Who Believes in Evolution

Forums: Evolution, Religion, Politics, Science, Tough One
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Among Republicans, 43 percent believe in evolution; Democrats, 67 percent.

For a discussion, see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/31/1266040/-About-That-Poll?detail=email#

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 16 • Views: 6,124 • Replies: 74

[+4] - farmerman - 01/06/2014[quote] Man, you could well be absolutely right. Hope we can hear from somebody who actually knows for sure [/quote] Im not even slightly...
[+4] - glitterbag - 01/27/2014I attended Catholic school starting in Kindergarten, classes were held in the Church Community Center. At the time the were building the first Catholic School in AA county, so I was one of many of...
[+3] - farmerman - 01/05/2014The House Committee on SCience and Technology subcommittee chairman states that "evolution if strait from satan" GOP "Science" is different than that f the rest of the planet
[+3] - rosborne979 - 01/06/2014[quote="Romeo Fabulini"]In other words he's saying wingless creatures were in the habit of jumping out of trees and getting splatted until suddenly one was born with wings and was able to...
[+3] - Brandon9000 - 01/06/2014[quote="Romeo Fabulini"] ...In other words he's saying wingless creatures were in the habit of jumping out of trees and getting splatted until suddenly one was born with wings and was...
[+3] - farmerman - 01/11/2014well yes, especially since it was the "broader group" that voted to have him installed as chairman. At the least they have no problem with hi anti science stance. Does that not seem like...

@Advocate,

The House Committee on SCience and Technology subcommittee chairman states that "evolution if strait from satan"
GOP "Science" is different than that f the rest of the planet

3 Replies

Evolution HAPPENS and nobody can doubt it because we see it not only in fossil records, but in the commonsense knowledge that creatures MUST evolve or die, and i've no beef with that.
But the problem for many of us (including moi) is that there seems to be a guiding hand behind evolution, tweaking and fine tuning it to keep it on track over the millennia.
These scientists say the same thing-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."-Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."- Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), 1994 The Physics of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, preface.

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one"- Ed Harrison (cosmologist),Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

Jesus said "My Father is always working" (John 5:17)

Nice job..

4 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

But the problem for many of us (including moi) is that there seems to be a guiding hand behind evolution, tweaking and fine tuning it to keep it on track over the millennia.

Please give examples, because science doesn't observe any such thing.

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

These scientists say the same thing-

Most scientists don't say that at all. Cherry picking the few who happen to sound like they are supporting your point doesn't cut it.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

But the problem for many of us (including moi) is that there seems to be a guiding hand behind evolution, tweaking and fine tuning it

So, if you now accept the reality of evolution, the next step in your education wont be so much of a leap. You say "tweaking" I say "learning to do something new with what you've already got in response to some environmental change"

Now, if you say that god is buy ******* with the environment to practice his "tweaking", that's like playing chess with yourself.
You sy you took some biology courses in the 1960's in your degree program. Did they not even try to teach you some embryology, comparative anatomy, or evolution in college?

Prhaps if youd had those courses at a minimum, your understandings would be on a higher plane .

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

s iVE said to gungasnake many times, Quoting someone who isn't directly involved in the central research or the supportive sciences of evolution, is rather meaningless. You could just as well quote a lwayer (AND, at the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, that's just what they did to begin the modern era of Intelligent Design).
Fred Hoyle was a believer in panspermia where aliens came down and began the human race
Paul Davies, George Greenstein,Tony rathman, and Frank Tipler have no direct involvement in those support fields ND they are easily impressed by dogma.

ED Harrison was a nice enough old guy. (I think hes dead since the mid 2000') I sat in on a number of his seminars when he was at U of Arizona and I was on a sAbbatical and working on tree ring analyses. HE often got tripped up about where his "beliefs" ended and where science had firm evidence. He, like many Cretionists, tried a lot to conflate the Cosmological beginnings with organic evolution.

"If you don't know about engines, don't try to fix your car"
We try to maintain our areas of expertise distinct and clean. When someone merely uses a Phd as an all-encompassing right of passage, trouble usually ensues.
That's why I think Dawkins is a jerk because he doesn't follow his own areas of expertise yet he has often criticized others for doing likewise.

0 Replies

Quote:

Farmerman said re some scientists: Quoting someone who isn't directly involved in the central research or the supportive sciences of evolution, is rather meaningless

It cuts both ways, for example by your reasoning, when Dawkins and other eggheads make comments about religion, we can regard them as meaningless because they're not involved in theological research.. Smile

Quote:

Rosborne said re 'guiding hand behind evolution': Most scientists don't say that at all. Cherry picking the few who happen to sound like they are supporting your point doesn't cut it.
Please give examples, because science doesn't observe any such thing.

Give scientists time to come around, because as they continue delving deeper into the mysteries of the DNA spiral and micro-cellular biology etc, more and more of them are going to think " this CANNOT have happened by random chance!"

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/dna-god.jpg

Jesus said-"And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:30)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/phil-spector-large-hair_zps84727464.jpg~original

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

It cuts both ways, for example by your reasoning, when Dawkins and other eggheads make comments about religion, we can regard them as meaningless because they're not involved in theological research..Smile

I agree 100%. Ive always said that, DAwkins, our of his role as a "Historian of SCience" and an ethologist. IS just blowing smoke and is often a real jerk.
As they say, its bad science AND bad religion.

Quote:

because as they continue delving deeper into the mysteries of the DNA spiral and micro-cellular biology etc, more and more of them are going to think " this CANNOT have happened by random chance!"

See above. As we see that more and more chemical reactions that govern the "Spiral" are governed by basic organic rates of reactions, we more and more say"This can probably occur quite easily elsewhere"

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Give scientists time to come around, because as they continue delving deeper into the mysteries of the DNA spiral and micro-cellular biology etc, more and more of them are going to think " this CANNOT have happened by random chance!"

I'm sure you would like to think so but exactly the opposite has happened so far. The more we learn, the more apparent it becomes that Nature is all there is and that needs to be. We move further and further from religion the more we learn.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The House Committee on SCience and Technology subcommittee chairman states that "evolution if strait from satan"
GOP "Science" is different than that f the rest of the planet

Wow!!!!!!! Even I am shocked at that one.

0 Replies

I wouldn't say that i "believe" in evolution, but it do accept it as the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life forms on our planet today. The absence of poofism and scientific woo-woo is a very big plus.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

A relatively small number of scientists, et al., say that the facts SUGGEST a super-intellect tweaking evolution. However, there is no concrete evidence for this. However, there is concrete evidence for evolution. Thus, it is spurious to contend that there is a super-being behind nature.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

Thus, it is spurious to contend that there is a super-being behind nature.

Perhaps so Ad. Yet it does seem the constants had been "adjusted," in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to make evolution possible; while at the same time the Entire Megillah seems a dreary and pointless exercise without the humanoid to appreciate it

Just an intuitive observation, can't support it beyond this

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Thus, it is spurious to contend that there is a super-being behind nature.
Perhaps so Ad. Yet it does seem the constants had been "adjusted"...

No it doesn't.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Just an intuitive observation, can't support it beyond this

you mean its just a guess from nowhere?

Quote:

Perhaps so Ad. Yet it does seem the constants had been "adjusted," in some cases within a fraction of one percent, to make evolution possible;

Could you name one such constant that hs been adjusted to make evolution possible?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Could you name one such constant that hs been adjusted to make evolution possible?

Man, as I recall, evolution of the humanoid would have been impossible were the gravitational constant off by half of one percent. If you're more patient than I perhaps you can find a few more here

https://www.google.ca/#q=Evolution+impossible+if+%3F

But Man remember too, I specified it's only an intuitional observation. Furthermore I readily concede that in the meantime several other values have been proposed that might also support it

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

you realize that all thatstuff you posted in links is merely a view by creationists and IMHO its junk. They have no real evidence to support their conclusion that "Evolution couldn't take place"

the Gravitational constant is NOT a life limiter. It is a result of CAvendish solving Newtons equation . He did it with a balance and found it to be

0.0000000000667 newton m^2/Kg^2.
Within the last year workers have added a few more numbers after the 7. I could undertand that the MSS of one body may exert a force on a living being so as to modify its shpe or ability to move
viz

F=G m1 X M2/r^2. The force would vary waaay less were the G changing by a few numbers than if M2 were a huge number.
(Like JUPITER)

Ive always heard the Creationists try to argue this one but I find it kinda stupid .
As far as any others , you really haven't done any reading or pondering now have you? You've just "Heard" that some constants have been "Twerked" to make us in the Goldilocks zone. When , IMHO the Goldilocks zone of the Earth is best maintained by its magnetosphere , its core, and all the water we own.

We are looking around for such plantes out there that, as our sensors improve, we can focus in on their surfaces(or visit them physically with rovers)

Im waiting for someone to present a compelling argument about a lethal variation of the value of G

I cant see how this constant is "tweaking" our life chances on this planet anymore than pi.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Man, you could well be absolutely right. Hope we can hear from somebody who actually knows for sure

1 Reply

Quote:

rosborne said: the more we learn, the more apparent it becomes that Nature is all there is and that needs to be.
Advocate said: there is concrete evidence for evolution

Problem, is the Theory of Evolution is far from being cut and dried.
For example here's Dawkins breathtakingly analytical step-by-step conclusion as to how birds evolved, arrived at after many years of deep intensive study and research-
“My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees" (Climbing Mt Improbable, p 113/14)

In other words he's saying wingless creatures were in the habit of jumping out of trees and getting splatted until suddenly one was born with wings and was able to land safely!
Come on Dicky baby, you'll have to do better than that!
PS- and just to repeat what i said before, I fully believe in evolution, but I can also sense a "guiding hand" behind it, as do the scientists in the quotes I posted earlier.
Senator Johnny McCain summed it up nicely- "I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset I see the hand of God there also"

4 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

That is NOT whatDAwkins meant. Wings were first seen in several genera as "skin tags or extended integument in arm segments in vertebrates , and many were used for such things as climbing and or cooling. The only animals that would glide were those with some winglike structure that was already developing (The "Hopefulmonster" hypothesis)
We have many animals that hve developed some structures(like skin flaps on flying squirrels or webbed feet) that are later found to have some benefit(like swimming). We see Polar Bears and Newfoundland hunting dogs with such integumenta. As far as invertebrates If you look at the "TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY" we can see the gradual wing development development of Odonate insects(dragonflies) through the late Devonian through the Carboniferous. The first of these insects were showing mere "stubs" of wings that were probably mostly used for cooling or balance. As the Carboniferous proceeded through the Missippean these dragonflies began to exhibit longer wing segments and probably first "took off" sometime in that Era.
Birds have an even more complete fossil record, and a visit through the "TREATISE OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY" will show the fossil history of this Class of vertebrates.
BATS present a problem in that we don't see the cave dwelling social insectivore bats, the MICROCHIROPTERANS in the fossil record until they are pretty well along. The MEGACHIROPTERANS, the "Flying Fox and fruit bat generas DO show a fairly good evolutionary development from when they were tree dwelling animals. The Unguiclotates that include all the bats family first appearing in the Cretaceous . Today weve been able to type and identify "cousinship" in the big clades of the Unguicolates, these include insectivores and "flying lemurids" and several other related animals whose fossil record are quite complete and whose DNA typology is carefully described in the Paleogenetics literature. So "family trees from fossils may not be complete for the microchiropteran bats but it isn't like its completely missing. Fossils for most land dwelling animals are small and our collections of insectivorans areoften made up of skulls that had passed, partly digested, through a predators anal orifice.

0 Replies

Who Believes in Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know