• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

  • Total voters
    60
Jerry said:
This is your claim;
Religious belief and a rejection of evolution are STRONGLY correlated in the US.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Religious belief is directly correlated with a rejection of evolution in America:
iue6sizpteow-po1bcyola.gif


Thus, it comes as no surprise to find that there is a strong relationship between church attendance and belief in evolution in the current data. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to say they believe in evolution.

Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution.


Jerry said:
In fact, what your link argues is that there is a stronger religious objection to evolution in the US than in other countries. However, you took that mean most of the religious in the US object to evolution. That's not what your link says.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The first link is to show that Americans are an oddity compared to other 1st world countries when it comes to accepting evolution. So the natural question is: why?

The second link answers this question. It shows that religiosity is strongly correlated to disbelief in evolution.





Jerry said:
II maintain that the loud minority remains a minority non the less, and in America evolution has a home.
Click to expand...
I agree that a the majroity of Americans are not vocal anti-evolutionists. But some 25% of Americans reject evolution and are part of that vocal group. You can see examples even here in such posters as Walter and Digsbe.

Only 39% of Americans accept evolution. That is pathetic.
pp05ytoxcuijd73t-qrr3w.gif


Americans who have lower levels of formal education are significantly less likely than others to be able to identity Darwin with his theory, and to have an opinion on it either way. Still, the evidence is clear that even to this day, Americans' religious beliefs are a significant predictor of their attitudes toward Darwin's theory. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to believe in evolution, and most likely to say they do not believe in it.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
Religious belief is directly correlated with a rejection of evolution in America:
iue6sizpteow-po1bcyola.gif


Thus, it comes as no surprise to find that there is a strong relationship between church attendance and belief in evolution in the current data. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to say they believe in evolution.

Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution.



Incorrect. The first link is to show that Americans are an oddity compared to other 1st world countries when it comes to accepting evolution. So the natural question is: why?

The second link answers this question. It shows that religiosity is strongly correlated to disbelief in evolution.






I agree that a the majroity of Americans are not vocal anti-evolutionists. But some 25% of Americans reject evolution and are part of that vocal group. You can see examples even here in such posters as Walter and Digsbe.

Only 39% of Americans accept evolution. That is pathetic.
pp05ytoxcuijd73t-qrr3w.gif


Americans who have lower levels of formal education are significantly less likely than others to be able to identity Darwin with his theory, and to have an opinion on it either way. Still, the evidence is clear that even to this day, Americans' religious beliefs are a significant predictor of their attitudes toward Darwin's theory. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to believe in evolution, and most likely to say they do not believe in it.
Click to expand...

To be accurate, no one believes in evolution. It's a scientific theory, not a faith, you don't believe in theories. So, now that you've completely backpedaled, I'm wondering if the church of Google will grant you a somewhat more credible source than a Gallup poll (who are well known for their exit polls ;))

I suppose since the purpose of this thread is to provide the OP with information, the OP can take our posts and settle on his opinion for himself.
 
Jerry said:
To be accurate, no one believes in evolution. It's a scientific theory, not a faith, you don't believe in theories.
Click to expand...
Oh, joy. Jerry is going to play semantic games now. :roll:

Jerry said:
So, now that you've completely backpedaled
Click to expand...
I haven't backpedaled at all. The only thing that has chnaged is that you finally understand what I am saying rather than attacking a strawman. This is why I asked you to explain what you THINK I was saying.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Jerry said:
I'm wondering if the church of Google will grant you a somewhat more credible source than a Gallup poll (who are well known for their exit polls ;)
Click to expand...
Typical. You can't accept the conclusions of the data so the data must be wrong.

Its a pretty well established fact that evolution is a theory highly despised by most of the religious in the US. Luckily things are improving rapidly.
 
scourge99 said:
Young Earth Creation is but one slice of the pie. Christians reject evolution for purely religious reasons on other grounds as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they cannot reject it on non-religious, non-emotional reasons, which is the point. Anyone who actually understands the evidence and evaluates it rationally has no choice but to accept it as logically and evidentially supported. It's only went you take a hard right at irrationality that you turn into a ranting creationist.
 
There is no fundamental incompatibility between the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creationism. There is, however, a good deal of money to be made by pretending there is.

I don't know enough about the gods to even begin speculating on their role in the creation of the universe or the development of primitive life. I do know enough to be firm in my belief that they have been with us every step of the way since the development of civilization, and that they continue to guide our progress. And I know enough about science to understand that any god that hates it is not worthy of human worship.
 
I voted "no" because there is no science which had proved there is no God, moreover so-called "evolution" itself is a bogus and fake, no one science can prove it.
 
Alfons said:
I voted "no" because there is no science which had proved there is no God, moreover so-called "evolution" itself is a bogus and fake, no one science can prove it.
Click to expand...

Science cant prove there is a god or there isn't a god, you're quite right.

But you can't prove there's a god either...
 
scourge99 said:
Here are some applications of the "worthless fact" you call evolution:

CA215: Practical uses of evolution.
Click to expand...

Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.
Click to expand...

Last time i looked frameworking all of biology didn't feed the poor or help gain political power. Knowing the differences between organisms may be great and correct but this debate is mainly for who people are voting and as such is worthless knowledge. Again this is a debate about the evolution debate. That evolution debate is between politicians and people in the media only. Other than that, only biotech company workers and researchers care. The "Theory of Evolution" as debated has no practicable everyday use and certainly has no use when electing politicians.

Point two onward in your article is the same thing. Again, biology may employ people and create great things. But within a political discussion (which the evolution debate currently is), this is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
hallam said:
Last time i looked frameworking all of biology didn't feed the poor
Click to expand...
I disagree. Advances in science, including Biology have profound impacts on technology such as food production and medical care. Evolution has had a particular important impact on our understanding and prevention of disease as the link specifically points out.


hallam said:
or help gain political power.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure how any type of hard science helps people gain political power.


hallam said:
Knowing the differences between organisms may be great and correct but this debate is mainly for who people are voting and as such is worthless knowledge.

That evolution debate is between politicians and people in the media only.
Click to expand...
There is no debate. The only people "debating" are a bunch of religious wackos whose interpretation of their preferred holy-book comes in conflict with the evidence found by studying nature (science).

hallam said:
Again this is a debate about the evolution debate. Other than that, only biotech company workers and researchers care. The "Theory of Evolution" as debated has no practicable everyday use and certainly has no use when electing politicians.
Click to expand...

Most people don't use working knowledge of MOST scientific theories in everyday life. E.G., even before the theory of gravitation was put forth--which allowed precise calculations of distance, speed and acceleration--people knew that things fell downwards. Your criticism can be applied to just about any scientific theory.
 
hallam said:
Last time i looked frameworking all of biology didn't feed the poor or help gain political power. Knowing the differences between organisms may be great and correct but this debate is mainly for who people are voting and as such is worthless knowledge. Again this is a debate about the evolution debate. That evolution debate is between politicians and people in the media only. Other than that, only biotech company workers and researchers care. The "Theory of Evolution" as debated has no practicable everyday use and certainly has no use when electing politicians.

Point two onward in your article is the same thing. Again, biology may employ people and create great things. But within a political discussion (which the evolution debate currently is), this is meaningless.
Click to expand...
1. Your whole line is based on the FALLACY that evolution needs to feed the poor or serve other overwhelming social needs... when the Debate is about what's True or not.
You want to illogically 'sour-grapes' the truth with "Yeah BUT can it buy me a new car?".
What has Gravity done for society?
Far less than Evolutionary/Genetic/Biological sciences. But Gravity doesn't contradict your Goofy Holy Book and stone-age beliefs.

2. Science/Bio is indeed feeding the poor and very useful. ie. new crop strains and farming methods. Including developing plants that are resistant to EVOLVING pests. And of course, recent Medical advances.

3. What's truly worthless and produces NO human progress (witness Koran-ball-and-chain backwards countries), is people holding tightly on to their Holy Books defying progress.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.
Click to expand...

agreed,there are lots of arguments like that and neither side has a monopoly on being on the right side

the bible thumpers [they mostly vote GOP] are on the wrong side of this argument

the faith based belief that more gun restrictions will mean more public safety, on the other hand, is a left wing religious belief
 
mbig said:
1. Your whole them is based on the FALLACY that evolution needs to feed the poor or serve other overwhelming social needs... when the Debate is about what's True or not.
You want to illogically 'sour-grapes' the truth with "Yeah but can it buy me a new car?".
What has gravity done for society?
Far less than Evolutionary/Genetic sciences. But Gravity doesn't contradict your Goofy Holy Book

2. Science/Bio is indeed feeding the poor and very useful ie. new crop strains and farming methods. Including developing plants that are resistant to EVOLVING pests. Ooops.

3. What's truly worthless and produces NO human progress (witness Koran-ball-and-chain backwards countries), is people holding tightly on to their Holy Books defying progress.
Click to expand...

true, holy books come in many forms

some worship mythical deities.

others worship concepts such as socialism, marxist or creations of man such as government

faith based belief systems that ignore facts retard enlightenment
 
hallam said:
Last time i looked frameworking all of biology didn't feed the poor or help gain political power. Knowing the differences between organisms may be great and correct but this debate is mainly for who people are voting and as such is worthless knowledge. Again this is a debate about the evolution debate. That evolution debate is between politicians and people in the media only. Other than that, only biotech company workers and researchers care. The "Theory of Evolution" as debated has no practicable everyday use and certainly has no use when electing politicians.

Point two onward in your article is the same thing. Again, biology may employ people and create great things. But within a political discussion (which the evolution debate currently is), this is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Evolution has a meaning in your medicine. The evolution "debate" (bleh) is a scientific one, not a political one.
Also, tell norman borlaug that biology didn't feed the poor.
 
I believe it's a debate between two scientific opinions. I'm someone who does not believe in evolution due to scientific evidence against it and the lack of proof supporting it.


Redress said:
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.
Click to expand...

So am I an uneducated ignorant person for not believing in the theory of evolution?
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I believe it's a debate between two scientific opinions. I'm someone who does not believe in evolution due to scientific evidence against it and the lack of proof supporting it.
So am I an uneducated ignorant person for not believing in the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

I have a few questions. First, how is there not enough scientific evidence to support evolution. Second, what scientific evidence goes against it. And third, are you a creationist (humor me).

Lastly, you may not necessarily be uneducated or ignorant, but you have come to the wrong conclusions, and are incorrect.
 
If you know what the Truth you want is and if you’re invested in it, then you develop arguments for that support the Truth. If you just care about making your answer more correct, you just gather more data, write a paper and expose it to review. The sun is small and rises at the eastern edge of the world had many developed arguments to support it. If you look at the sun, earth and its moon from the North Star can you see the moon orbiting the earth?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
If you know what the Truth you want is and if you’re invested in it, then you develop arguments for that support the Truth. If you just care about making your answer more correct, you just gather more data, write a paper and expose it to review. The sun is small and rises at the eastern edge of the world had many developed arguments to support it. If you look at the sun, earth and its moon from the North Star can you see the moon orbiting the earth?
Click to expand...

Ah...

I can kinda see what you're getting at but I don't think it applies here...
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ah...

I can kinda see what you're getting at but I don't think it applies here...
Click to expand...

I should proof read better. I got interrupted and just posted.
I just have experience that I think parallels the 'evolution though and conclusion process' that is this thread.
 
hallam said:
Point two onward in your article is the same thing. Again, biology may employ people and create great things. But within a political discussion (which the evolution debate currently is), this is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Biology is not meaningless in a debate about evolution. Evolution is in fact a theory of biology, and thus biology always has weight in the issue. People may want to politicize it, but those are deflections and thus not actually arguments about evolution itself. Biology is very important to the basis of the argument and if one ever wants to intelligently debate evolution, then biology must necessarily be there. I for one don't understand why there is such large resistance to evolution theory. It's the theory which best explains the observables. Hell at base evolution means to change, and we know things have changed. What existed in the past does not exist now and vice versa.

I do fear that there is an undercurrent of anti-science, anti-intellectualism which is starting to spread across the US. This sort of willful ignorance is not a good thing. Humans never got anywhere by stagnation, we too must evolve.
 
I think there's room for science and religious theology. Consider the following:

Biblical scripture teaches that God created man from the dust. Science teaches that this planet was formed from the collection of space debris colliding together and over time molding itself into this big blue ball, that is was once such the collision occurred that carried with it the building blocks - DNA - for life to form on Earth. Until then, science teaches that this planetoid was nothing more than a large piece of hot space junk. The question then becomes how did that single cell organism develop into the countless species of plant and animal life we know today?

Answer: It evolved...adapted to its surroundings, changing over time. We're still seeing these such changes all around us everyday. They're subtle, i.e., setiments in water as it flows through rivers and streams being deposited in areas where they normally wouldn't have decades or hundreds if not thousands of years before. The Earth's crust shifting, volcanos erupting casting off the primortial soup was call lava which science has shown does reconstitute life.

It's a cycle, one man can't fully understand in all its detail, but we are learning. We are evolving...every day. But the two answers we may never know are "why" and "how"? Why create man here on this planet were this lifeform (to our knowledge atleast) does not exist elsewhere? And how did we presumably go from what science says is a being from the water to a two-legged creature that walks upright that happens to have a higher plain of deductive reasoning than our nearest primate relative?

For what it's worth, I just accept it for what it is, count my blessings that I was born human and not an ant or spider and move on. But I thank God for wisemen who are daring enough to challenge what they don't know and are brave enough to seek out answers that stand to benefit all of mankind.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I think there's room for science and religious theology. Consider the following:

Biblical scripture teaches that God created man from the dust. Science teaches that this planet was formed from the collection of space debris colliding together and over time molding itself into this big blue ball, that is was once such the collision occurred that carried with it the building blocks - DNA - for life to form on Earth. Until then, science teaches that this planetoid was nothing more than a large piece of hot space junk. The question then becomes how did that single cell organism develop into the countless species of plant and animal life we know today?

Answer: It evolved...adapted to its surroundings, changing over time. We're still seeing these such changes all around us everyday. They're subtle, i.e., setiments in water as it flows through rivers and streams being deposited in areas where they normally wouldn't have decades or hundreds if not thousands of years before. The Earth's crust shifting, volcanos erupting casting off the primortial soup was call lava which science has shown does reconstitute life.

It's a cycle, one man can't fully understand in all its detail, but we are learning. We are evolving...every day. But the two answers we may never know are "why" and "how"? Why create man here on this planet were this lifeform (to our knowledge atleast) does not exist elsewhere? And how did we presumably go from what science says is a being from the water to a two-legged creature that walks upright that happens to have a higher plain of deductive reasoning than our nearest primate relative?

For what it's worth, I just accept it for what it is, count my blessings that I was born human and not an ant or spider and move on. But I thank God for wisemen who are daring enough to challenge what they don't know and are brave enough to seek out answers that stand to benefit all of mankind.
Click to expand...

How about instead of starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence to support it, (E.G., that the Bible is true and/or that evolution is true) take an unbiased look at the evidence and see where it leads.
 
scourge99 said:
How about instead of starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence to support it, (E.G., that the Bible is true and/or that evolution is true) take an unbiased look at the evidence and see where it leads.
Click to expand...

And what evidence might that be? I don't believe either is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. There's truth in both, but the ultimate truth...I don't think man will ever find the answer where evolution or creationism is concerned. WE just are. WE have adapted to our surroundings and our surroundings have adapted to us. The documentary, "Life After People" illustrates these facts very clearly. Man has learned to live in some of the harshest environments on this Earth, but as soon as Man leaves from one area nature reclaims the surrounding area. Life found a way to continue even without man's help. So shall it be after man is gone. Until then, man will adapt to his surroundings wherever he leaves his footprint. It just is...

It doesn't take one with a keen scientific mind to figure this out. You just have to look beyond yourself every once in a while and see the beauty this Earth has to offer.

We exist...We adapt....We evol.

Next...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom