New Poll: Support For Creationism Falls To Record Low

300px-god2-sistine_chapelA new poll from Gallup shows a sharp decline in Americans who believe in creationism and specifically the “Young Earth” view that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.  Only 38 percent of those polled now embrace creationism while 57 percent accept the theory of evolution as well as scientific data uniformly showing life existed millions of years ago.

Notably, many Christians are now accepting evolution and incorporating the fact of evolution into their religious beliefs. It is an interesting poll given our prior discussion of how the massive Noah’s Ark exhibit has attracted fewer viewers than anticipated.

In 2012, 46% in Gallup’s 2012 survey still supported creationsim.

With new dinosaur bones dates to 132 million years old and even 10,000 year old mashed potatoes, the Young Earth view grows more and more difficult to maintain on scientific grounds.

203 thoughts on “New Poll: Support For Creationism Falls To Record Low”

  1. Oh, I feel better knowing only 137 million Americans take solace in primitive beliefs about the nature of reality.

    1. I feel better knowing only 137 million Americans take solace in primitive beliefs about the nature of reality.

      Do we have that many people still living off the grid? I wasn’t aware of that. The reality is you and most other people are not harmed by those that hold to ancient beliefs in the origins of everything. At least when it comes to Judeo-Christian theology. In fact I would suggest our secular government has been held in check this long largely on the wall set up by the Bill of Rights. I take solace we have far more than 137 million people that hold those rights to supreme to any government. And it just so happens those originated from a generation that did take solace in their primitive beliefs. 🙂

  2. The reason a thread like this will go all over the place is because science has fallen into using its place of authority to censor scientific debate. People on all sides of the investigation simply express opinions and twist facts to fit their opinion. The religious use the “Bible” or the “Church” as their authority, and the scientists use their scientific associations, the court system, and the opinions of judges as their authority. Few if any really discuss the facts in a way to discern truth.

    1. Few, if you mean every scientist who has ever discussed the matter? Merely because you have avoided the factual discussions of evolution does not mean those factual conversations aren’t occurring. On a positive slant, however, this type of material is well-suited for Reddit; though I’m not sure that intolerant, anti-science know-nothings are well-represented on Reddit.

      This is to no facts in my presence dave

      1. Mark, you are right. Evolutionism can’t tell us what is right or wrong. Who decides what is right and what is wrong. The Nazi in the Nurnberg trials, didn’t think they where doing anything wrong. All they where doing, was taking Social Darwinism to the finite point in creating the “Übermensch”. I would rather have a God fearing government in power, rather than a left-winged government that embraces (Euthanasia). If evolutionism is true, then what is stopping man from using humans, for food, fuel or fertilizer, if we believe we are nothing more than animals, as we already use animals for this. When resources gets scarce, evolutionism produces the greatest atrocities, Moa, Stalin. Pol-Pot, Hitler. All staunch Darwinist. That’s why Richard Dawkins would never want to live in a true atheistic society.

  3. If you believe in creationalism then you probably do not have a scientific basis. You have “faith”. You might say “faith in God”. You might go on to say such things (with a Southern accent) like: “Its not fried chicken daddy, it”s Shake N Bake!” Or you might have faith that your wife never had sex with another male human after your marriage. Or none before. Which brings us to the topic of the Virgin Islands. The belief there is that the islands rose up out of the ocean without the help of man. They do not have volcanos. They have not been rapped by the Spanish. Thus “virgin”. But you can buy rubbers there.

  4. Bill Nye the ‘SCIENCE GUY’ says we are descendants of MARTIANS.

    I realize the scientific evidence is clearly showing Intelligent Design, but I didn’t realize how far the atheist delusions would go.

    1. Hmmm, what does this mean?
      The English language for example catalogues over 170,000 words in its heyday. But modern English speaking man only uses 20,000-35,000.
      And I’m afraid some millennials and inner city and rural folk only use less than 10,000.
      What DOES it mean? We are
      de-evolving into idiocracy? 🤔

      1. Ter Ber, It’s a little book but really loaded with some mind bending theory. Language is the key in all of it and also TW documents a parallel competitor to Darwin, Alfred Wallace.
        Wolfe explains how the scientific community associated with Darwin bamboozled Wallace so Darwin’s work emerged as the premier investigation.
        again a great little book.

  5. I am a Southern Baptist and my father tells me that they used to believe in both evolution and an old earth. They took the Bible as an inspired book, but not one that is literally true in everything, such as Noah swallowing a whale or whatever. He says it began to change during in the 70’s when the “white shoe” evangelical type Baptists began to grow in influence and more ideological purity began taking hold all across the political spectrum, both Left and Right.

    But, just like with all the Left Wing idiot organizations pushing their silliness, the Christian Right pushes theirs, too. Frankly, I believe that a belief in a young Earth is less dangerous to society than a belief that some idiot man who thinks he is a woman is entitled to whack off his weenie and wear dresses – – – and that we have to treat him as a woman, instead of a complete frigging nut.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  6. Why is this poll even considered important? The non-believers will be patting themselves on the back mocking those ignorant fools that still believe in some mythical sky god. The believers will be passionately defending why they believe in God and his creation with equal derision towards the non-believers. That accomplishes exactly what? More division? A bigger wedge between people? In Isaiah 55:8-9 it says:

    “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

    So what if the explanation for God’s creation is beyond our capacity to explain? Especially at the time of writing the Old Testament. I believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ is my savior. So what is that of consequence to those that don’t. Others don’t, so what is that of consequence to those that do? That all depends whether a mutual respect for each other can exist. But respect what?

    As far as this poll goes; do they still believe in God? Do they believe in a higher power than Man? Most importantly, do they believe we have rights that exist merely because we exist. Rights that no Man can give us and that no Man can take away? Natural rights As far as this life is concerned, the answer to that question is far more consequential to us than creation or evolution.

      1. Thank you Debbie.

        Why is the 1st amendment so important? Why is a belief in natural rights crucial to civil society and self-government? Because without it we get efforts to infringe the rights of others, just like this article explains:

        The most recent attempted assassination by a left-wing terrorist was also a follower of SPLC. As Jeryl Bier wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “The Insidious Influence of the SPLC: Its branding of ‘hate groups’ and individuals is biased, sometimes false—and feeds polarization.”

    1. Uh, polls provide information. Or, policy makers have an interest in knowing the beliefs, needs and desires of stake-holders and constituents in the formation of public policy. Maybe, public policy makers can better craft a better, more desirable public policy when they utilize evidence showing the beliefs of those stake-holder and constituents. Just a few reasons why such an informative poll would be considered.

      This is to now-informed Olly.

      1. Maybe, public policy makers can better craft a better, more desirable public policy when they utilize evidence showing the beliefs of those stake-holder and constituents.

        If the poll came back that said less than 1% believed in God, what better public policy would you recommend? If 99% believed in God, same question?

    2. Olly, Evolutionism can’t tell us what is right or wrong. Who decides what is right and what is wrong. The Nazi in the Nurnberg trials, didn’t think they where doing anything wrong. All they where doing, was taking Social Darwinism to the finite point in creating the “Übermensch”. I would rather have a God fearing government in power, rather than a left-winged government that embraces (Euthanasia). If evolutionism is true, then what is stopping man from using humans, for food, fuel or fertilizer, as we already use animals for this. When resources gets scarce, evolutionism produces the greatest atrocities, Moa, Stalin. Pol-Pot, Hitler. All staunch Darwinist.

  7. I guess it comes down to what your beliefs are in general. I’ve heard more guys and myself ask “God help me” in combat then ask “T-Rex help me”. The next time a loved one is really sick and needs intervention don’t go to church. Instead head out to your local museum and say a prayer to the bones of some Brontosaurus. Maybe hospitals should have some guy who studies bones on call to comfort the sick and dying. “Don’t worry my son a Suckasaurus awaits you with open mouth”.

    1. You might get some likes with this kind of material on Reddit, or, or some such. Here, just puzzlement at the incoherence.

      This is to lost clam.

  8. I’m not sure what the hubbub is all about. We don’t know how the universe arrived. We have little idea where it’s going and have no control if we did. All we know, to paraphrase Descartes, is that we think thus we exist. So let’s think about helping each other and doing justice and those tangible endeavors should be quite sufficient to unite us rather this “angels on the head of a pin” debate which divides us.

  9. I am not an atheist and I am not a creationist in the sense that I do not believe that the Earth is “young”. But, I am willing to see that believing in evolution (which seems to make the most sense currently) you have to have faith in certain things such as believing that the decay rate is constant through time. This is a leap of faith for if not true, than obviously any dating using the principle will not be valid. To say that creationists are stupid is to show your own ignorance. I have met some who I consider to be quite intelligent. The difference being, the good creationists know the issues or leaps of faith required in the science.

    As far as religion and evolution co-existing, may I suggest reading the works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Being raised as a Catholic, I got to see my dad who taught college math for 29 years struggle with the “big” questions of life. I know that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin helped him a lot in marrying the two together.

    1. The bigger problem is simply a lack of understanding of science. Creationists talk about the decay rate and ignore our understanding of DNA for example.

      1. I could flip this right back on you and say that most evolutionists do not have a good understanding of the science that they subscribe too. One should know the assumptions or potential issues with a particular hypothesis/theory otherwise it becomes a religion in itself. And when confronted with these assumptions the believer should not recoil and be defensive but should either able to explain it concede the point.

        I met a millennial who didn’t believe we went to the moon. The disappointing part wasn’t that he had this belief, but that he didn’t even have a grasp of what the conspiracy issues were. I had to tell them what they were and then prove them wrong.

        1. “most evolutionists do not have a good understanding of the science that they subscribe too.”
          Are you referring to anyone who believes in evolution, or more specifically to evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, molecular biologists or any other biological scientists (including medical professionals) for whom evolutionary principles figure prominently in their work?

          If you haven’t already, I would suggest you read anything by Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker is easy enough for non-scientists) or Why Evolution is True by Peter Coyne.

          WRT your millenial example: perhaps he was as poorly educated in science as Ken Ham and his followers.

          1. CCS, Yes I was referring to the run in the mill evolutionist and not people in the field of study. Although, I would hope that they would be open to discussing the holes or potential failures of the hypothesis that they are involved with. It would seem advantageous to know them since you would think that the “issues” with a hypothesis would spawn new research. As I stated earlier, I believe in evolution but I am willing to say that it is by no means settled or doesn’t raise more questions than answers at this point. I have a geology degree although I have worked as a mech. engineer for over 20 years. My favorite anthropologist was Stephen Jay Gould. Although, I remember learning of his death by watching the end of all things, a Simpsons episode that was dedicated to him. Apparently he was worthy of whatever news sources I was into at the time.

            1. Thanks for the reply. I am a toxicologist by training, and thus, I suppose I do not see that the “theory of evolution” is all that debatable at this point, or prompts more questions than can be answered by science, although it might take a while.

              Thanks also for the reminder on Gould….need to read more of his books.

              1. What I like about Gould is that his books are usually composed of essays that you can pick up, leave for a while and pick up again. This usually fits my reading style better than Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged” which I like the story but have a hard time getting through.

                “prompts more questions than can be answered by science” I probably over stated that but the point being, that like evolution, the Theory has evolved over time due to discovery/issues. This is normal for most Theories. Nothing worries me more than when this statement, “The science is settled” comes out. Especially when the govt says it.

                1. I like essay collections also, but I’m finding Hitchens’ “Arguably” hard to get through. I love his reasoning (on anything NRT the Iraq War) so I must press on. I loved Atlas Shrugged the two times I read it, but that was back in HS and college; what I found interesting at the time was how Rand’s writing improved in her four novels (I haven’t bothered with her economic theories).

                  Yeah, “the science is settled” is usually backed by an agenda. Most of the government scientists with whom I’ve worked have been so afraid of lawsuits they couldn’t make a decision. And those who could had to run the gauntlet of the OMB.

      2. David – we only understand a little bit of DNA, not all of it. There are strands we do not have the vaguest idea about. Ignorance is bliss. We also have not tested the DNA of enough people to be that sure of the results.

    2. The constancy of the decay rate comes from straightforward mathematics and physics. For the decay rate to NOT be constant, would require some sort of esoteric and/or supernatural explanation.

  10. One story is as good as another. The problem lies with the absolutist positions taken over simple common sense on how to live together. Living together under the Golden Rule is God. If there is a supreme architect it would want us to become like it and we are on that track with the law. All the other gods are nothing more than attempts of individuals to substantiate their self by being part of a group that is greater than the other(s) and vehicles for garnering power, wealth, big puffy hairdos, and sometimes a little on the side. Now sing out brothers and sisters,

    My dog/god’s bigger than your dog/god
    My dog/god’s bigger than yours
    My dog/god’s bigger cuz he eats Kennelration
    My dog/god’s bigger than yours

    1. If there is a supreme “architect”, it is no more likely to look and act like a human that it is apt to look and act like a cockroach. Which one, if either, did it create in its image? The cockroach, after all, will survive the death of all humans.

  11. “New dinosaur bones, dating to 132
    million years ago”. Lol. Atheist keep getting sillier and sillier trying to hold up their theories. Please open your minds to The New scientific discoveries:

  12. “The fact that LIFE evolved out of nearly NOTHING, some 10 Billion years AFTER the universe evolved out of literally NOTHING- is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice”-
    Richard Dawkins……Lol. Satan’s checkmate on simple man.

  13. I am an Eighth Day Dog Adventist. We believe that Dog was put on Earth on the 8th Day to give Mankind Guidance. I have said it here before: God spulled backwards is Dog. Look to your dog for guidance. Skip church this Sunday. When they pass the plate you should not be there. Go out to the stores early on Sunday and beat the crowd. When they start showing up at the grocery store in their suits and fine dresses then you know it is time to get away from them. They are snotty because they just attended their church session. If you have a cat you can get guidance from your cat. Like my cat knows where the cat food is stored in the kitchen. He goes right to the cabinet early in the morning and leads me there. He sits in front of me and waits to be brushed with the cat brush. He meows when I finish brushing him. Dogs and cats are good for humans. So are goats.

    1. It is true that dogs would not be having all these silly arguments. Just sniff a few butts, chase around a bit, then take a nap and call it a day.

  14. Just wait for the nutbaggery when Crapmas rolls around. Pence is going to push Moron to erect a massive crucifix on the WH lawn and elsewhere, quite likely.

    They are the government and should refrain, as not to establish or promote or endorse any religion. They can practice their nonsense privately as citizens, not publically as elected officials.

  15. RE – Global warming is not a belief; it is a scientific fact accepted by the vast majority in the scientific community. Try the Adam and Eve fable to illustrate a belief system.

    1. you missed the point entirely subjectivism and it’s mystic answers are not confined and the ‘scientific community’ are not immune. Not just in Al Gores favorite scam but in other forms such as economics. The basic philosophy of the left rejects scientific facts and objectivism and thus the whole idea goes over their head …whooosh and any real iimiportant considerations are covered in mystic mud. You can’t believe in fairy tale subjective mystic other worlds with one breath and brandish facts with the next. Especially if you must be programmed to believe without thinking and will not accept any form of reality and remain afraid of the dark.

        1. Wallace-Wells misquotes the science in more than one arena. One glaring example: chronic kidney disease in El Salvadoran sugarcane workers.

          Turns out heat is not uniformly associated with CKD in workers in El Salvador (VanDervort et al. 2014), and agricultural chemicals and heavy metal exposure need to be more fully evaluated for causality (which turns the focus onto herbicide companies and the employers of the affected farmworkers, right?). NIOSH investigated and published their results in November, 2016; agency scientists found that heat exhaustion (caused by being worked too hard, using outdated equipment, and lack of access to water) was exacerbating farmworker exposure to environmental toxicants. Did Wallace-Wells mention this in his piece? Errr…no.

          The author also conveniently fails to even discuss the effects of current agricultural practices on sustainability of crops amidst changing weather patterns, including, but not limited to, the lack of biodiversity caused by monoculture. IIRC, only the lack of ability to grow corn (and other cereals) in a hotter USA (and hungry third world) is touched on, but left out of the discussion is that the majority of the corn in the US is grown for biofuel or livestock feed, so we wouldn’t be able to eat it anyway!

          According to Barry Sanders in his book The Green Zone, “The military produces enough greenhouse gases….to place the entire globe, with all its inhabitants large and small, in the most immanent [sic] danger of extinction.” If you believe in AGW and you don’t control DeeCee’s warmongers, you’re lost.

      1. MA , what utter nonsense. The philosophy of the left is based on scientific understanding. Scientists attempt to avoid subjectivism and largely succeed.

    2. HS – Global warming is more akin to being a religion. It requires a leap of faith.

        1. Jay S – after reading all the Climate-gate emails, I realized what a fraud global warming is. Michael Mann, in particular, should be stripped of all his academic degrees and shipped to collecting trash in Brooklyn.

    3. HS- Have you done the science. Ever heard of ClimateGate. Why did they change their mantra to Climate Change. Why did Michael Mann just get contempt of court in Canada and the case get thrown out. the case of Michael Mann vs Tim Ball. I’m going to call Horse Shit on your global warming. HS do your on research, we need more C02. Plants thrive on it, ever ran a greenhouse. It has nothing to do with saving the planet and all about wealth redistribution. Global warming and Evolutionism is the best Example of BLIND FAITH.

  16. The survey asks the wrong question. If you consider the Big Bang as Creation, then there are a lot more believers.

    1. The Big Bang follows, kicking and screaming, from a solid foundation of theory and observations. The scientific method has repeatedly shown the ability to establish reliable facts about the universe we live in, no matter how unpalatable the conclusions.

        1. The details are questioned but the general premise is supported by excellent evidence; COBE.

      1. Dave, little problem again (Horizon Problem) actually it’s a big one. Oh ya, then there are the SNRs and high redshift quasars. The Big Dud needs the Inflation theory to carry the lie. Dave, what BLIND FAITH YOUR RELIGION HAS.

    2. And if you consider water to be alcohol, there are many drunkards. What’s your point.

      1. Dave137 – who created the Big Bang? It is still God or a god, so regardless of which creation you believe in, or not, how you ask the question in a survey is the key. Who is the Uncaused Caused behind the Big Bang and what do you call him or her?

        I used to teach World Mythology and there were several mythologies that contained creation myths that would match the Big Bang Theory.

        1. Personally, I think the Big Bang resulted from an immense black hole in some other universe, which squeezed an unimaginably large bunch of matter, energy, and time into a new existence.

          1. Jay S – regardless, somewhere, there is an Uncaused Cause that started everything.

          2. Jay S— That is an excellent conjecture about which Poplawski has several papers.

            1. No, that is merely a conjecture. More in keeping with thought about physics is an unending cosmos; the multiverse is one version but there are others.

    3. Good point. So . Big Bang Two. it’s repetitive never ending it starts expansion follows and then it collapeses in on itself and starts again. So how does the rational objective mind approach this one particular theory? “We have time to learn to control time and with it distance. So we start now experimenting and soon we find out how to ‘teleport’ a nano something from a satellite to a lab on earth. Then how to fold or some other verb space and time. The purpose? Go back to the beginning of the Bang and hop a ride on an suitable planet in a suitable solar system. Start over? No! We learn to take knowldege and the ability to solve problems with …whoever will make that trip. Science Fiction? Of course. How else do great ideas get started. The difference is the solution is not ‘magically’ apt to appear. But if it did would you recognize it? Creativity is just one more thing to observe and testing it ask the questions. Is it useful? Is it Moral? For sure laying out in the sunshine to get a tan without regard to those objective steps will bring a revelation not bargtained for.

      1. Expansion followed by contraction is one possibility which follows from General Relativity. However, there are no observations which confirm or deny that possibility.

  17. It’s nice to know that some people are finally developing some intelligence. It’s amazing to me that 38% are dyed-in-rhe-wool, uncompromising creationists. I guess they can’t imagine that the creator they believe in could possibly be smart enough to create biological entities, including man, through anything as complicated as evolution. They apparently believe he can only do abra cadabra magic tricks like creating man out of dust. Evolution would be beyond his powers.

    1. I wonder whether their response is a result of genuine belief or if it’s an act of defiance in the face of cultural change they feel threatened by. A symptom of cultural intransigence.

      1. I think it is an act of cultural defiance. Similar to the Left’s “White Privilege” type arguments in the face of 50+years of excessive illegitimate Black births as a causative factor.

        But like I said above, the Young Earth thing is a relatively harmless belief, and hurts no one.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    2. It isn’t about intelligence. It is about upbringing. There are many highly intelligent people who were brought up as believing in particular things. For example, many people “believe in” global warming, even though the science doesn’t justify the belief. But the belief is so strong those people will always see global warming as a major threat, even though great scientists like Freeman Dyson and others raise important doubts as to the veracity of the science.

      There is little to be done about it. We can eject Little Kim from North Korea and there are still going to be many people in that country who support him. Same with Saddam in Iraq. The passage of time which change these unsupportable views.

      1. Global warming is established fact.

        You can perform John Tyndall’s experiment with carbon dioxide safely and inexpensively in your kitchen. Nothing new; 1859.

        1. Really? I can recreate something as dynamic as all of the Earths variables and inter-dependencies in my kitchen? I highly doubt that.

          1. Or, you could just compare the size of various ice sheets around the world from the past and the present. You don’t need to resort to authority (Freeman Dyson); you could just use your own cognitive senses and examine the evidence yourself. I doubt you would buy any land near the coast if you were to examine the evidence yourself.

            This is to expression

    3. Which is worse. Creationism which is a philosophical offshoot of Plato (religion being one branch of philosophy) or subjectivism which believes in other worlds and mysticism as a base for a political philosophy or a theocracy which puts the two together. Especially the latter that believe their ‘ruling class’ can do abracadabra magic tricks creating who knows what of not much.

      Either way the one thing they have in common is their adherents are afraid of the dark and which darkness is a nothing more than a creation of their own fear.

      The founders, without saying so , created something called independent, objective, rational thinking and self governing citizens. Then set about setting up the first and longest living country governed on the premise man can govern himself.

      The road has been long and is not yet finished nor complete but it took great leaps after surviving the 20th Century Socialist Wars for Socialist Supremacy but we were reminded of mans abilities in their lack of need for group governing when the unaligned, unrepresented and truly moderate (not like the fake moderates who are truly the right wing of the left) came together and sad enough is enough of these fairy tails.Reiligion is the stuff of ethics,. socialism ithe stuff of a religion that does not admit to being one.

      In the mid 1960’s almost three millennia after the first thinkers began their quest for the meaning of……what became the Aristotle line was completed…then said, go and seek some more and demands examination observation and testing of observations. The first question ….Is it practical can it be used. and if not why but in the meantime we’ll keep testing and applying ther new discoveries. Thus the tomato became a major food source and not just a poisonous plant forever shunned.

      To bad for those who run the other direction almost back to the time when Plato said, My system will not stand and will not work. and having run that far try again and again to make the unworkable a dream come true. Not my dream thank you very much. I learned early on the fallacy is failure to account for the ‘spirit’ of mankind and it’s ‘need’ for self fulfillment egoism not egotism. and the satisfaction of creating something with an idea , five senses and the ability to think independently.

      So yes the younger generations are changing those percentages. But are they being given the right tools truly progress instead of finding they are being taught to progress ….in reverse?

      The step after is it practical and useful or not is always ‘is it moral.’ That is an individual question with an individual answer and one that requires individual thinking and trust in ones self.

      Like the day a citizen discovers that every ‘right’ has a ‘responsbility.’ Or that creating a new ‘right’ does not excuse exchanging it to benefit some for the ‘wrong’ of taking away other rights that already exist for many.

      I doubt much more than 10% of students are exposed to philosphy these days…but near 100% are constantly exposed to some of it’s most horrible discards. while others run crying through the wilderness knocking on doors that are shuttered and bolted by those who are afraid of the dark.

      I wonder how many survive.


        1. In what regard. Spelling of name? i am not prepared to go through a detailed study of the works of Plato searching for the answer to the question…Whatever did he mean by that? Therefore the comment has no meaning or purpose in it’s present form. .

    4. Yet Louse, you believe in the warmongering Demoncrat party which is evidently prepared to start a nuclear war. Very funny indeed, or actually,maybe not.

        1. yep and not just me. that’s why Indies did not vote for HRC – her re set bs. we would already be at war. It’s already enough that she has fu*cked up europe with all the refugees fleeing from Libya and Syria.

            1. whatever Benson, people will still see it. This is, after all, a FREE speech (screech) forum

              All the Russia Russia Russia bs is clouding real issues.

      1. “Magic” is just something you don’t understand yet. For evolution to work, you just have to allow that an unimaginably large number of organic molecules, bumping into each other over an immense span of time, will JUST ONCE, result in a self-replicating molecule or collection of molecules. And that such molecules will respond to external stimuli by having the better equipped ones survive when others don’t. After that, it’s off to the races, and we are the result.
        We are on the verge of having entirely synthetic life manufactured by humans, from scratch. To say nothing of “improved” humans. Just wait – some lab will no doubt create genes that will unerringly cause people to vote Republican.

        1. Parts are parts. The question is what sort of parts. Can they and may they exist on their own? Then they are not a part but a whole. Next question as a whole are they composed of parts or just …one. Answer that and you have found the difference between a collective and a cognitive individual . To restate the famous phrase Gung Ho “Move forward to gether harmiously to a common purpose and under control of the leaders” one can see the difference between a Socialist Democrat etc whole and a self governing citizen whole. But the question arises. Since the leadership of a collective is not part of the whole are they not a separage group?

Comments are closed.