Poll: Do you believe in evolution?

More Americans believe in lucky numbers than believe in evolution. Let's see how Fruheads stack up.

When Kansas was having a debate about teaching evolution in schools, my Kazach friend (who is incredibly embarrassed by the state of science in his country) said, "They wouldn't ever even *have* that conversation in my country. We take evolution for granted."
I was embarrassed for my country.

i belive that a species evolve with in themselves...but not evolve in to another species. i just can't belive that something as complex as the DNA structure could magicaly appear out of a "big bang".

and i love this quote a speaker at my old church who gave a presentation about creation versus evolution
Evolution:monkey+hammer+vcr= better vcr
Creation:monkey +hammer+vcr= you need a new vcr

There is nothing magical about a species. It isn't even always clear when two organisms are of the same species. For organisms that sexually reproduce two populations are said to be of the same species if they can produce viable and fertile offspring. There is a genus of frogs where A can reproduce with B, B with C, C with D but A can't reproduce with D? What do you do in a case like that? It is really a snapshot of speciation. If the intermediate species died out there would be no question of them being different species.

and now I'll be quiet. I am trying to find out what other people think. I forgot I'm not trying to argue here.

it ok:) ...but my mind can not get around the idea that dna was formed in a big bang and the whole thing got started that way...to me its just doesn't make logical sence...weirder still the existance of god or a god for that matter doesn't make logical sence to me.

So, Gordon, whaddya say? How do we Fruheads stack up?

come on who the hell doesnt believe it theres scientific proof ......what ever
if you look at people to you can see that some are less evolved than others...as my spelling has not evolveded yet...or maybe it is evolving as you read this...quite holding me back I am the future!!!

Disclaimer: I accept the theory of evolution.

There is not scientific proof. There is scientific *evidence.* That's why it's called a *theory.* In my opinion, it is by far the most reasonable, well-supported, and believable explanation of how we got here, and I think it's a bit silly for people to reject it, but the way to discover, remember, and keep alive truths is to encourage discussion from all points of view. When something is just accepted as fact, and debate ends, people forget the reasoning behind the original theory and it becomes just as much a matter of blind faith as the creation story. Even if the theory in question is true, I don't think blindly accepting it is ever a good thing.

Years ago, my dad did a documentary on creationism vs evolution. One of the experts he interviewed said the following which has stuck with me ever since: "Evolution is a theory in the same sense that the earth is round is a theory"

I said I wasn't going to join in the discussion but I have to. That is not why it is called a theory. A theory is a systematic body of knowledge like the Theory of Gravity. The Theory of Gravity explains the fact of gravity. Yes a theory can be called into question, the Newtonian theory we replaced with the Einstein's. None of that changed anyone's belief in gravity.

OK, I'm not much of a science person, so i'm completely open to the possibility of being wrong on this...but I thought a "Law" was a fact and a "Theory" was generally accepted and used but not actually proven...?

A Scientific Law is something that describes a relationship which is observed to be invariable and the same between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.

A Scientific Theory is a set of principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So, they are very similar, but one deals with more absolute things (Law) and the other merely something which explains observed reactions (Theory).

That's what it's the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution.

"Listen to the one who searches for truth. Be wary of the one who has found it." I can't remember who said that and it's a bit of a paraphrase, but that's my theory on truth. ;)

I have no reason to doubt the theory of evolution. There is no other theory I've seen that makes more sense, or has more scientific evidence to back it up. That having been said, our truth always seems to be changing, and our scientists never cease their search for new truths, so if in twenty years some new evidence is discovered that takes our thinking in a new direction, I won't be shocked. I do think, however, that no matter what we find in the future, it will be building on what what Darwin began, not tearing it down... I don't think the theory will be disproven, but perhaps expanded upon.

Yes, and the thing is that the only real competitor for evolution is the "theory" of creationism which has no scientific evidence behind it whatsoever. It is based purely on a few passages from the bible. Why any rational being would ever consider that a viable theory is beyond me.

You can't simply limit the creationists to those with belief in the Bible/Torah/Koran. Every religion/sect/cult/etc. has some sort of creation story and all describe one or more beings with a hand in the creation of everything. Yes, pure rationality argues against even this, as historical momentum is defied by rationality. However, there have been many scientists and mathematicians who've proven that the universe cannot and even does not exist and they had very well described, rational theories. I would say they're wrong. Science gets proven wrong as often (or more so) than religious belief, but we still subscribe to it and it's methods.

I believe in evolution. I think it's been well proven. BUT I also don't believe that automatically negates creationism. Maybe as detailed specifically in books that are interpretations of what a higher being did...but evolution doesn't negate creationism in whole. (Heehehe weird thing for an atheist to say.)


Say I started a group story type of thing. You know where other people add on. It evolves. You can't deny its evolution...you see the process. But I created the story/game to start with. Both can coexist.


And now y'all probably think I'm stupid. :)

"And now y'all probably think I'm stupid. :)"

Not at all. :) That's just a really well-articulated version of what I've been trying to explain to myself for years. Thanks.

bah, no, because that's exactly what i think - i believe in evolution but i think that maybe, somewhere along the way, something gave it a little "nudge."

The mistake that creationists make is that there is nothing in the theory of evolution about God at all. Evolution describes a process by which the variety of life on earth developed. It says nothing whatever about devine will. You can argue till the cows come home about whether God created the universe or not and it doesn't even TOUCH evolution. They are two separate topics. Evolution neither denies no supports the existance of a creator God. It merely sheds light on the process he/she/it used to create human beings assuming that said creation was a willful act. (Big assumtion)

Yes I'm replying to myself. Because I don't have anyone specific to reply to. But my brand of atheism...and maybe it's agnosticism, I don't know...is this:

"I don't believe in god. "

and not:

"I believe there is no god."

It may not seem different but my version means I allow that there may well be a god and he/she/it created the universe to some extent. It hasn't been proven that god's existence is untrue. But I also don't feel god's existence has been proven true. In terms of faith, I just don't have it. But I can't in good conscience say there definitely is no god, no creation, no heaven, no angels, etc. I just don't, in my heart, believe in them.

I know it's a bit off topic but it fuels my above view of evolution vs. creationism. I don't think it has to be black and white. And I don't think it every WILL become black and white in our lifetime.

What you describe above is agnosticism. To be an atheist, you have to say there is no God. Agnosticism says basically you don't believe there is enough evidence one way or another. I think it's foolish and arrogant to say without a doubt there is no god, which is why I'm agnostic.

evolution vs creationism is a case of black and white. They are almost mutually exclusive when accepted by their most strict definitions. We may not have enough evidence to determine whether it is black or white, true or false, but that doesn't change the fact that one of them is true and one false, or both false.

I don't think that's necessarily true, that they're so nearly mutually exclusive. Yes, you have the caveat of "accepted by their most strict definitions". I guess what I'm trying to say in terms of my views is that I don't necessarily ascribe to the strict definitions. "creationism" to me is the idea that the universe was created by an outside influence like a god. I don't pull all the related religion-specific scenarios into my view. "Evolution" to me may not strictly follow the academically outlined definitions of the theory. To me it just means that organisms change and adapt over time to suit their environmental needs.

With my definitions...there is nothing to say god didn't create the universe and then go take a 100 gabillion year nap and the universe quite nicely went along and did its evolution thing. So I don't believe there has to be a true/false or false/false.

The question asked if we believe in evolution...not "the theory of evolution as put forth in this, that, and the other academic texts." I believe in evolution as I understand it. And my views and arguments follow as such.

what do you mean by "the strict definition" of creatonism? every culture has its own creation story, & even the faiths & denominations which incorporate the old testament have wildly different interpretations of what the creation story actually *says*.

oh & in the bit in genisis where it describes how humans are made? it's told twice & the versions side-by-side are rather different from one another.

i'm one of those people who subscribes to the wishy-washy theory that God creates all life & evolution is one way in which He/She does it. i don't make an exception for people either; it doesn't bother me to be related to monkeys.

Come on. We all know that fossils were put on the Earth by Satan (NHL player of the Week!) to confuse us all into believing in Evolution! Intelligent Design Rules!!!! Also this just in... the Earth is really flat!

;)

So when is Satan going to make everyone happy and join the Devils?

Humans and evolution is a wierd mix. I do believe that the theory of evolution still holds for humans, but it is not as strong as for other species. The simple fact remains that Humans adapt their environment to suit themselves, not vice versa any more.

However, nature is always changing and adapting as well. That's why you have mutations and other such tweaks which lead to other adaptations. In addition, as the standard of living rises, human life is prolonged.

Humans are a wierd species, they are the only species capable of acting directly against their nature towards their own destruction.

You can see evolution all around you. The most evident occurance is unnatural evolution, as in the breeding of plants and animals. I'm not talking gene-splicing, just the forced reproduction of organisms with specific traits, in order to proliferate those traits (sounds really aweful when I put it like that). Most breeds of dog exist because people saw that certain dogs were better at certain things: a Great Dane is wonderful wolf protection, but a Toy Fox Terrier is a much better ratter and neither would help much in the other situation. We saw that, we bred them as such, ta da! Evolution. While forced evolution does not explicitly prove evolution occurs in nature, the fact that such adaptability exists in the world is a very strong implicit proof. Human beings are a wild card because we have the intellect to effect evolution through various means, moral/ethical or not. However, we have the hardest time forcing ourselves to evolve or to leave our hands off entirely. Whatever nature seems to want to do with us, we don't care and would rather do our own thing...we are a combative species (or collection of species, depending on who you talk to and how you choose to define species). A friend of mine who's an evolutionary biologist LOVES to debate on whether or not homo sapiens sapiens is a single species or not.
In counterpoint to all of the above, however, I DO, more or less, agree with Andrea's point above. One does not preclude the other and evolution and creationism do not in the least cancel each other out. In my beliefs, God is a truly ingenious being. Not only did s/he create that initial spark and not only does s/he occasionally nudge existence in a certain direction, but s/he created in the creation a method of the creation to "self-correct" in a sense, to adapt and keep on surviving regardless of what any universe might throw in it's way. As an engineer, I find it nearly impossible to denounce creationism since the odds of spontaneous creation have been mathematically shown to be so infinitessimal that the entire universe shouldn't even exist, much less life (which has it's own infinitessimal odds of creation within the universe). Philosophically, we tend to view it as: it is, therefore it is. But you can't say it was a sure thing before it was.

I implore you all to look into a speaker by the name of Kent Hovind, a Creationist. He's a little extreme but his arguments are ones you'll never forget. Whether you're on the fence or you're a skeptic looking to prove him wrong, I recommend checking it out. You can download his seminars from his official site.

One of his points is how two seperate definitions of evolutions are often seen as one. Like adaptation; yes you take two different, incomparable dogs, but you'll always get some variation of a dog, nothing more. But with actual evolution, you would believe that a starfish eventually became a monkey which eventually became people, over "billions and billions of years". I am not equipped to defend this, but Kent Hovind has numerous examples and proofs why the Earth is not billions of years old. Definitely something to look into, gang.

I believe that there there was this hgher being and it invented guitars and when it was playing oO nem in nim nem in nim nem nin meeeEEEeeEeEeemOo or when it woud do thoes solos by mashing its fingers up on the little strings oOdidleedidleedidleedidleedidleedidleeeeEeEeEeEEEeeEeOo little people, and animals, and people who eat animals and animals who eat people and people who eat no animal and animals that eat only plants and ... yes even vegans would jump out of its amp right along with the music. plink plink. and thats why we worship the lead guitarist today... primitive reminders of our creator. rock.

yes I'm on crack. HA!

Anybody ever read _The Beak of the Finch_? (The author's name escapes me.) It's a case study involving a family that have been banding and examining finches on one of the Galapagos Islands for close to forty years and finding small-scale correlations between weather patterns and the length and shape of finch beaks. It's an oddly reverent take on evolution, and it leaves plenty o' room for mysticism.

...it's a movie starring David Duchovny. :)

Evolution... It also has some of the worst movie science ever. "since arsenic is poisonous to humans (carbon life form), and the aliens are Nitrogen based (one to the right of carbon on the periodic table), then their poison must be one to the right of arsenic= selenium, which is found in head and shoulders shampoo ( I wonder how much they paid for that product placement?)

Actually Selenium USED to be in Head and Shoulders. The current formula uses Zinc instead. I don't know how much the placement cost, but I loved it. I thought it was a hoot to see them use a real product rather than some made up thing.

And he also starred in "Playing God"...hmmmmmmmmm :)

"Oh IRA....IIIIRAAA...IRAAAAAAA!!"
"Quit doing that behind me."

"I'd like an ice cream."
"Yeah? What flavor?"
"Doesn't matter, it's for my ass."

Simply put...funniest moving in a long while.

well, I see the changes in the world around me, and life does "evolve", but I could never buy into the "big bang"
I don't know why.
I respect that others may have different views, that's why we all get along fairly swimingly!
:)
~J~

Ok, see I don't think that the Big Bang and evolution are at all the same thing. (not that I'm saying you think they are) One could exist without the other.

Actually, the big bang (which I tend to believe it) is one of the reasons I tend to lean towards the idea of there being something out there.

Neither science or religion can explain the start of everything to me.

Of course, if there is one true reality (something I've never been sure of), than any religion is part of science, and vice-versa.

How obvious is it that I've just read His Dark Materials anyways?