are thousands of creation stories. Public education does not have the time nor resources to teach thousands of unverified creation stories let alone your unverified creation story.

There is a meeting point that most people have not considered.

No there was a meeting. Your side couldn't make it's case hence why it keeps being rejected in case and court.

Not everyone can afford to send their children to private or "Christian" schools. Many of these teach evolution anyway.

Which is correct as these schools should teach science not mythology. If these people can not afford a "school" that is their problem not mine not a government one.

ID can be presented scientifically.

Yet when attempted it was shown to be sophistry and admitted to.

Where the Bible touches on areas of science it is accurate.

Except Adam and Eve, bird's blood curing diseases, menstrual blood being unclean, the human life span.. etc. Accurate is not the right word here....

The Genesis account is very accurate if it is taught correctly. The creative periods were not 24 hour days. The opening verse in Genesis could have taken place billions of years ago. ID is not rubbish just because science says its unscientific. If explored to the same degree as evolution instead of being dismissed as myth, it becomes quite reasonable as an explanation to many....blind faith plays little part in it.

Which are fallacious points. Equivocation, moving the goal posts, ad hoc. All you do is change what the Bible means, like days, to align with science in an ad hoc manner. To call this reasonable is really a demonstration of being irrational and illogical.

Evolution assumes a lot with very little in the way of actual evidence.

Not it doesn't. Take a few biology courses that will explain how hypothesis regarding various mechanics are used to make prediction which aligns with the data we continually discover.

It make-believes it is science fact, when in reality most of it is science fiction, especially when it comes to interpreting the findings of ancient creatures long extinct.

No it doesn't, it creates reasonable explanations. It is religion which claims fact not science.

Without the suggestions accompanying the diagrams and graphics, there would not be much at all.

Pie charts too hard for you? You want everyone to be reduced to your low standard?

There are a lot of different creatures that once existed, but no one can say with any certainty that they evolved from one another. That is pure guesswork. An assumption is not a fact.

Strawman as science isn't about certainty, that is a religious claim. No it is based on probability and predictions. A guess is not.

You seem to forget that I have no problem with adaptation because these are fairly minimal changes within species.

Which is the typical creationist view of cherry picking from the mechanics they like, nothing more.

The "kind" stays the same, no matter how many varieties are produced within it.

Evidence demonstrates otherwise

Its when science starts to go beyond what it can actually prove that we run into the fiction.

Your misinformed opinion of what science is the problem.

The two new species were still flowers.

Still a new species which is something you reject as per your own comment. A flower isn't a species....

Typical creationist tripe in which you are demanding a flower produce a frog or whatever. This just shows you do not even understand basic taxonomy which is a grade 10/11 topic in biology....

 

[gnostic]

In whose opinion are they competent? Other scientists? LOL Peer review again? Fan club anyone?

Can I ask you what work you do for a living and what education you did to get that work?

If I was a bricklayer, you would expect me to have apprenticeship and the years of experiences in bricklaying. And the same would apply if I was plumber or electrician.

So my question is this, Deeje:

Would you contract me to build your house, if I don't have competency and experiences as a brick-layer? Would you hire me if my only work experiences was that I sell shoes or mobile phones?

No, you wouldn't.

So how is that different from getting another expert in biology to review works of that biologist?

Are you saying all these experience biologists all around the world, to be not competent?

You are being a fool, Deeje.

 

[metis]

Right. You don't have to assume the former, but you can if you want to. But my question was whether the OP was referring to the concept of evolution (which can included limited applications) or the evolution of man from whatever. Limiting the application of evolution is not a denial of the concept of evolution. Its a denial of the extent to which it occurred. So I can say that I believe evolution occurs - I don't deny evolution, but I don't believe that it has occurred to the degree that science claims it has.

W/O trying to set up an argument, can you explain what has led you to believe that evolution hasn't gone as far as what the scientific community has found evidence for? IOW, where has your information come from? Just curious, so I'll not respond back unless you have a question. .

 

[Tumah]

W/O trying to set up an argument, can you explain what has led you to believe that evolution hasn't gone as far as what the scientific community has found evidence for? IOW, where has your information come from? Just curious, so I'll not respond back unless you have a question. .

Religious literature.

 

[metis]

And that is the point, is it not? "No serious scientist questions its basic validity" because that is what science teaches and students and teachers alike assume that it must be true. If you don't accept it, there is ridicule and humiliation. Peer pressure works....and not just with teenagers.

That is not how science works. We simply don't assume anything, and if I write garbage, there will be many who will call me out on it, but I still would have the right to write garbage. There is no conspiracy theory on this, which is clearly evident if one reads the scientific literature. Fro example, look at copies of Scientific American, and note the letters to the editor near the beginning whereas scientists will cross-examine one another.

What you are doing is working from an assumption, and this assumption is that somehow the basic ToE necessitates an atheistic or agnostic approach, but it simply doesn't. In my Intro. to Anthropology class, I had to spend a minimum of an hour explaining the theology on this because so many students had been told that one could not accept the ToE and believe in the Bible. I also had to explain what the ToE doesn't say, namely whether there's a God or Gods or nada. Surveys I've seen in the past have it that most Christian theologians by an overwhelming margin accept the ToE as long as it's understood God is and was behind it all.

Again, thanks for the help on the adblocker thingy, and it indeed is working quite well.

 

[Deeje]

That is not how science works. We simply don't assume anything, and if I write garbage, there will be many who will call me out on it, but I still would have the right to write garbage. There is no conspiracy theory on this, which is clearly evident if one reads the scientific literature. Fro example, look at copies of Scientific American, and note the letters to the editor near the beginning whereas scientists will cross-examine one another.

I understand this, which is why I ask "if there is so much 'cross-examination' by those equally qualified...where then are the facts to be identified? If one has a right to write "garbage", who then determines which is really the garbage?
This is why I say, call your theory a theory....don't call it fact when nothing can really be proven?

What you are doing is working from an assumption, and this assumption is that somehow the basic ToE necessitates an atheistic or agnostic approach, but it simply doesn't. In my Intro. to Anthropology class, I had to spend a minimum of an hour explaining the theology on this because so many students had been told that one could not accept the ToE and believe in the Bible. I also had to explain what the ToE doesn't say, namely whether there's a God or Gods or nada.

I can see why (in America particularly) there was a need to promote compromise. The ToE and the Bible are NOT compatible....however science and the Bible are. There is middle ground that does not require compromise.....but you have to separate fact from supposition.

Surveys I've seen in the past have it that most Christian theologians by an overwhelming margin accept the ToE as long as it's understood God is and was behind it all.

I am not surprised by this, since compromise is seen in so many other areas of Christendom's teachings.

God created the "kinds" of living things we see on earth....and there are many variations and diversity within those "kinds". The Creation account does not allow for a process of evolution, though it does allow for adaptation, which remains within a "kind". God didn't merely provide the spark of life in a single celled organism and leave it to all transpire by itself. To promote that view whilst still professing to be a Christian is to underestimate the vast scope of the Creator's work and to undermine his creative genius. You cannot believe in God as the Creator of all things, and then throw his work under the bus as, undirected accidents. It is man who said he doesn't exist, but like evolution, it is not provable by scientific methods. God is beyond the scope of present human intelligence. Science cannot prove that he doesn't exist, and I cannot prove by human means that he does.

Again, thanks for the help on the adblocker thingy, and it indeed is working quite well.

Its the only thing that keeps me here. Back to normal.....

 

[metis]

I understand this, which is why I ask "if there is so much 'cross-examination' by those equally qualified...where then are the facts to be identified? If one has a right to write "garbage", who then determines which is really the garbage?
This is why I say, call your theory a theory....don't call it fact when nothing can really be proven?

We don't assume facts as we rely in evidence. If I say "X is a fact", it comes off as somehow being the end, whereas we actually operate on a continuous accumulation of evidence. IOW, we never assume anything is an absolute fact.

But that's not how religion works, so the entire process is different. Religion can assume things based on nothing but faith-- science can't and doesn't. I well know this since I've had feet in both camps for many decades.

But what I also do know is that the truth cannot be relative, so if there's a conflict between a religious point of view and the scientific evidence, one or both has to be wrong.

If we are not to use reason, what are we to use? If the scientific evidence says "X", but a religion says "not X but Y", then at least one of them has to be wrong. So, how can one tell?

The answer is to do the research, which again involves the use of reason through the accumulation and synthesizing of data, which involves the use of study and reasoning, which is the scientific approach, not the religious approach.

 

[Deeje]

We don't assume facts as we rely in evidence. If I say "X is a fact", it comes off as somehow being the end, whereas we actually operate on a continuous accumulation of evidence. IOW, we never assume anything is an absolute fact.

And here is where I find the conflict of reason and reality. Is the "evidence" really what science relies on? Or is it the interpretation of that "evidence" that is the crux of the whole problem? Relying on a "continuous accumulation of evidence" is to me, like piling up false conclusions based on a false premise to begin with. If your first premise is flawed, then everything you build on it will be equally flawed. Science cannot prove its first premise.....that all life came from a single celled organism that somehow magically sprang into life in the dim, dark past and evolved by chance into all the diversity of life that we see today.
You want fantasy....there it is.

But that's not how religion works, so the entire process is different. Religion can assume things based on nothing but faith-- science can't and doesn't. I well know this since I've had feet in both camps for many decades.

Science "assumes" much more IMO. Faith cannot be blind. It has to have something tangible to base that faith upon. Creation speaks of its designer and Maker in ways that science never can. It can be seen, heard and felt by even a child. The wonders of creation cannot be the product of blind forces, for the simple reason that everything we know in our own experience teaches us that all things exhibiting design require a designer. All life springs from pre-existing life....these are facts, not mere assumptions.

Bible prophesy is also amazing. It has been seen to be fulfilled thousands of years after it was written....long after its writer was gone. Daniel, for example, wrote his book over 2,500 years ago and he was told to seal it up because his prophesy would not be fulfilled until "the time of the end". We are seeing everything that Daniel wrote unfolding before our eyes. The stage is set for the greatest upheaval in the history of man.....can you not feel it? I think most people can. A drastic change is imminent...and not for the better. He spoke about a march of world powers ending with the present world rulers.
How did Daniel know what to write, because he had no understanding of anything he was told to record?

But what I also do know is that the truth cannot be relative, so if there's a conflict between a religious point of view and the scientific evidence, one or both has to be wrong.

Yes, and it is all in how you perceive one or the other. If we approach this subject on the merits of observable evidence, rather than on perceived conclusions based on biased thinking, perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.

If we are not to use reason, what are we to use? If the scientific evidence says "X", but a religion says "not X but Y", then at least one of them has to be wrong. So, how can one tell?

As beings created in the image of our Maker, we have deeper resources than mere mental acknowledgment of facts. We have qualities that separate us from every other being on this planet. Coming to terms with "who" God is, is more important than "what" God is. We simply cannot know what powers exist in the universe if they are beyond our present knowledge.
Placing God and angels and creation in the realms of myth and magic when they could be placed in the realm of real possibility if we just adjusted our attitude, would go a long way to bridging the divide.

The answer is to do the research, which again involves the use of reason through the accumulation and synthesizing of data, which involves the use of study and reasoning, which is the scientific approach, not the religious approach

The difficulty with research, particularly in scientific fields is, that most branches of science desire to prop one another up. Its a club.
The "facts" of real science are lost in the myths presented as scientific facts when they are nothing of the sort. There is not one conclusive shred of real evidence that organic evolution, as taught in every institution of learning, ever took place. This first premise colors everything that is built on it. So....what if that first premise is wrong, since it is assumed...but not proven? Don't you have to ask "why is it taught as fact, when it clearly isn't?" Why do scientists have trouble admitting that? Is it because it leaves the back door more open that what is comfortable for them?

 

[gnostic]

There is not one conclusive shred of real evidence that organic evolution, as taught in every institution of learning, ever took place.

Try viral disease control.

Viruses producing new strains of viruses that are resistant or immune to current vaccines or antibiotics are real evidences of Natural Selection and Mutation. Hence, evidences for evolution.

If you want evidences of something more than organisms, like viruses or bacteria, then try the bears of North America.

The bears in the south, in both Canada and the US, like brown bears and grizzly bears are different in number of ways to the polar bears further north, in the tundra and polar regions of Canada and Alaska.

The polar bear has more body fat, and their fur and hide are more suitable for the more colder climate, which even allow them to swim in icy seas and rivers. The color of their furs being white, is also suitable to hide among the ice and snow, and hunt seals or any other preys. Further, they hibernate in the winters, like their southern cousins.

So the polar bears are naturally suited for the polar region, because they have adapted to a much colder terrains, where there trees don't grow.

While the brown bears are more suitable temperate zones of rain forests in southern Canada and the US.

No evidences?! Phah!

In what little fantasy world you are living in, Deeje.

 

[YmirGF]

Happy resident mystic who comes down firmly on the side of the ToE. No supernatural agencies required.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

A polytheist who doesn't find any conflict between the stories of the Old Gods and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

[Deeje]

Try viral disease control.

Viruses producing new strains of viruses that are resistant or immune to current vaccines or antibiotics are real evidences of Natural Selection and Mutation. Hence, evidences for evolution.

LOL...the viruses remain viruses.....where is the evidence for evolution? I see only adaptation for self preservation. This was induced by the over prescribing of man made anti-biotics in the first place. Was science as clever as the mechanisms programmed into creation? I guess it thought it was.....

If you want evidences of something more than organisms, like viruses or bacteria, then try the bears of North America.

The bears in the south, in both Canada and the US, like brown bears and grizzly bears are different in number of ways to the polar bears further north, in the tundra and polar regions of Canada and Alaska.

The polar bear has more body fat, and their fur and hide are more suitable for the more colder climate, which even allow them to swim in icy seas and rivers. The color of their furs being white, is also suitable to hide among the ice and snow, and hunt seals or any other preys. Further, they hibernate in the winters, like their southern cousins.

So the polar bears are naturally suited for the polar region, because they have adapted to a much colder terrains, where there trees don't grow.

While the brown bears are more suitable temperate zones of rain forests in southern Canada and the US.

No evidences?! Phah!

Adaptation again. The bears are all still bears....are they not?

I have no issues with adaptation because I believe that the ability to adapt to a changing environment is programmed into all living things...even humans. Naturally dark skinned humans are usually located in hot sunny climates, whereas fair skinned people are often found in colder climates. Adaptation is evidence of intelligent design.

In what little fantasy world you are living in, Deeje.

Well one of us is in denial of reality...we will each have a different opinion on that score.

 

[Deeje]

Happy resident mystic who comes down firmly on the side of the ToE. No supernatural agencies required.

The "supernatural agency" knows when he is not wanted. He will not intrude on your chosen belief system....yet.

 

[Deeje]

A polytheist who doesn't find any conflict between the stories of the Old Gods and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

[gnostic]

LOL...the viruses remain viruses.....where is the evidence for evolution? I see only adaptation for self preservation. This was induced by the over prescribing of man made anti-biotics in the first place. Was science as clever as the mechanisms programmed into creation? I guess it thought it was.....

Adaptation again. The bears are all still bears....are they not?

I have no issues with adaptation because I believe that the ability to adapt to a changing environment is programmed into all living things...even humans. Naturally dark skinned humans are usually located in hot sunny climates, whereas fair skinned people are often found in colder climates. Adaptation is evidence of intelligent design.

Well one of us is in denial of reality...we will each have a different opinion on that score.

What do you think evolution (particularly Natural Selection) is all about?

It is about changes and adaptations.

Natural Selection is about changes occurring when the environment has changed; they either adapt or lead their future generations to extinction.

The polar bears are different species to the brown bears, grizzly bears and black bears. It is related to the brown bears, but the split or divergence of two species happened 400,000 years or more.

Adaptation is still evolution, and in this case, natural selection.