Gallup: Forty-Two Percent Of Americans Reject The Concept Of Evolution In Humans

sisteen chapel ceilingGallup has released a new poll that shows that Americans still reject the concept of evolution of humans in high numbers. Indeed, twice the number of Americans believe that humans were created by God in their current image than there are those who believe in natural evolution. Indeed, those 42 percent believe that man was created by God in the last 10,000 years. That is a considerable difference even if you focus only on anatomically modern humans which appeared in the Middle Paleolithic period about 200,000 years ago. For those who believe in the science behind evolution, the news is not all bad. Nineteen percent believe in evolution without divine involvement while another 31 percent believe that there was evolution from “less advanced forms of life” but that God directed that process. That is fifty percent. Of course, that does appear to leave eight percent that is still . . . well . . . evolving.

Creationism remains remarkably stable in our society despite the continuing discoveries of ancient bones and archeological sites. In 1982, the first such poll showed 44% believed in the theory.

Conversely, those people who believe in evolution has been growing but at a rate only Darwin would appreciate. Those accepting evolution has risen only ten percent from late 1999. When you look at church-attending Americans, the number believing in Darwinian evolution falls to only one out every 100 church goers.

However, the poll still shows that “the percentage of Americans who adhere to a strict secularist viewpoint — that humans evolved over time, with God having no part in this process — has doubled since 1999.”

What is striking is the situation with people with less than high school education– 57% believe in a creationist version of human origin while only 10% believe in an evolution without any divine intervention. The biggest change in numbers appears to come with higher education. Once at the college level, only 27% believe that God created humans in their current image while 41% accept Darwin’s theory of evolution of humans.

As we head into another presidential campaign, it will be interesting to see if this again becomes part of the debate as it did when three out of ten Republican candidates proclaimed their faith in creationism. It would seem that evolution remains a bright line division in our society.

As an academic, I find the rigidity of the faith in creationism remarkable given the continuing finds of modern human bones going back over a million years. However, it is the impact of higher education that is particularly fascinating. It is not surprising, given the views of their parents, that high schoolers would continue to hold firm on creationism. It is the extreme shift after exposure to college that seems to bring out the greatest change. Yet, that figure could be skewed in a type of self-selection (as opposed to natural selection) since the percentage of students who believe in evolution going to college may be higher. According to the government, “In October 2013, 65.9 percent of 2013 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities.” That leaves roughly 33 percent who would not be included in the poll sample from the high school pool. Thus, it is not clear what percentage of students actually shift from creationist to secular views of human evolution.

142 thoughts on “Gallup: Forty-Two Percent Of Americans Reject The Concept Of Evolution In Humans

  1. It is remarkable that so few believe in the science. Here’s my assumption; school districts are funded locally, for the most part, so they must adhere to the parent’s demands of avoiding the teaching of evolution (or other painful secular subjects such as geology, or God help us, man’s influence on climate!). Don’t pollute a young brain with science at such an early age! Once freed from the shackles of the conservative, parent driven drivel of the local school district, brains are allowed to expand in a post secondary environment. What’s the greatest fear of most religious fanatics? Secular education….

  2. It’s curious that what seems completely reasonable, accurate, sound, and rational to half of us, the other half, with similar information at hand, believe the exact opposite.

  3. I would sooner believe in the Heaven’s Gate nonsense that the Mothership trailed the Hale-Bopp Comet than believe in Creationism and yet Creationists no doubt regard the followers of Heaven’s Gate as wackos! Fact is, if one can believe in these delusions, one can believe in anything such as humans are not contributing to climate change and the academy of science is deliberating scamming the American people with their “findings.” Irrationality is the greatest obstacle to human progress.

  4. V838 Monocerotis Stellar Outburst Argument: Science or Supernatural

    In 2002, Scientists detected what appears to be a stellar outburst from a pair of stars locked in a cosmic tryst within a shared veil of gas, a find that marks the first discovery of a long-sought type of space eruption.

    The problem is in the gas cloud shape shifting events. 2005 and 2006 still photos at Hubble website shows something, NASA sees it, but won’t comment on.

  5. Perhaps the reason so many people are reluctant to accept the vast amount of “Scientific Evidence for Evolution is that there is no evidence.

    Evidence is something which can be used to SCIENTIFICLY PROVE something.

    We have fossils of Fish and we have fossils of salamanders but we have no(read that ZERO) fossils of any of the imagined species of transformation in between the two.

    We have the bones of several different species of prehistoric ape but all we have to suggest that these are human ancestors is supposition and guess work.

    What is so loosely called evidence is the imaginings of a mind; already convinced that evolution must be real because of their firm belief that creation in any form CAN not be true.

    I don’t know. I freely admit that I don’t know what exact process brought man here.
    I know what I believe but my beliefs are no more valid than yours because again; there is no evidence.

    Any claim otherwise is simply placing way too much faith in science; which is after all; still evolving. LOL

    It amazes me that after hundreds of years of scientists and the scientific method; demanding hard evidence; proof beyond a doubt; that we and scientists are so willing to accept what essentially amounts to a good story teller sitting down next to a pile of old trash and rubble and making up the story of how it came to be there.

    Could be Evolution is real I suppose. It is a good story if nothing else but; hard evidence? No Not there.
    We have a lot of evidence (hard fossil evidence) of Dinosaurs which were here before we were and while not as complete as we might wish; there is enough to prove they existed. But then no one is saying that Dinosaurs are direct human ancestors. I can accept a partial skeleton of a sixty foot long Dinosaur; fabricate what we think the missing pieces looked like based on ? Mostly guesswork but some science. I cannot however accept the scant fragments of skulls which are then fabricated the rest of the way to being called human or pre-human. Some of these skulls are as much as 80% fabrication. Some are more complete but there is no fossil record of one species “Evolving” into any other species. We just look at the world; say “Well, it couldn’t have been God” so “Hey it must have been “This way”.
    Not good science my friends. Not good science at all. The exploration of Evolution as a theory of how we came to be is fine and dandy but to rule out all other possibilities in favor of legitimizing a pet theory is wrong and lacks Scientific Integrity.

    Could be that the creation story is simply a simplified version of the story of how we came to be.
    Could be that our desire to dissect the details of that story, has not been as productive as we believe it has been and all we have is our own imaginings.

    Could be we humans think way too much of ourselves.

    WAY

  6. “in high school where 57% of students believe in the Old Testament version of human origin”

    Apparently some percentage of law bloggers don’t know how to read simple statistical tables. What the report says is that 57% of adults aged 18 and older with less than a high school education believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. (It’s questionable whether that’s actually the “Old Testament version of human origin”.)

  7. “it is the impact of higher education that is particularly fascinating”

    The impact of age cohort is also compelling: 28% of adults age 18-29 believe in a “Biblical” version of evolution, whereas 50% of those 65 and over do.

  8. This primarily as waste product of the evangelical movement

    In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces. Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

  9. Gallup has released a new poll that shows that Americans still reject the concept of evolution of humans …” – JT

    I wonder if that means they accept evolution of other species and/or the cosmos?

  10. Belief in an invisible man-in-the-sky that controls everything, or any other type of deity, is part of what I call the “Insanity of Humanity”. Ironically, whether one believes in a god, or many gods, or none, it is only a belief. In order to “know” a god exists or does not exist, one would have to be god in actuality. Once you thoroughly examine Humanity, though, it makes more sense to me to believe that Man created a god (many of them throughout history) in his own image than the other way around. It is a tool people use to control other people.

  11. Gilbert wrote: In order to “know” a god exists or does not exist, one would have to be god in actuality.

    You do realize what you have said, by showing your card first, is that you are god in actually? More insanity of humanity?

  12. What Technologies/Scientific advancements based on Evolution and the Big Bang theory should anti science creationist deniers not be using to avoid being hypocrites?

    GMOs?

  13. There was a guy on here a while back who had the best theology on the creation thing with the actual role of dog. Something about 8th Day God created Dog thing. Who was that and can someone explain it again.

  14. It continues to amaze positivist scientists that only 19% of the public believe them. This is what caused them in the mid 1980’s to begin a propaganda agenda to “educate” the public and put forth the tenuous authoritative statement that there is not a shred of evidence for creationism. The results of that effort has led to making the courts rule it illegal to teach the scientific aspects of creationism in public schools. Yet, even though only one view is allowed to be taught, people are still not buying it. The evidence is simply lacking, but the positivist mindset is too blind to acknowledge it.

    Professor, you attempt to combine the 39% who believe in theistic evolution with the 19% who believe in the scientific perspective of evolution. That is not really proper because scientists do not consider theistic evolution any more valid a hypothesis than young earth creationism. The scientific perspective of our origins, that no God was involved, is believed only by 19%. However, this statistic has doubled since 1999, so the censorship in education and the propaganda machinery to promote only the secular viewpoint is working. I suspect most of those converted, however, do not look closely at the facts.

  15. angrymanspeaks, brilliant! Like you, I don’t know one way or the other. But what I do know is that bacteria have never been able to evolve, much less adapt, to survive in, say, a jar of honey, yet the same bacteria can overcome the obstacles of antibiotics and even thrive. IOW, there is a natural law that allows an organism to overcome technology but not nature, itself. The same mechanism that prevents bacteria from surviving in honey, I think, is the same mechanism that prevents one species from evolving into another species. Until I see hard evidence, I can’t subscribe to the idea that one species evolved from, say, a marine animal into a mammal. As for statistics and demographics, it all boils down to the Kool Aid that we drink. If we all just stop drinking our Kool Aid, we have no other option but to dispense with condescension (that some of us are still evolving) and agree with angrymanspeaks!

  16. George wrote: “The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. Benjamin Franklin”

    George, this is a partial quote which really misleads people into mistakenly thinking that Ben Franklin was against faith, or that faith is contrary to reason.

    The full quote from Franklin is:
    “The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.”

    The comparison is that reason is like a candle that guides us when it is dark, but faith is like the morning daylight which more fully gives us insight. The meaning clearly depicts both faith and reason as lights which illuminate the mind.

  17. ” Indeed, those 42 percent believe that man was created by God in the last 10,000 years.”

    **********************

    Less than five years ago, 54 percent of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of Democrats said the human species evolved over time. Today, however, the share of Republicans adhering to modern theories of human evolution has dropped significantly – to 43 percent – while the number of Democrats has climbed to 67 percent, though within the sampling error range ….

    ~Christian Science Monitor (2013)

    Leading the charge to stupid? None other than the party thereof.( Kudos to Bobby Jindal.)

    Still researching the number of Republicans subscribing to the scientific “Stork-Human Birth Theory”…. Will advise.

  18. davidm:

    “a candle that guides us when it is dark, but faith is like the morning daylight which more fully gives us insight. ”

    ***********************

    There is not one answer to questions about the natural world that faith answers better than science. Not one. You may think “faith” gives you insight into the ethereal truth of the cosmos. If so, how can there be many faiths with directly conflicting tenets each claiming exclusive rights to such insight? The “truth” is that believing in things without good reason or without any reason at all places you more on the intellectual plane with the amoeba not the presumed (and unproven) Creator of All. You can believe whatever you want to believe — just don’t ask me to subscribe to your delusion.

  19. davidm wrote: “…so the censorship in education and the propaganda machinery to promote only the secular viewpoint is working.”

    So, that censorship is working so well means that those of us indoctrinated have no idea we’ve been indoctrinated? I was so inebriated from the punch bowl one time, I swore, kicked, and flailed my arms to everyone that I was not drunk.

  20. mespo,
    I was in the car listening to talk radio. It was a call-in show and the topic was evolution. Some guy called in, saying, “If they keep finding fossils of things they say lived a long time ago, so how come they ain’t making no fossils no more?

    He was so proud of himself, and the gloating could be heard in his voice. He thought he had put the matter of fossils away for good.

    All I could do was shake my head.

    I recall a case where a guy had killed his wife and another person, then buried them in his basement. At the time, the basement had a dirt floor, but he had poured a concrete slab to make a permanent floor. Years later, after he passed away, the house was being razed. When the diggers pulled up that slab, they found the bodies in an advanced stage of fossilization. Forensic experts were able to make a positive ID on the remains. He had claimed she ran off with another man, which accounted for her being missing all those years.

    The murderer? He got away with murder. Died without his crime ever being discovered. But….but….but, they ain’t makin’ fossils no more! Indeed.

  21. Chuck:

    “He was so proud of himself, and the gloating could be heard in his voice. He thought he had put the matter of fossils away for good.”

    ******************************

    Great story. Ignorance is bliss — or so it seems until the volcano erupts despite the human sacrifice.

  22. Mespo wrote: “We do have many transitional fossils.”

    You miss angryman’s point. This list of transitionals is not much better than what you can construct from listing currently living organisms as being transitional to other organisms still living. It is better only by virtue of the fact that there are more extinct species of organisms than living species. The Coelacanth is a good example of what scientists called a “transitional fossil” in the literature until it was found still living in 1938 in pretty much the same form as found in the fossil record. In the transition from reptiles to birds we get the famous Archaeopteryx, except more modern discoveries show fossils of birds to have already existed in strata considered older than Archaeopteryx. While some of this data is still contested because of incomplete fossils, it is clear that most scientists do not consider Archaeopteryx to be in the transitional lineage to modern birds. Rather, Archaeopteryx is similar to what is expected to be found based upon the theory. Even within your list of transitional fossils, did you notice the comment for Eusthenopteron? It says, “Though not on the evolutionary path to tetrapods, Eusthenopteron is of fairly general build and is very well known, serving as an iconic model organism in tetrapod evolution.” There are numerous examples like this, and most people just gloss over it not realizing that there is no data behind the theory. Scientists know that the general public who are neither biologists nor paleontologists will not investigate further into the details of the facts, but simply will trust that if the scientists are convinced of it, then that is enough for them. The public basically gives the scientists the same misguided trust that many gave the church five hundred years ago. It is knowledge based upon a reliance upon authority rather than an understanding based upon being convinced by the data.

  23. mespo, what mechanism, specifically, gives YOUR insight into the ethereal truth of the cosmos? And why is yours more valid? You do realize that science has gotten most things wrong at first try, and that much of science that is passed along as truth remains theory? And if we subscribe to theory, don’t we have to first have faith in such theory? The electronic theory of electricity, for example, is what it is — theory, but it doesn’t stop us from believing that the light comes on when we flip the switch on the wall. And in this vein, do we really know much of anything at all?

  24. I can’t reply to Mespo. WordPress just doesn’t pass my post along. I’ve cut the post shorter and shorter, but even a one sentence answer will not post. Strange.

  25. I also have a reply stuck in limbo. I’m wondering if it makes a difference to reply to a comment or to reply to the post?

  26. After being labeled as a racist by angrymanspeaks for my beliefs I find it amazing that I one, read his post and two, agree with him. I don’t know the truth on this one either.

    As a young geologist right out of college I worked for an environmental consulting company. My first supervisor (Also a geologist) was a literal interpreter of the Bible. I remember being floored by this since how could you get through that degree and believe the world was less than 10,000 years old? I had many fascinating conversation with this man and I can tell you this, he was no dummy and taught me many things. He could recite every hole in every theory. The thing that most don’t realize who believe in science is that behind any theory or hypothesis there is some core faith (Axioms). E=MC^2 only works if the speed of light is constant. Do you have faith in that? How can you prove it to me? And, as we are finding out, the speed of light might not be so constant.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/speed-of-light-constant-physicists_n_3175487.html
    Do any of you who believe in evolution know how radiocarbon dating even works and how many assumptions are made in an effort to make it work?

    It doesn’t surprise me at all that “educated” people take whatever is being taught hook line and sinker. Critical thinking is nowhere to be found in our schools. Hell, kids don’t even know how to take notes anymore.

    That said, I do not believe creationism should be taught in science class since it is not based on the scientific method. Could it be taught in a social class? Sure. Evolution is based on scientific study so even if it is wrong or needs to be tweaked, it should be taught as well as the assumptions being made. And since some brought up global warming, there is probably no better example of junk science than it.

  27. Jim22 wrote: “That said, I do not believe creationism should be taught in science class since it is not based on the scientific method.”

    Not so fast. There are different forms of creation research. Some forms are religious, being based upon texts considered inspired by the Creator. Other forms are based upon the scientific method (e.g., Gentry’s work with polonium halos). We should not lump all forms of creationism together. Doing so has caused a lot of the trouble between science and religion because scientists today are not trained in theology and do not understand the methods and procedures theologians take to arrive at their conclusions. Likewise, the theologians for the most part are ignorant of the scientific methods used to arrive at conclusions. Basically, the two fields speak different languages and understand each other about as well as the average American understands someone speaking Swahili.

    Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that even religious forms of creationism are subject to the scientific method if they make predictions of empirical data that can falsify the theory. For example, a religious theory of creationism that says the earth was created 10,000 years ago would be testable by science if science simply presents empirical evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Indeed, in this very article, Professor Turley discounts the young earth creationist viewpoint because he is aware that scientists have dated human remains to be millions of years old. He has basically used empirical evidence (the scientific method) to falsify a religious belief. That basically puts the religious theory in the realm of science, at least in so far as it can be tested by science.

    Moreover, if a religious theory of origins says that animals were all created after their kind and did not arise from other kinds of animals, scientists only need to present evidence such as fossils showing transitions between these kinds to falsify the theory. The Bible, for example, plainly states that birds were created the day before terrestrial animals were created. If science demonstrates that birds did not exist until after terrestrial animals, they will have falsified this religious theory of creation.

  28. Peer pressure is a powerful force. Most people will do anything if it means belonging to the tribe, even if it means going against judgement, conscience, or even against the rights of others. A prosecutor will abuse the system if it means winning and belonging to the establishment. A jury member will vote to convict because, well, everyone else on the jury is. A liberal will censor himself and join the evolution crowd because, well, anything less could mean as much as, god forbid, labeled a conservative or worse, ostracized. A Republican may be pro-life because, well, that’s what his constituents want him to be. Shouldn’t we all just have the freedom to believe in what we want to believe, without the burden of the tribe and, by extension, the consequences when we reuse to sell out our individuality and sovereignty?

  29. Samantha, you have come to an erroneous conclusion regarding my comment. To say that “it makes more sense to me to believe that Man created God in his own image rather than the other way around,” is a statement of belief, not a claim of knowledge. It makes no inference that I am a god of any sort. And just because a majority of society believes something, that does not necessarily make them right and the minority wrong. In the Land of the Blind, the sighted person would probably be considered insane. To me, what really matters is how people treat each other, regardless of their religious or political beliefs, and it is tragic that some of these beliefs have caused the tyranny and wars that have hurt and killed so many over all of history. That is the Insanity of Humanity.

  30. David, for some reason the spam filter caught those series of replies to Mark Esposito. I have restored the initial one having the most content.

    Folks, David’s comment is above at 2:29.

  31. samantha:

    “You do realize that science has gotten most things wrong at first try, and that much of science that is passed along as truth remains theory? And if we subscribe to theory, don’t we have to first have faith in such theory? The electronic theory of electricity, for example, is what it is — theory, but it doesn’t stop us from believing that the light comes on when we flip the switch on the wall. And in this vein, do we really know much of anything at all?”

    *************************

    Not sure if science got “most” things wrong at first or that merely it got bamboozled or intimidated by the prevailing “religion of peace” of the day (i.e. Galileo) but assuming that’s right, how does one explain that religions, after being proven dreadfully wrong, wrong-headed, and/or preposterous still adheres to those tenets with a fervor? Science, on the other hand, rewards its subscribers for proving something wrong and accepts new information. Religion asks you to accept everything it believes on blind faith and to disregard new information in deference to some cosmic truth it never defines. If you think that’s a preferable way to live so be it, but I suspect in no other aspect of your life do you accept things this way simply because your mamma told you so at age 5 or 6 or some guy in a black suit says a First Century book says it’s so.

    As to your “theory” argument you have to understand how science regards theory. Scientific Theory (as opposed to the typical lay person’s version of “theory as being something merely conjectural) is something that is accepted as true because it’s results are reproducible based on observation and testing. Gravity is a theory but try defying it without technology. You’ll soon see the truth coming at you at about 122 mph. Try producing and then reproducing the transubstantiation of the Eucharist or human parthenogenesis and you’ll see the difference.

  32. Thanks, Darren. I kept trying to break the message up into smaller chunks, because sometimes that’s how I get past the filter. Thank you for freeing only the first one with the most content.

  33. davidm:

    “You miss angryman’s point. ”

    **********************

    I quoted angryman’s point. He said there were “none.” I said they existed and gave a source for examples.

  34. I live in an extremely religious area with many fundamentalist christians who believe the earth is 4000 to 6000 year old. They are my friends and neighbours. What I do know from this experience is that these are people who have not had access to good educations. By this I mean, their educations have been limited not just in science and math but in every subject.

    Therefore, bible study means to open up the bible and read a passage, taking from this daily guidance in all matters. Bible study does not mean understanding the origins of the bible or biblical scholarship of any kind. That knowledge and discussion would be considered blasphemy.

    This is the part of fundamentalism that really worries me. When religions successfully clamp down on people’s ability to study certain subjects, to think certain ideas, to examine ideas from multiple perspectives, then that is a real problem. People’s intellect should not be stunted. Yet in fact, that is what is happening.

    We should be free to understand, think about, talk about and examine ideas. Yet religious fundamentalists shut down human curiosity and access to knowledge. That is something no religion has a right to require of followers.

  35. Gilbert, you did indeed say: In order to “know” a god exists or does not exist, one would have to be god in actuality.

    Translation: In order to know that God does not exist, one has to be God.

  36. Jill:

    “I live in an extremely religious area with many fundamentalist christians who believe the earth is 4000 to 6000 year old. They are my friends and neighbours. What I do know from this experience is that these are people who have not had access to good educations. By this I mean, their educations have been limited not just in science and math but in every subject.”

    *********************

    Add a whacked out religious zealot that these people think has some divine insight and you have the Taliban. That’s why fundamentalism is so insidious. You check your reasoning at the door. It’s the same for the know-nothing, don’t-want-to-know-nothing crowd regardless of ethnic or racial makeup.Karl Marx said religion of his day was the “opium of the people.” I say, in the wrong hands, it’s the PCP of the people now.

  37. samantha:

    You don’t have to disprove god not to believe in him or at least regard his existence as highly suspect. You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. It’s incumbent on he who asserts to prove. You want to assert it; then prove it.

  38. Thanks for retrieving my comments. does this happen only when you reply by e-mail or also when you visit the site to comment?

    On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:28 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:

    > samantha commented: “Sorry, mespo, I didn’t mean “mwsp.”” >

  39. mespo wrote: “You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. It’s incumbent on he who asserts to prove. You want to assert it; then prove it.”

    If a person is going to denigrate believers, then the burden of proof falls upon that person first to falsify the existence of God. I prefer Einstein’s perspective, that a humble approach is much better when a disproof cannot be offered.

    There often is a paradigm difference between the positivist like yourself and the theist. Your basis of proof is empirical, but the basis of proof for a theist might be entirely subjective. His argument is that if you do x, y, and z, then you will experience something internal that proves God’s existence. It doesn’t prove it to anyone but yourself. However, others like you might have had the same experience and can relate to you based upon your witness.

  40. davidm2575,

    To mespo:

    “You miss angryman’s point.
    **********************
    I quoted angryman’s point. He said there were ‘none.’ I said they existed and gave a source for examples.”

    ———————————————————

    angryman did state that there were no transitional fossils, yet there are many.

    If angryman doesn’t want to study the physiology suggested by the fossil record, this is, of course, his ignorant right. Yet, to claim none exists is the height of ignorant hubris.

    Of course the thought process of creationists don’t allow for evolutionary transitions of life-forms, so the perspective, and the argument is self-serving — is it not?

    How is your opus coming along?

  41. davidm2575,

    “If a person is going to denigrate believers, then the burden of proof falls upon that person first to falsify the existence of God. I prefer Einstein’s perspective, that a humble approach is much better when a disproof cannot be offered.”

    That’s a tall order that you suggest.

    The first half of your first sentence claims denigration of believers (without any specific reference to a belief) — and this ignores your likewise denigration of non-believers.

    Then you paraphrase Einstein.

    How is your opus coming along?

  42. Chuck wrote: “… to claim none exists is the height of ignorant hubris.”

    He said there was a lack of fossil evidence showing the transition from fish to salamander. This clearly is spoken by someone who has taken the time to look at the evidence. It is your assertion that such evidence exists that is the height of ignorant hubris. Go ahead and prove me wrong. All you have to do is identify the fish species along with all the transitional species that led to any salamander species that you like. When you try to do this exercise, you will suddenly realize the paucity of data makes the exercise impossible. At that point you will be forced to agree with angrymanspeaks on this subject.

  43. Chuck wrote: “… this ignores your likewise denigration of non-believers.”

    Why would you think that I denigrate non-believers? I have a healthy respect for the skeptical mind, but not much patience for religious people, which is why I am not religious. However, I also have a healthy disrespect toward atheists because I have come to the conclusion that they are presumptuous to assert that there was no creator.

  44. “Translation: In order to know that God does not exist, one has to be God.”

    Samantha, I see your point. That is a logical paradox. But I stand by the other half of the statement, that in order to KNOW a God exists, one would have to be God. The same would be true of any individual. One could use “I think, therefore I am,” as a philosophical proof of one’s own existence. And under certain circumstances, one could reach out and touch someone else to try to prove the other person exists physically. But the existence of one or more invisible gods cannot be proved or disproved logically or physically. My point is that this is something that cannot be known. It is merely a belief, either way.

    (I believe you exist, because you reply to my statements. But that is just my “theory” for now. :-))

  45. davidm2575,

    “He said there was a lack of fossil evidence . . .”

    He said there was none.

    “This clearly is spoken by someone who has taken the time to look at the evidence.”

    Yeah, sure; it’s very clear. I’m sure angryman has spent many decades, “looking at the evidence,” and understanding a vast realm of knowledge.

    “It is your assertion that such evidence exists that is the height of ignorant hubris. Go ahead and prove me wrong.”

    No one can prove you wrong, davidm2575, because you have a theological agenda for a theocratic goal.

  46. davidm2575,

    “Why would you think that I denigrate non-believers? I have a healthy respect for the skeptical mind . . .”

    There is a difference.

  47. davidm2575,

    Seen any fruit flies lately? Damn, they show genetic permutations in just a few days.

    How is your opus coming along?

    Will your opus discuss the observed mutations of viruses, bacteria, and lower life forms like fruit flies yet claim that those adaptations are “micro” and do not inform the “macro” world?

    You know, the macro world that you have continually helped poor helpless souls in? The one with the collection plates.

  48. I am constantly bemused by the literal interpretation of old biblical stories. In the culture of the day, parables and allegories were the norm. One has to understand the bible is not a literal account, but a book of analogies and stories to illustrate various points. For example, determining the age of the earth based on the Garden of Eden story and an oral genealogy. Seven days? What kind of days? Whose days? An earth day is determined by the rotation of a single planet. How were days determined before the earth was created, back when the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas?

    Part of the Mental Status Examination is to ask the subject several proverbs in order to determine their ability to think abstractly. For example they are asked to explain the meaning of, “Don’t judge a book by its cover,” which is an easy one. Most, but not all, get it. One might be surprised by the number of people, some of whom have college degrees, respond, “You have to read it first.”

    They get harder. Strangely, one of the hardest is getting someone to explain, “Don’t cross the bridge until you get to it.”

    In the same vein, an amazing number of people cannot see the abstract nature of ancient parables and morality stories.

  49. It would make sense for many people who use the Internet to allow that evolution happens.

    My first dial-up modem ran at 300 baud, then I was able to by a fast modem that ran at 1200 baud, later came 14,400 baud, and, when I need a dial-up Internet connection, I can use a 56k modem which usually runs somewhat below its top rated speed.

    Not only did modems evolve, but human understanding of how to make modems faster evolved. If human understanding is an aspect of human biology, and if human understanding evolves, that is, for me, adequate proof of human evolution at work, in these days.

    What if the word, “God” is a simple name for that aspect of existence which allows human understanding to have evolved from the days of the Macintosh 128k, 68000 processor, 8 megaHertz clock speed first Apple Mcintosh to the 2.5 gigaHertz quad Power PC processor version and, more recently, to have evolved to use Intel processors.

    So, the evolution of the Apple Macintosh processor from a Motorola 68000 to a PowerPC, to an Intel processor is absolute proof of the existence of God, as “God” is here defined.

    Ye of what faith, or lack thereof?

    Oy veh!

  50. Chuck:

    “Seen any fruit flies lately? Damn, they show genetic permutations in just a few days.”

    That is very interesting. Fruit flies dont live very long so you could have many generations in a relatively short time. Has anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else? It only takes a few thousand generations for evolution to take place.

  51. Byron,

    “That is very interesting. Fruit flies dont live very long so you could have many generations in a relatively short time. Has anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else? It only takes a few thousand generations for evolution to take place.”

    You have a typical Lamarckism and confused understanding of evolution.

  52. Chuck Stanley:

    “In the same vein, an amazing number of people cannot see the abstract nature of ancient parables and morality stories.”

    Yes and some people dont understand there are more than parables in the Bible. The Bible is full of history and insight as well as parables and morality stories.

    The story of Joshua and the walls of Jericho is one such story. The walls were undermined by sappers which was determined by archeological investigation according to forensic engineer Dov Kamenetsky.

    So there may be quite rational explanations for apparently miraculous occurrences. If some event in the bible seems otherworldly, maybe it isnt some ancient story but a misunderstood natural phenomenon.

  53. Byron,

    “Has anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else?”

    See the above, and read about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, if you can stomach it.

  54. Byron,

    “Yes and some people dont understand there are more than parables in the Bible. The Bible is full of history and insight as well as parables and morality stories.”

    So does popular music, verse, and prose. What is your point?

  55. Byron,

    “So how do entities evolve then? DNA and RNA are maleable [sic].”

    Everything is malleable. This is the point.

  56. Byron,

    “Yes and some people dont understand there are more than parables in the Bible. The Bible is full of history and insight as well as parables and morality stories.”

    More parables that what?

    So you say, given the rest.

  57. Byron,

    “Fruit flies dont live very long so you could have many generations in a relatively short time. Has anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else?”

    Your first sentence suggests their study; your second suggests ignorance.

  58. Byron,

    See Jean-Baptiste Lamarck as to your, “[h]as anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else,” statement.

  59. Chuck:

    Apparently fruit flies do not evolve into other species. Hence your suggestion of my ignorance. Had fruit flies evolved into other species, you would have been front and center with evidence.

    You bore me Chuck, you arent very interesting. Run along over to Flowers for Socrates, you will find them more to your liking.

  60. Chuck:

    Did Lamarck find that fruit flies evolved into other species? Is that why you are throwing his name around?

  61. mespo,

    I agree. The will to limit ideas, knowledge and critical thinking often takes place in a religious context, but not exclusively. It is happening in the political arena in a way which borrows from and thus is quite similar to religious institutions. It also takes place in businesses and academia. This list isn’t exhaustive, but all seem to work alike in stopping thought, learning imagination and questioning (especially of authority!).

  62. Byron,

    “Apparently fruit flies do not evolve into other species. Hence your suggestion of my ignorance.”

    Do you really expect fruit flies to evolve into another “species” while you are swatting them off your over-ripe bananas?

    “You bore me Chuck, you arent [sic] very interesting.”

    You have no concept of deep/geological time. It’s ok that you expect evolution to be proven in a petri dish in a few hours, like a sim.

    You miss much with this perspective.

  63. Byron, Chuck is throwing you a curve ball. It would be more profitable to consider Dobzhansky rather than Lamarck if your interest is Drosophila. There have been experiments demonstrating artificial selection in Drosophila by William Rice and G.W. Salt where after many generations the flies choose not to mate with isolated populations. However, they do not demonstrate an inability to reproduce with each other.

    I think speciation has happened in the past. The fossil record is convincing, especially with mollusks and some lake fish. Extrapolating that to Darwin’s theory, however, is a whole different matter. Ironically, Darwin’s biggest success was causing the fall of the concept that species were immutable. They are not. However, his theory on the origin of species by means of Natural Selection remains a huge extrapolation for which there is a paucity of data.

  64. Byron,

    “Did Lamarck find that fruit flies evolved into other species? Is that why you are throwing his name around?”

    Can’t you read? Lamarck knew nothing of fruit flies, much like yourself. He was a proponent of generational pressures imposing biological change — sort of like your fruit fly response above.

    You have his name, read all you can.

  65. Chuck wrote: “From the master of obfuscation.”

    LOL. Hopefully my viewpoint will not be so obscure to you when you can read my thinking from start to finish in my magnum opus.

  66. davidm2575,

    “I think speciation has happened in the past.”

    But not since “my” dick fit in an, “appropriate receptacle.” Conversation stops at this point.

  67. david2575,

    “Hopefully my viewpoint will not be so obscure to you when you can read my thinking from start to finish in my magnum opus.”

    Yes, please let me read this! Can you send an advanced copy? Who is the publisher? Do you have an ISBN yet, or should I wait to hear from you?

  68. david2575,

    Post your successful publication here. By that I mean the avenues available for purchase.

    Should I give AIG a $50.00 check now, so that I have the first and only edition?

    Let me know, here, on this thread where I can buy your magnum opus.

  69. cHUCK:

    I dont really give a fuk about fruit flies. They all look the same to me and I havent ever heard of one changing into a mosquito or some other insect.

    Environmental pressure will cause minor changes to a species as far as I can tell. I am curious how a land mammal becomes a whale if there are no traits which are passed on to subsequent generations.

    What is your background? Political Science?

  70. Byron,

    “I dont really give a fuk about fruit flies. They all look the same to me and I havent ever heard of one changing into a mosquito or some other insect.”

    I don’t give a damn about fruit flies either. Except to present that their life span (approximately 48 hours) has led to some interesting experiments. Fruit flies aren’t going to, “evolve,” into, “a mosquito or some other insect,” in your fuking lifetime.

    You miss the point, Lamarckian fool.

  71. Byron,

    Read about Lamarckian Inheritance. It’s all above, and if you have a problem then read about Lamarckian Inheritance.

    Got it?

  72. So Chuck, I guess you are an autodidact. I know some people who practice engineering who are self taught. They are usually older folks and to be honest, the majority of them dont know jack sh*t about first principles.

    I imagine most autodicks are like that.

  73. Byron, david2575, and the non-recurring angryman:

    I’ve got to make dinner now, and spend time with my family.

    Maybe later, though I doubt it.

  74. Chuck:

    I dont have the time or the inclination to read about Lamarckian inheritance. You should be able to explain it in a couple of sentences if you really understood it.

  75. Byron,

    “I dont have the time or the inclination to read about Lamarckian inheritance. You should be able to explain it in a couple of sentences if you really understood it.”

    The weeping of the weary.

  76. Chuck:

    you dont have a point. Dont understand Lamarckian inheritance and probably live in the woods and smell bad.

  77. Byron,

    “Weep away Chucky.”

    Oh, I will, and do.

    At the ignorance that you and your ilk present; as if your perspective of, “if ‘it’ doesn’t benefit me, I have no use for ‘it’,” brings any value to my life.

    Good luck, really.

  78. Why do you read if you cant relay the essence of Lamarckian inheritance?

    Why read about things like that if you arent going to apply them? Waste of time if you ask me and anyway you should read that stuff in high school and college. If you have a career there is more than enough to read so you can become proficient at what you do.

    Reading is good but you have to do as well. Reading without doing is about like being a vegetable.

    You can read all about a Cord of Maple being cut and split, it is a fine poem but so what? Until you cut and split and stack that cord of Maple, the poem isnt really yours. I can read about the 600 and marvel at their courage but I have never been in combat so I dont really know what they experienced.

    In fact I am designing a testing stage so I can break things to better understand their nature and how they interact with each other during failure. I create things, that is what I do.

    At least I do, Chucky. I do read but more importantly, I do. I engage the natural world, hell I challenge it on a daily basis. What do you do? Sit in a chair and hide in a book? You are pompous and trade in a coin no one wants or cares about. So forgive me if I think Lamarckian inheritance a terrible waste of time.

  79. I love Mozart, Chucky and Brahms and Bach and I love a beautiful voice and Opera.

    Now you are learning, if it doesnt benefit me, I dont have any use for it. Why would I listen to some new age moron when I can listen to Mozart? Why would I read Catcher in the Rye when I can read Les Miserables? Why would I stare at Picasso when I can gaze on a Vermeer?

    Why would you waste your time if it didnt benefit you? That is the stupidest thing I have read and your ilk writes some pretty stupid things.

    You know why you say that? Because you think everything is equal, nothing is better than anything else. You have no standards.

  80. Davidm:

    I don’t denigrate believers. I denigrate beliefs — the unsupported, illogical, faith-based ones upon which all superstition rests. You have the uncanny knack for twisting most every obvious truth into some sort of semantic dance. Most folks understand that when you assert you must also prove. You however say that when you denigrate you must prove. Who’s logic is that? Why are some beliefs worthy of belief simply because they bear a label that appeals to emotion or nationalism or religious piety. That’s the “logic” of the obfuscator, the obscurantist, or the propagandist. I’ve long thought you have more agenda than insight, but this little A is really not A argument over the angryman quote proves it quite clearly to me.

  81. Byron,

    “Why do you read if you cant [sic] relay the essence of Lamarckian inheritance?”

    It’s possible that I am leaving the interpretation up to you; allowing your mindset to make sense of this laughable, yet still perceived as valid, perspective.

    “Reading without doing is about like being a vegetable.”

    I have no desire, inclination, nor obligation to educate you.

    “I do read but more importantly, I do.”

    As do most of us; maybe it’s possible that you feel that your, “I do” has more value than anyone else’s? Maybe you feel that you are above the fray?

    “So forgive me if I think Lamarckian [sic] inheritance a terrible waste of time.”

    It is.

    This is why I called you on holding this perspective — given by your “[w]hy don’t fruit flies turn into mosquitoes or other insects?” question. It is a view of evolution that has been discredited since the early 1800’s, yes before Darwin’s publication — yet it persists in questions such as the one you asked.

    I have no idea why — perhaps you could shed some light on this perspective. Ah, but then you would have to read about Lamarckian inheritence — too much work!

  82. Byron,

    “I love Mozart, Chucky and Brahms and Bach and I love a beautiful voice and Opera.

    Now you are learning, if it doesnt benefit me, I dont have any use for it. Why would I listen to some new age moron when I can listen to Mozart? Why would I read Catcher in the Rye when I can read Les Miserables? Why would I stare at Picasso when I can gaze on a Vermeer?

    Why would you waste your time if it didnt benefit you? That is the stupidest thing I have read and your ilk writes some pretty stupid things.

    You know why you say that? Because you think everything is equal, nothing is better than anything else. You have no standards.”

    Who are you talking to?

  83. Samantha:

    Sure. I will not denigrate the belief that we are guided best by our reason – no matter how flawed – than by the first century musings of people whose knowledge of the world would pale in comparison to that of most any bright seventh grader of today.

  84. Byron,

    “You know why you say that? Because you think everything is equal, nothing is better than anything else. You have no standards.”

    This is not true. I’m just not willing to give up hard-gained knowledge, (as a species), on your, or davidm2575’s say so.

    As a civil engineer I would think that you would respect this perspective.

    But, hey, if posts and lintels float your boat then carry on.

  85. mespo wrote: ” I denigrate beliefs — the unsupported, illogical, faith-based ones upon which all superstition rests. … Most folks understand that when you assert you must also prove. You however say that when you denigrate you must prove.”

    To take a position against a statement is an assertion. You really don’t see that? This is NOT a semantic argument. If you want me to develop this further for you, I can, but I think you are smart enough to understand this without me showing you all the logical steps to arrive at this understanding.

  86. samantha wrote: “mespo, can you give me one belief that you do not denigrate?”

    Good question. Another one along these lines that I would like Mespo to answer is: Do you think that all faith-based beliefs are illogical and unsupported?

  87. Chuck wrote: “It is a view of evolution that has been discredited since the early 1800′s, yes before Darwin’s publication — yet it persists in questions such as the one you asked.”

    Problem with an anachronism here. Darwin himself believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He called it Pangenesis. Lamarckism and Darwin’s theory of Pangenesis was discredited after Darwin’s publication, not before.

  88. Byron’s perspective of evolution is not Lamarckian. He is talking about the evolution of the population, not any specific individual. That is why he mentioned the short generation time of the fruit fly.

  89. davidm:

    ” Do you think that all faith-based beliefs are illogical and unsupported?”

    ******************

    They may have some logic to them and some wisdom as well. There is no proof they are divinely inspired or even that they are very original as the sentiments expressed in the Judeo-Christian religion find their genesis in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. By definition, the beliefs are based on things other than reason which makes them suspect until proven. You may wish to believe the universe was created in 6 days or that angels float among us but until rational proof is presented they remain mere fairy tales to me. I’m not closed to the concept of either belief as new information is always welcome, but religion has done nothing to convince skeptical minds like mine that their core beliefs are anything more than mythology. By the way, I’m in good company on this. As the story goes, even Jesus, that master of faith-based religion, bade Thomas to inspect the proof for himself before believing in resurrection. Oh, he admonished the doubting disciple, but yet he still showed him.

  90. Chucky:

    I dont believe in holding on to knowledge, I believe in sharing it. I believe in expanding it. I also believe in patents and private property, something you have no concept of.

    The more knowledge out in the public domain, the better. It will improve the lives of human beings and one discovery sparks another and so on.

    “This is not true. I’m just not willing to give up hard-gained knowledge”

    I am called selfish by people like you because I believe a man should work for his supper if he is at all able to do so. Your statement is the most selfish thing I have ever read. You would hold onto knowledge so you can feel superior to other people? Now that is really twisted.

    According to DavidM above, you dont even know what you know. Well that is pretty much power for the course for liberals.

    You are a pretend intellectual if what DavidM says is correct and he is well read on many subjects and he does understand what he reads and is able to use the principles and information to form arguments of an abstract nature.

    You go ahead and hold on to that knowledge and feel superior all you want. Me, I’ll share what I know, make some money and maybe leave the world a little better when I exit.

    Actually, what I really like about civil engineering is soil and foundations because of the unknown elements. A building is formulaic to design, lateral forces, gravity forces need to be resisted and stress = p/a or Mc/I and that is basically what F = ma boils down to.

    That is the essence of structural engineering F = ma but the resisting internal force of the beam has to be greater.

    What do you do Chucky? Can you explain what you do in a couple of sentences? I bet DavidM can and so can Nick Spinelli. You probably denigrated both of them in your other incarnation here.

  91. mespo wrote: “the beliefs are based on things other than reason which makes them suspect until proven.”

    Not everyone operates by this premise, that a belief must be suspect until proven through empirical means. I assume that is what you mean by “proven.” Other people accept other forms of proof rather than empirical proof.

    I would say that any belief that is contrary to reason is suspect. If a belief is reasonable, then it might be accepted based upon reasonable reasons and assumptions until evidence shows the belief to be fallacious.

    This is the case with the Theory of Natural Selection. It is a reasonable theory with some supportive evidence, but as more evidence accumulates, it becomes more unlikely to be the explanation of origins.

  92. mespo wrote: “I will not denigrate the belief that we are guided best by our reason – no matter how flawed – than by the first century musings of people whose knowledge of the world would pale in comparison to that of most any bright seventh grader of today.”

    I also would not denigrate the idea that we are best guided by reason, although I certainly would draw the line at “no matter how flawed,” which would mean and include no capacity for reason at all, making you worse off than a pagan looking at the stars for guidance. Reason is a decision-making mechanism, the output of which is input dependent (shall we vote for Obama or look for a candidate in shallower waters downstream?). IOW, the outcome of your decision is valid only to the degree of accuracy of the data you act upon. Ninety percent of what people act upon today is propaganda, smoke and outright lies (if not emotion, alone), a consequence of corruption at every level of government and the economy (even including lack of individual integrity), making their decisions no more sound than a submarine with screen doors. They would all be better off relying on, instead, first-century musings. We vote to tear down a hospital, in one breath, and in another to build a new stadium because, well, we are victims of lies that do not bring jobs but only line the pockets of elites. Or we denegrate belief systems because, well, only ours matter. Tell us one belief or one profound decision you have made, and more than likely there are enough people to poke more valid holes in it than the number of times politicians lie.

  93. Byron wrote: “How do you think the various species came to be?”

    Well, I think someone sat down and wrote the DNA code, which, for human, required so many pages that a legal-sized, four-drawer filing cabinet is needed to store them all. Of course, there are plenty of people that believe the code appeared ex nihilo, after fermentation in a tide pool somewhere. These are the same people who condescend and think some of us are still evolving.

  94. smh it never ceases to amaze me that no matter how much truth you put in front of humans they will always choose the rose colored world. how humans came into being is known to many. the many that are not afraid of the truth.

    what does amaze is no less is how humans keep putting stock in numbers written by the same insiders who wrote and rewrote history to serve their own purpose. ex the story of noah and the ark the rest of the world perished by water but boy did that ark managed to survive not only survive but thrive with only a couple humans and hundreds of animals dangerous man eating animals but it survive and they managed to replenish the world yeahhhhhhh… right!!!!!

    polls are taken so that the elites know how to turn the worlds thinking patterns. wait till the next poll comes out and watch how the numbers change drastically to push peoples thinking into another direction

  95. The Theory of Natural Selection; I believe is an explanation of survival rather than origins. It explains the extinction of weaker species but does not in any way explain or prove the transformation of one specie to another. Changes within a species over generations are; partly due to natural selection as where a more mottled fur increases the animal’s chance of being missed by predators and so is more likely to pass on it’s genetic material than say; a solid colored example of the same species. Natural Selection is actually not exactly an evolutionary force or process.

  96. “What is striking is the situation with people with less than high school education– 57% believe in a creationist version of human origin while only 10% believe in an evolution without any divine intervention. The biggest change in numbers appears to come with higher education. Once at the college level, only 27% believe that God created humans in their current image while 41% accept Darwin’s theory of evolution of humans.”

    When the “young skulls full of mush” as they are called reach college, they are indoctrinated by atheistic professors that have themselves been indoctrinated, and they are blindly taught evolutionism and they are not allowed to explore all the problems with the evolutionism theory. Since they are persuaded to believe that evolutionism is true, the percentages go up that actually believe in this nonsense.

    What I find particularly interesting is that there is a connection between the intellectual bankruptcy in evolutionism and the degree of protection from the elements that it is afforded. By protection of the elements, I of course mean how evolutionism is sheltered from public scrutiny and protected from students questioning the theory and examining all the problems such as a lack of evidence and contradicting theories as well as circular logic that make up the theory of evolutionism.

  97. Well said, Cumberdale. If there are stupid, too stupid to know they are stupid, can there be indoctrinated, too indoctrinated to know they are indoctrinated?

  98. The human animal has a need to manipulate and control others in order to feel secure. That agenda explains why the divine creation theory exists. Humans also have a need to understand how and why things happen. That desire explains why the theory of evolution was developed. Both needs are impossible to totally satisfy, but the quest to know and to control drives many to attempt to dominate others using the tools of religion and government. Nature is the way it IS, regardless of mankind’s understanding and beliefs about its origins. What is far more important is people finding ways to understand each other and to get along peacefully together while responsibly using and maintaining a clean environment that everyone needs to exists. Education which has these principles as its objectives is essential. Continuing to overpopulate and pollute the Earth while constantly fighting over whose theory of its beginning is the correct one is merely fiddling while the world burns. How it all began is basically irrelevant compared to the need to act NOW to recognize and mitigate the damage and potential destruction that Humanity is bringing upon itself.

    This is just my opinion, however. I’m sure at least 98% of everyone else here will disagree with me in one way or another.

  99. Tyger wrote: “The human animal has a need to manipulate and control others in order to feel secure. That agenda explains why the divine creation theory exists.”

    I don’t see the connection. How does a theory that posits an intelligent designer being responsible for the order of the universe facilitate the need to manipulate and control others? Our governments in the U.S. do not believe in the divine creation theory, but they are the most manipulative and controlling institutions we have.

    Also, there is not one single divine creation theory, just like there is not one single evolution theory.

    Tyger wrote: “Humans also have a need to understand how and why things happen. That desire explains why the theory of evolution was developed.”

    The desire to understand how and why things happen can easily be seen to explain the development of divine creation theories. What explains the theory of evolution is the need to understand how and why things happen without any reference to a divine creator. In other words, the need to establish atheism, to further humanism which makes man above all, that is what has led to theories of evolution. Most textbooks on evolution hammer home the idea that “primitive civilizations” reference God because they were too ignorant to understand what they were looking at. Now we know better, and we can explain it all through natural laws without any reference to God. If we can’t explain it, we will soon. Just wait for it.

    Tyger wrote:
    “How it all began is basically irrelevant compared to the need to act NOW to recognize and mitigate the damage and potential destruction that Humanity is bringing upon itself.”

    I think every creationist could agree that we need to be responsible stewards of the earth, and every evolutionist can agree with that too. The disagreement is about how serious the problem has become (whether the earth is burning at our hands, as in your Nero metaphor) and what steps are necessary for a clean environment. Personally, I like solar power and highly efficient cars and electronics. I guarantee you that my carbon footprint is much, much smaller than Al Gore’s. I am an environmentalist all the way, but also a creationist. Is there room for me in your world?

  100. davidm, I totally agree. Not sure now how I misinterpreted, earlier, the first nine lines of Gilbert’s comment. Your critique is a homerun.

  101. Mespo,

    Does Fermi’s Paradox disprove the existence of aliens?

    Does it also disprove the existence of God?

    How does one approach speculations about the infinite?

    Your hubris regarding the certitude of your conclusions is indeed laughable.

    “What motive induced you to spend so much labour and thought in undermining the consoling and beneficial persuasion that reason is capable of assuring us of the existence, and presenting us with a determinate conception of a Supreme Being?

    “For the question does not concern the advantage or disadvantage which we are expected to reap from such inquiries; the question is merely how far reason can advance in the field of speculation, apart from all kinds of interest, and whether we may depend upon the exertions of speculative reason, or must renounce all reliance on it.

    It is absurd to expect to be enlightened by Reason, and at the same time to prescribe to her what side of the question she must adopt.” (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason)

  102. Bob, the Fermi Paradox is a valid question to Mespo, considering his standard of proof for beliefs. Let’s hope he finds time to address it according to his worldview. Will he be consistent in how he treats it compared to the beliefs he denigrates?

  103. David,

    The power of the Fermi Paradox is in its invitation to the thinker to speculate about the infinite.

    A friend of mine, who is a devout atheist, is of the opinion that Fermi’s Paradox “proves” there is no other intelligent life in the universe but our own.

    He claims that

    “once you start postulating the “possibilities” then all other unpostulated “possibilities” necessarily occur.”

    Can you see the problem such a maxim might pose for an atheist?

  104. Seriously, your devout atheist friend actually admitted that? Pretty amazing stuff.

    I don’t follow him on how “ALL” other non postulated possibilities necessarily occur, but rather I would say that some other postulated possibility must be true.

    Yeah, the Fermi Paradox poses a problem for atheists and evolutionists.

  105. David,

    Easy there. Just because I believe in God it doesn’t follow that I find anything objectionable about the theory of evolution.

    There is no scientific justification for claiming the earth is 6,000 years old and there is absolutely no justification for believing that mankind just appeared.

    I think what the creationists are doing in Kentucky is reprehensible.

    Call me crazy, but I don’t think of the Flintstones as a documentary.

    Imposing a simplistic primitive view upon a such a complex world that quantum physics is only just beginning to reveal is as absurd as an atheist convincing himself that absence of proof is proof of absence.

  106. I don’t believe the earth is 6,000 years old either, but the theory of evolution has problems posed by the Fermi Paradox. If we happened in the way that the evolutionary theories are taught, the probabilities indicate that we should have encountered other life forms that originated away from earth many times over. It is VERY strange that you don’t find anything objectionable about the theory of evolution (not sure which theory you mean). Any thinking person should find at least some objections to all theories of origins, both evolutionist and creationist theories. Our knowledge is not perfect.

Comments are closed.