Poll: Do you support evolution?

[cyrad]

Why must these be mutually exclusive?

The Bible doesn't explain how God created the universe. It just says he did it. The theory of evolution neither disproves nor invalidates God's existence and His work in creation. Admittedly, the theory may conflict with radical fundamentalist views that take the Bible's word to a critically literal level, but such interpretations are a minority. Even so, the details of creation should not distract one from the heart of the Bible: the relationship between God and humanity.

For these reasons, I always roll my eyes at Creationism vs Evolution debates. The debate needlessly polarizes ways of thinking and distract from what truly matters with regards to the existence of God.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

I would rather have a "Why do they need to be mutually exclusive" option. It's silly to hold your hands over your eyes and deny the facts in front of you. But for all I know, evolution is God's plan and the apostles were just ego driven fascists who wrote a manifesto.

 

[Evonisia]

Yeah I do believe in it, there's been enough evidence to support it for me to put my belief in it.

Don't like the arguments over it but... we've seen it happen, in fact we see things adapt and evolve all around us.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

Actually no, they're unsatisfied because they can't accept that being right doesn't have to mean the other party is wrong.

Well technically the one side's point is that the other side is wrong. A purely scientific understanding of evolution demands evidence and there is none to support a creationist perspective. Therefore to have a genuinely scientific understanding of evolution is to believe that creationism or any other faith based perspective is wrong. I am an atheist and I'm entirely fine with people settling on whatever conclusion best suites them, but I don't believe a theistic view of the universe is at all compatible with my own.

 

[Lightknight]

It is somewhat comical that evolution is considered a theory still. It's a bit like calling gravity a theory.

And cue the explanations of what a scientific theory is.

Well, there are principles, there are forces, there are processes and then there are theories that make up those things. I'd say evolution is every bit as much an observable process as gravity is an observable force. Example, I am being pulled into my seat by a force known as gravity and I, despite being a man, have two nipples exactly where women do despite mine not having any particular purpose thanks to the trait not being maladaptive enough to have evolved away.

I see, that's what you meant. Well, you had that written in a quite confusing way.

Well, writing things in a confusing way is a great joy of mine.

No, we don't have variances of the constant. We have the constant c, which is the speed of light in a perfect vacuum (299,792,458 m/s) and we have varying lightspeed values in different mediums due to interactions (like <url=http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html>just under 50km/h), which are not c.

<youtube=w_DenvIA9gQ>

Oh, vacuum... then that means that E=MC^2 is cool on an academic level and crappy for real life examples... I'd always imagined people to use it as an actual equation. While I have had plenty of physics and calculus I must admit to never actually needing to use the constant except as a number to remember rather than to solve real problems. I can probably also blame some teachers who were too lazy to add the "in a vacuum" bit but I probably can't blame the text books if I were to go back and read them.

Either way, I stand corrected and I thank you for it. As a sign of gratitude, I'll give you the gift of an optical illusion with which I have delighted my peers at dinner conversations. Place your wrist between your eyes with your palm resting on your forehead and your eyes on either side of the small of your wrist such that your wrist appears distorted/smaller than it actually is. Now, take your other hand and pass it on the other side of your wrist at a straight horizontal angle. Note that as you pass it by, your brain is momentarily confused because it apparently takes too long to get there.

Now, if you already knew this. Let me explain that other people do not commonly know this silly trick and are as amazed at it as they were the first time someone made a pencil move like rubber in front of their eyes.

 

[Six Ways]

Oh, vacuum... then that means that E=MC^2 is cool on an academic level and crappy for real life examples... I'd always imagined people to use it as an actual equation. While I have had plenty of physics and calculus I must admit to never actually needing to use the constant except as a number to remember rather than to solve real problems. I can probably also blame some teachers who were too lazy to add the "in a vacuum" bit but I probably can't blame the text books if I were to go back and read them.

E=mc^2 doesn't depend on a medium, as it's got nothing to do with the propagation of light. c is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum, and in all cases E=mc^2. You don't get a different amount of energy out of nuclear fusion depending on whether you're in space or underwater.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Can't religion be the answer to why... snip

In my view... no it can't.

Why?

Take the classic 'argument from improbability' that theists like to dig out every single time this kind of debate comes up. (the fact that some people even think this is up for debate anymore is just plain sad)

The argument from improbability essentially states that the universe, as complex as it is, well... it seems very improbable that it formed on its own without a god. In other words, the argument argues that its very improbable for there to be a watch without a watchmaker.

The problem is, that kind of argument defeats itself if you take it to its logical conclusion (or lack of one, really).

Again, why is this the case?

Because as complex and improbable that the universe is, any being that one cares to assume made it would have to be at least as improbable and complex as the universe. Complex in order to make it, and improbable because if the universe itself is improbable, then why isn't this 'god' person just as unlikely to exist?

Which brings us into an infinite recursive loop in which we keep having to assume that someone else designed the designer and this problem repeats itself ad infinitum. God is not a good explanation for how the universe came into being... its not even a bad explanation, it is a plot hole, a complete failure to explain. They might as well be trying to convince us that Albus Dumbledore waved a magic wand and POOF! we're here.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Westerns are probably the least superstitious people on the planet.

By which measurement?

By percentage of "religious" people:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-reveals-most-religious-nations-in-the-world-30562/ "However, Europeans overall were significantly less religious than Americans and the rest of the world."

http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

... although clearly it's much more strongly applicable to Western Europe than the US. But if the post I responded to wanted to make massive generalisations, then who am I to not respond similarly?

 

[direkiller]

Actually no, they're unsatisfied because they can't accept that being right doesn't have to mean the other party is wrong.

you are falling for what is know as the wedge strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
science has nothing to say about gods, as science is a search for natural explanations of phenomenons.

 

[JazzJack2]

Westerns are probably the least superstitious people on the planet.

By which measurement?

By percentage of "religious" people:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-reveals-most-religious-nations-in-the-world-30562/ "However, Europeans overall were significantly less religious than Americans and the rest of the world."

http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

... although clearly it's much more strongly applicable to Western Europe than the US. But if the post I responded to wanted to make massive generalisations, then who am I to not respond similarly?

You seem to have made the mistake in assuming that being religious means your superstitious.

 

[Six Ways]

You seem to have made the mistake in assuming that being religious means your superstitious.

In what functional sense are they distinct?

 

[Dr. Crawver]

I would have imagined the vast majority are in the yes camp, and judging by the poll, I'm not wrong.

 

[Snotnarok]

Believe it or not, it's basically proven with the exception of being able to show something evolve in real time. Hence why it's a theory ...like gravity, and the earth orbiting the sun, yes, they are theories. For some reason many seem to think a theory means a hypothesis, it's not.

That's untrue. We have viruses evolving in real time, and someone has pointed out a rather interesting thing about certain mosquitoes that changed so far when they moved underground that they can't even interbreed anymore.

I was more referring to large lifeforms like people and such. We have seen fish evolve in I believe few fish generations adapting to pollution in the local water. So take the same fish from another area, drop it in, dead, the local fish I believe removed a gland from it's body that would have normally tried to process the pollution...Ah, was going to say didn't have an article but a quick glance shows this to possibly be it:
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/fish-lake-victoria-evolving-around-pollution

 

[JazzJack2]

You seem to have made the mistake in assuming that being religious means your superstitious.

In what functional sense are they distinct?

Religion is a philosophical belief that the world has spiritual aspects that are clearly distinct from the physical aspects.

Superstition is a the belief that things can happen without a clear natural cause, this arguably has some overlaps but religion is not inherently superstitious.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

You see, that's the cool thing: evolution doesn't need any believing, it won't go away or change its terms whether your little creation story or other beliefs change.

 

[waj9876]

Hah, I grew up hearing both. One side from this religious school I used to go to, and the other from television and such.

I quickly came to the conclusion that God could have totally done all that sciency goodness, even when I was like, seven.

 

[Guiltyone]

Thank God for this poll!

It's so nice to see fellow Escapists respecting good old Darwin. Honestly, there was a time when I didn't suspect that people denying Evolution Theory existed. One day I learned about them and, completely flabbergasted, shared this information with my family. To my horror, it turned out that my parents and siblings consider Evolution to be a stupid myth too! And they teach my little nephews and nieces same agenda. Horrible, just horrible.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

They say you cant compare religion with science. An i agree. But since parts of religion forced creationism onto schools in USA then yes, now you can compare both.

There is still place for belief in a higher order. God could be the big bang. Its another name for a beginning. But trying to create bullshit science to prove the bible was true is stupid. Hell, science disproves theories from 50, 100 or more years ago. Its evolving as well. Where as creationism, its to say "this happened" and then looks for proof. Sciences has theories, asks "how did this happen" looks for proof. Then changes the theory. Science is truth, and ok the truth may not be correct under our current knowledge. But future knowledge can prove it incorrect and come up with new theories.

Religion is written in stone, its "this is true" and thats it. No arguments or any thing. Science evolves, it looks for the truth.