Poll: Do you support evolution?

[Jegsimmons]

I was searching the other day for a recent poll on how many people believe evolution vs. creationism, but the only ones I could find were over a year old. So I decided to bring the question to you, the Escapist viewers. I probably won't get many people in the 54+ age group, but all polls have some element of bias. So, which do you believe? Feel free to tear each other apart in the comments.

EDIT: All right, maybe believe was the wrong word. How does 'support' sound?

EDIT 2: Just shut up about the grammar, please. You either support evolution or you don't. The wording doesn't matter.

so where is the option: "God made science, so it would be blasphemy to ignore scientific progress, so yes i support evolution"

you know...the CORRECT choice/

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Just a quick question...

Is there any conflict about evolution vs creation in any other country in the world kept for the USA? (i mean in this magnitude?)

Guess there was a reason why all those religious christian minorities left europe as soon as america was discovered Oo

They TRY and get it into schools in the UK but even the more right wing papers like the express and Daily Mail slap them down when they do. Science is a really important subject, not just for individuals but for their countries as well, the country producing the best scientific minds is going to lead the world in the future.

I don't really think it's a very large proportion of people that do try though, it's just that they're quite vocal. That said, we did actually learn about different theories like intelligent design and Lamarckism (it's been a few years, forgive me if I've misspelled that) in GCSE biology, but from a historical point of view rather than as serious alternatives.

But seriously, why would there have to be a higher power? Why is the notion that there probably isn't one ridiculous? I dun geddit.

Everything has a beginning. There has to have been a point where itself didn't exist. And sense you can't make matter out of nothing by natural means, the origin of the universe must be supernatural.

I'm sure you're going to be quoted to hell and back over this, so sorry in advance (but I'm still doing it).

If everything has a beginning, surely the higher power must also have a beginning? And just because we can't understand how something may have happened yet, does that mean that we must automatically assume the supernatural? There's a lot that we can't yet explain, I think it's safer to just say 'we don't know' until we actually find evidence for these things rather than assume the supernatural (which to my knowledge, has no evidence to support it besides your logic, which I personally disagree with).

 

[Bruce]

But seriously, why would there have to be a higher power? Why is the notion that there probably isn't one ridiculous? I dun geddit.

Everything has a beginning. There has to have been a point where itself didn't exist. And sense you can't make matter out of nothing by natural means, the origin of the universe must be supernatural.

Not according to quantum mechanics, where matter and antimatter are pretty much popping up at random the whole time to wave their privates in the face of physicist's understandings of reality.

And however it happened the universe would have begun on the quantum level. So scientifically, that argument is quite weak - it doesn't fit observed data.

Even aside from that when it comes to philosophy there are quite a few problems with this argument.

First, there is no need to assume it is in fact your conception of a godlike being. This particular argument has been in Western philosophy from the ancient Greeks, and has been used to argue for a variety of very different religions, which shows it doesn't actually tell you anything about the first cause.

In fact one doesn't even have much of a reason to think such a first cause would be eternal, or sentient thus taking it being a god right out of it.

Further "From whence God" - if everything has to be caused, then that goes for God too, unless you make an exception for God, in which case not everything has to be caused and the logical thread of the argument falls to pieces.

A far more logical outcome, one that is consistent with observation on a quantum level is that the basic premise "Nothing comes of nothing" does not actually hold true.

 

[Silvanus]

so where is the option: "God made science, so it would be blasphemy to ignore scientific progress, so yes i support evolution"

God made a method by which to draw conclusions, and that method indicates that he doesn't exist?

I can see why that option wasn't in the poll.

 

[TKretts3]

Whether or not I support it has no bearing on it's existence. I identify and acknowledge that evolution, on a macro and micro scale does exist, and that it has lead the human species, and other species, to where they are today, biologically.

 

[Rath709]

Impressed by the irony of someone with an avatar of a monstrous villain like Mother Theresa defending science and slapping down right wing newspapers. Kudos to you sir and/or madam.

 

[Jegsimmons]

so where is the option: "God made science, so it would be blasphemy to ignore scientific progress, so yes i support evolution"

God made a method by which to draw conclusions, and that method indicates that he doesn't exist?

I can see why that option wasn't in the poll.

You mean it shows no evidence either way.

And that's not a question, that's a statement.
You can't draw a scientifically accurate conclusion when no evidence for either one exist, especially when dealing with the metaphysical.

 

[Eddie the head]

so where is the option: "God made science, so it would be blasphemy to ignore scientific progress, so yes i support evolution"

God made a method by which to draw conclusions, and that method indicates that he doesn't exist?

I can see why that option wasn't in the poll.

You mean it shows no evidence either way.

And that's not a question, that's a statement.
You can't draw a scientifically accurate conclusion when no evidence for either one exist, especially when dealing with the metaphysical.

Not really. The null hypothesis is the default possession on anything, and in this case the null hypothesis states there is no supernatural. There is no connection unless you prove there is. Scientifically speaking unless you can prove there is a god, there isn't one. In science absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Here is a nice video explaining it better then I could.

 

[wrightguy0]

even if i didn't it wouldn't matter, evolution marches on whether i believe in it or not. it happens and we can actually see it happen.

Example: over the last 60 years Caucasians have lost their wisdom teeth, most of my generation have impacted wisdom teeth and most millenials don't have them at all. this coincides with a massive dietary shift that sees westerners eating more meat and our mouths have adapted to that diet.

 

[Silvanus]

You mean it shows no evidence either way.

And that's not a question, that's a statement.
You can't draw a scientifically accurate conclusion when no evidence for either one exist, especially when dealing with the metaphysical.

Precisely what Eddie said.

"There is no god" is a negative statement; it is the logical default. The null hypothesis does not require evidence if there is no reason to believe otherwise.

For example; I do not require positive evidence that Freddy Krueger does not exist. The only logical default position is that he does not exist, because there is not a shred of evidence to say he does. A deity has the same amount of evidence as does Mr. Krueger.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Also moths don't evolve to change colour in response to the environment. There needs to be moths with the specific colour scheme (or moths with seasonal changes as a part of their genes). The moths that have the advantageous phenotype will grow in numbers due to natural selection.

Bzzt! Wrong. Evolution consists of natural variation in offspring coupled with natural selection for those that best fit the environment/interact with other organisms in that environment. What you just described *IS* evolution.

Variation in moths. Natural selection for those moths that best fit the environment who go on to have offspring that are more likely to be like their parents. The gene pool (of the species/pool of organisms) has thus shuffled. That's evolution.

Yes, what I described is evolution I never claimed it wasn't.

I merely claimed that this was wrong.

moths evolve to change color when air quality changes the color of the trees they rest on.

This is wrong because they don't evolve to change their colour. The colour is already present, but due to natural selection the phenotype will increase in that population. This is evolution, your way of putting it is wrong.
You put it in a way that made it seem like evolution has a purpose rather than using it as an explanation of why things are. That is in fact one of the biggest misconceptions in evolution.

You clearly don't know evolution as well as you think you do, yet you have the audacity to tell others they have no right to speak unless they read up on it... I'll leave it at that.

I never said it had a purpose. Natural selection favors existing some mutated alleles over others. Accumulated damage or (semi-)random events provides the mutations. As to telling people they should read up on it I was correct in doing so. I did however make an error when I was responding to you. In reading comprehension of your reply to someone else, not in terms of the science. So I owe you an apology for that.

 

[Tanis]

Denying evolution is like denying The Holocaust.

The FACTS speak for themselves.

But, sure you can do it, but you'll look foolish and ignorant.

 

[Simalacrum]

The wonderful thing about the truth, is that it doesn't need to be believed to be true.

I'm paraphrasing Neil DeGrasse Tyson there; you can guess which camp I'm in from that...

 

[Annihilist]

Can't religion be the answer to why, and evolution could be the how?

Just something I thought I would add. I'm for evolution to be honest.

It's hardly an answer though. It's a bunch of superstitions written in a book thousands of years ago. There's no reason to believe the claims have any basis in reality.

Evolution is a fact. Move on people, nothing to see here.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Can't religion be the answer to why, and evolution could be the how?

Just something I thought I would add. I'm for evolution to be honest.

It's hardly an answer though. It's a bunch of superstitions written in a book thousands of years ago. There's no reason to believe the claims have any basis in reality.

Evolution is a fact. Move on people, nothing to see here.

Faith is a funny thing, it was just a thought. I'm not any kind of religious, but I try take others views into account and to just trivialize it as "superstitions" seems a bit mean. People believe different things, I was just trying to create discussion with my post, but most replies have just been to say religion isn't real or is stupid etc.

Yes, it seems like a a fact to me as well.

 

[jawz13]

God created science. Science is just the observation of his work.
I see no issue.

 

[Silvanus]

Except that the scientific method cannot prove that something doesn't exist. You can gather evidence and observations that decrease the likelihood that something exists, but science cannot prove a negative.

Yes, there is very little evidence supporting the existence of god, Freddy Krueger, and bigfoot, but that does not eliminate the possibility that they do exist.

It doesn't eliminate it, but it reduces it to negligible probability. At that point, there's little practical difference. I'd say my claim that it "indicates he doesn't exist" holds true.