What Americans Think about Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

There are dog kinds, cat kinds, horse kinds, elephant kinds, snake kinds, bird kinds, bear kinds, etc. A dog will only produce what it is, not what it isn't, and the same thing applies with the rest of the animals.



I gave this example before and since it was so good of an analogy, I will give it again. If you go in a pet store and you ask an employee for a dog, and he brings you out a cat, will you accept the cat? No, because you recognize the simple fact that the cat is a different kind of animal than the one you asked for. What is the difference? Well, whatever reason you give for not accepting the cat is the difference. You know the difference. You would have no problem distinguishing the difference between the different kind of animal in a pet store, so why all of a sudden get all anal now? A dog is clearly a different kind of animal than a cat, bear, snake, etc. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

It's a bad analogy, actually.

What makes cats and dogs different kinds, in your view? They are both furry, they both have four legs, they both have tails and ears, they both have similar bone structures and anatomy, etc. If we use your "definition" (and I use that term very loosely) of "kind" we could actually say that cats and dogs are the same kind.

And as I told you before, if I showed you what a banana used to look like and asked you to compare it to a banana that exists in its current form, I bet you wouldn't be able to tell at all that they belong to the same "kind."


Good thing scientists do actual work like analyze DNA and the fossil record or we'd all be flailing around in a sea of ignorance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Reasons? I will tell you the reason. The only reason evolution was "invented" was because those that didn't believe (or didn't want to believe in God) had to find some kind of explanation as to how life and the origin of "species" arisen. If you negate Intelligent Design, all you are left with is naturalism, and with naturalism comes these alleged processes that no one has ever seen before. That is the reason. That is the motivation, to negate the existence of God. Nothing more, nothing less.

And your evidence for this is .... ?

You might want to ask geneticist, Dr. Francis Collins what he has to say about that, considering he's an evangelical Christian.

"For me, somebody who is a 'show me the data' kind of scientist, but also a believer [in God], I don't see a discordance there," Collins said. "In fact it enriches my experience, each basically harmonized with the other. It gives you a view of life that is actually quite satisfying, and not in any way in conflict."

When comparing science and faith, Collins said each can be applied to answer different questions, and if you mix the two together you get conflict.

"It is certainly true in the United States that there is an uneasiness about certain aspects of science, particularly evolution, because it conflicts, in some people's minds, with their sense of how we all came to be," Collins said. "But you know, if you are a believer in God, it's hard to imagine that God would somehow put this incontrovertible evidence in front of us about our relationship to other living organisms and expect us to disbelieve it. I mean, that doesn't make sense at all. So as soon as you kind of get over the anxiety about the whole thing, it actually adds to your sense of awe about this amazing universe that we live in, it doesn't subtract from it at all."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/25/francis-collins-davos_n_4635338.html

 

[Ouroboros]

You really believe that dinosaurs evolved in to birds? Wow.

I don't just believe. I'm certain. But I'm not going to discuss that part since Q has nicely asked us to keep the topic in the thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Guys, I made this thread with the intent to focus on discussing the survey or discussing people's beliefs about the topic. This thread is not the place for another **** fest of "evolution vs. creationism" where one side tries to prove itself right to the other. If you want to do that, I respectfully request you start a different thread for that purpose.

Oops, sorry.

 

[idav]

Apparently, what americans think about evolution is that atheists are using it to prove god wrong. I thought atheists were on the hot seat, nope its those heathen, trying to be/replace god, scientists.

In science we trust?

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently, what americans think about evolution is that atheists are using it to prove god wrong.

That is a ridiculously over-generalization about us Americastanians, bub!
(Was looking for an excuse to over-react here.)

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Guys, I made this thread with the intent to focus on discussing the survey or discussing people's beliefs about the topic. This thread is not the place for another **** fest of "evolution vs. creationism" where one side tries to prove itself right to the other. If you want to do that, I respectfully request you start a different thread for that purpose.

I believe, Quintessence, that what you are seeing in these last few pages of this thread, and in other such threads, is in fact the 'reasoning' and system for people's beliefs on the topic. There are 2 groups.

First is a group that is open to discussion of the evidence, based upon many decades of research. Whether individuals in this group are theist or not, the members adapt their 'beliefs' about evolution based upon discovered data, and interpretation of that data by internationally acknowledged experts in the field. They sometimes find out (to them) new ideas pertaining to the field, and they look for the evidence, then readily assimilate it.

The second group believe that they already have the answers; as was conveyed to them by their personal authority figures (parents, ministers, etc...) who may or may not (most often the latter) have any expertise in the field of evolution. When members of this second group are presented with new (to them) ideas, they see if it challenges any of their previously held beliefs. If the new evidence does challenge their pre-existing beliefs, they scoff at it for the non-sense that they think it is; and return to their 'still unchallenged' beliefs. This second group will not question the authority of their own 'superiors' in this field, no matter how much evidence members of the first group nring to bear.

Of course both groups find this to be a frustrating exercise, as they cannot fathom the mindset of the other.
"Always question authority". vs. "The first authority is infallible, and only childish fools would question what we know to be true."

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's a bad analogy, actually.

What makes cats and dogs different kinds, in your view? They are both furry, they both have four legs, they both have tails and ears, they both have similar bone structures and anatomy, etc. If we use your "definition" (and I use that term very loosely) of "kind" we could actually say that cats and dogs are the same kind.

Actually, it is a darn good analogy. What makes a cat and dog different? If you went to the pet store and asked for a dog and was brought out a cat, and you said "thats not what I asked for"....and the employee asked "well, what makes them different", what would you say?

I mean heck, if you asked for a dog and was brought out a cat...IF YOU WOULDN'T accept it, why wouldn't you accept it? And I want YOU to tell me why you wouldn't accept it, and whatever reason you give me, guess what; that is the difference.

And as I told you before, if I showed you what a banana used to look like and asked you to compare it to a banana that exists in its current form, I bet you wouldn't be able to tell at all that they belong to the same "kind."

If you had two football fields full of all different kinds of fruits, and you told me to group all of the like items together..and I put all of the bananas together...all of the apples together...oranges, etc..... I am separating one kind of fruit from the others. Seriously people.

Good thing scientists do actual work like analyze DNA and the fossil record or we'd all be flailing around in a sea of ignorance.

Wow, DNA. And you think that supports naturalism how?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Apparently, what americans think about evolution is that atheists are using it to prove god wrong. I thought atheists were on the hot seat, nope its those heathen, trying to be/replace god, scientists.

In science we trust?

Well apparently that is the case. If you can prove that life came from nonlife, and the origin of species occured naturally...then you really don't need God now, do you?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call of the Wild, I don't mean to disrespect your opinion, but seriously:



If you want to have a **** fest against "evolutionists" make your own thread. If you have any on-topic comments, I'd be happy to listen to them, though.

All I said was dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. Apparently there is controversy over whether that has always been the case, which I find hilarious. But hey.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Confirming one theological claim is NOT the same as confirming the religion as a whole.

All I know is that the particular religion that I follow claimed it, I cant speak for other religions, I just know that mines did.

Besides, if you're going to use biblical or theological references to "prove" that those people "knew" that the Universe was of finite age, and yet ignore the bits that claim that plant life came to be before sunlight, that's just hypocritical.

So an omnipotent God that created the universe from nothing can't make plant life before sunlight? Since when did the laws of nature apply to him? Never.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well apparently that is the case. If you can prove that life came from nonlife, and the origin of species occured naturally...then you really don't need God now, do you?

We never needed god to begin with.

 

[idav]

Well apparently that is the case. If you can prove that life came from nonlife, and the origin of species occured naturally...then you really don't need God now, do you?

The only things we can prove are naturally occurring so that's what we keep finding evidence for. Nope, I am looking for any proof of supernatural intervention which so far fails to exist.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not quite. The prevailing view was that our universe and all in it were created in six days

That depends on how you interpret the scriptures, as YE and OE creationists disagree on this particular subject.

, and there's no teaching that covers the Big Bang or an expanding universe.

Yes there is. There is countless scriptures which mentions the "stretching" out of the heavens...and to stretch is to expand. Just go on biblegatway.com, and type the keyword of "stretch", and there ya go. Second, there may not be teaching of the Big Bang in terms of singularites and all that nonsense, but the fact of the matter is there is teachings of a BEGINNING, and the last I checked that is all that matters.

However, theologians began to realize before we had evidence of the evolution of the universe and all that's in it that the creation accounts just didn't add up to literal interpretation. It's poetic in form, way too brief to be an explanation of all of creation, the 1:1 and 2:4 narratives don't match. , Cain's wife appears out of nowhere, etc.

To many apologetic sites have already responded to the creation accounts in Genesis, and also that of Cain and his wife. That is old news.

And with a Sumerian text being found in northern Israel that is predates ours and which is so similar to our accounts, we also are quite certain that these narratives came from that area but were altered to fit our morals and values. This should not come as a surprise since all cultures do this.

I have a decision to make, I can either go in the direction of these Sumerian texts, or I can go in the direction of Jesus Christ, which there is actual historical evidence for.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We never needed god to begin with.

See, thats what Im talking about right there. It isn't as if there was belief in God and then the evidence for evolution made God irrelevant. Most of you won't believe in God even if there was no evidence for evolution.

 

[ruffen]

All I know is that the particular religion that I follow claimed it, I cant speak for other religions, I just know that mines did.



So an omnipotent God that created the universe from nothing can't make plant life before sunlight? Since when did the laws of nature apply to him? Never.

So, you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? If so, it's very brave of you to claim that scence has popped up and shown a tiny part of it to be true (about the cosmos not being eternally old), and elegantly skip away from talking about all the things science has definitely proven to be wrong in that story.

 

[idav]

See, thats what Im talking about right there. It isn't as if there was belief in God and then the evidence for evolution made God irrelevant. Most of you won't believe in God even if there was no evidence for evolution.

As the gaps are filled god keeps getting pushed further back into the background. The only real place left for god to hide is in the beginning of the universe but even with that we are seeing a rise in Deism. A god that created the universe and left it to do whatever. Everything "naturally" occurring would have been initiated since the beginning.

 

[McBell]

Well apparently that is the case. If you can prove that life came from nonlife, and the origin of species occured naturally...then you really don't need God now, do you?

Is that what this is really about?
I mean, you have already flat out said that you will not believe anything that you think removes your chosen deity....

 

[McBell]

See, thats what Im talking about right there. It isn't as if there was belief in God and then the evidence for evolution made God irrelevant. Most of you won't believe in God even if there was no evidence for evolution.

Your problem is that you rely upon your false dichotomy.
If there was no evidence for evolution, I would not support evolution.

Until you can present something outside your wishful thinking that god exists...
But we all know that isn't going to happen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, it is a darn good analogy. What makes a cat and dog different? If you went to the pet store and asked for a dog and was brought out a cat, and you said "thats not what I asked for"....and the employee asked "well, what makes them different", what would you say?I mean heck, if you asked for a dog and was brought out a cat...IF YOU WOULDN'T accept it, why wouldn't you accept it? And I want YOU to tell me why you wouldn't accept it, and whatever reason you give me, guess what; that is the difference.

I'm not the one making claims about kinds. You are.
Hence why I'm asking YOU what makes them different. The fact that you can't seem to articulate that point very well speaks volumes.

If you had two football fields full of all different kinds of fruits, and you told me to group all of the like items together..and I put all of the bananas together...all of the apples together...oranges, etc..... I am separating one kind of fruit from the others. Seriously people.

I’m pretty sure that if the banana, in its original form was on field, you would have no idea where to put it.
Thanks for just stating the exact same thing again though. That was really necessary.

Wow, DNA. And you think that supports naturalism how?

Plenty of evidence has been provided for you to look over and you STILL haven’t looked at it. And here you are again, making the same claims over and over again as if previous discussions with you never happened.
Time for you to crack open a book.



This is a good example of a certain set of people who refuse to look at evidence, refuse to even educate themselves about evolution (self-admittedly, on this person’s part), but still somehow claim it's false or some mass conspiracy that has spanned over the course of 150+ years. This group doesn't appear to be as small as one would hope. But it's still small enough that we may not have to fear for the future of science in the US just yet.