• 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!

One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows[W:571]

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Even back in the 50's when I went to school, evolution was taught in public schools and creationism in church. I have never seen creationism in the public schools or even know of anyone who wanted it to be. Like I said, faith is faith and science is science. At times they aren't mutually exclusive either. They can mesh.

I know, but there are still school boards and states that are trying to add creationism or its pseudo-science cousin "Intelligent Design" to public school science curriculae. Kansas and TX are the 2 that come immediately to mind.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that true good education can only happen in the absence of religious belief?

For the love of God stop inflating every perceived slight against religion to some kind of absolute, blanket attack. That is not even remotely close to what I said and even the slightest bit of reading comprehension would have told you that. I've seen you do this about a half dozen times in this thread alone. It's getting old, man.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I do not think I understand what you are getting at. If it is this 6000 year thing, that is just someone's best guess and really has nothing to do with the bible or with science.

But adherents to the idea believe it to be the word of God, and they perceive it as a biblical truth. Misplaced blind faith in an idea is still blind faith in an idea.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that true good education can only happen in the absence of religious belief?

That's not even close to what he said, and you're smart enough to know that.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I know, but there are still school boards and states that are trying to add creationism or its pseudo-science cousin "Intelligent Design" to public school science curriculae. Kansas and TX are the 2 that come immediately to mind.

Can you explain what is wrong with this quote?

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. "

Intelligent Design
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

For the love of God stop inflating every perceived slight against religion to some kind of absolute, blanket attack. That is not even remotely close to what I said and even the slightest bit of reading comprehension would have told you that. I've seen you do this about a half dozen times in this thread alone. It's getting old, man.

Then be clear...It would be helpful if you didn't try so hard to label people as "religious fundamentalist"
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

That's not even close to what he said, and you're smart enough to know that.

He should be clear then.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Can you explain what is wrong with this quote?

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. "

Intelligent Design

Everything, basically. None of it is based on anything that resembles actual evidence. It boils down to bull**** like "this here is complicated, therefore it was designed!"

It also absolutely, positively is the same thing as creationism. Just shoehorned into pseudoscientific language.

It is also absolutely, positively not a theory because there is not a single shred of evidence nor any test one can run to gather any evidence on the "theory."

It's essentially the same thing as when some quack on late-night infomercials tells you that his electrosonic muscle energizer uses biophotons to enhance your core alignment.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Can you explain what is wrong with this quote?

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. "

Intelligent Design


The entire paragraph is pseudo-science speil. Sounds good doesnt it?

However the theory itself doesnt work because it starts here, the opposite of what science does: science starts with a proposition and then attempts to prove it.

Psuedo-science has something it wants to prove and then creates or manipulates evidence to support it.

HUGE difference.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

The entire paragraph is pseudo-science speil. Sounds good doesnt it?

However the theory itself doesnt work because it starts here, the opposite of what science does: science starts with a proposition and then attempts to prove it.

Psuedo-science has something it wants to prove and then creates or manipulates evidence to support it.

HUGE difference.

Ok, so just trying to understand here, so when these people say this:

"This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:

1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.
Regarding the chemical origin of life, Kuhn points to the Miller-Urey experiments and correctly observes that "the experimental conditions of a low-oxygen, nitrogen-rich reducing environment have been refuted." Citing Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, he contends that "the fundamental and insurmountable problem with Darwinian evolution lies in the remarkable complexity and inherent information contained within DNA." Kuhn also explains that "Darwinian evolution and natural selection could not have been causes of the origin of life, because they require replication to operate, and there was no replication prior to the origin of life," but no other known cause can organize the information in life.

Dr. Kuhn then turns to explaining the concept of irreducible complexity, citing Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box and noting that "irreducible complexity suggests that all elements of a system must be present simultaneously rather than evolve through a stepwise, sequential improvement, as theorized by Darwinian evolution." Further, "The fact that these irreducibly complex systems are specifically coded through DNA adds another layer of complexity called 'specified complexity.'" As a medical doctor, Kuhn proposes that irreducibly complex systems within the human body include "vision, balance, the respiratory system, the circulatory system, the immune system, the gastrointestinal system, the skin, the endocrine system, and taste." He concludes that "the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis."

Kuhn also explores the question of human/ape common ancestry, citing Jonathan Wells's book The Myth of Junk DNA and arguing:

DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.
In Dr. Kuhn's view, this poses a problem for Darwinian evolution because the "[t]he ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins."

Kuhn also observes that a challenge to neo-Darwinism comes from the Cambrian explosion:

Thousands of specimens were available at the time of Darwin. Millions of specimens have been classified and studied in the past 50 years. It is remarkable to note that each of these shows a virtual explosion of nearly all phyla (35/40) of the animal kingdom over a relatively short period during the Cambrian era 525 to 530 million years ago. Since that time, there has been occasional species extinction, but only rare new phyla have been convincingly identified. The seminal paper from paleoanthropologists J. Valentine and D. H. Erwin notes that the absence of transitional species for any of the Cambrian phyla limits the neo-Darwinian explanation for evolution.
Despite Texas's call for discussing the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, Kuhn closes by noting, "In 2011, when new textbooks were presented to the State Board of Education, 9 out of 10 failed to provide the mandated supplementary curricula, which would include both positive and negative aspects of evolution (44)." Citing Discovery Institute's Report on the Texas Textbooks, he laments:

everal of the textbooks continued to incorrectly promote the debunked Miller-Urey origin of life experiment, the long-discredited claims about nonfunctional appendix and tonsils, and the fraudulent embryo drawings from Ernst Haeckel. In essence, current biology students, aspiring medical students, and future scientists are not being taught the whole story. Rather, evidence suggests that they continue to receive incorrect and incomplete material that exaggerates the effect of random mutation and natural selection to account for DNA, the cell, or the transition from species to species.
Kuhn concludes, "It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm."

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Then they are lying?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Then they are lying?

"Irreducible complexity" is a completely nonsensical idea. Almost literally "it's too complicated not to be designed." They state that various systems would have to be present simultaneously, but that simply isn't true.

They propose that there are too many differences between us and our ape ancestors to have occurred this quickly, but offer absolutely no evidence that this is the case. They don't have any evidence suggesting some kind of limitation on mutations.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I know, but there are still school boards and states that are trying to add creationism or its pseudo-science cousin "Intelligent Design" to public school science curriculae. Kansas and TX are the 2 that come immediately to mind.

If so, I do not think it will get far. Hopefully a little common sense will apply. There are always those who try to force their views on others. Whoever it is or whatever it is about, that is not right.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

If so, I do not think it will get far. Hopefully a little common sense will apply. There are always those who try to force their views on others. Whoever it is or whatever it is about, that is not right.

Views like religious beliefs and/or morals or views like algebra?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

But adherents to the idea believe it to be the word of God, and they perceive it as a biblical truth. Misplaced blind faith in an idea is still blind faith in an idea.

I suppose that is up to them. 6000 years is just a man made time table that someone very early on dreamed up. Yet, I see no harm in them believing it.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I suppose that is up to them. 6000 years is just a man made time table that someone very early on dreamed up. Yet, I see no harm in them believing it.

I don't know, I just envision an Albert Einstein being raised by parents like that, and shudder. How many great minds have we lost to this kind of thing?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Can you explain what is wrong with this quote?

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. "

Intelligent Design

It's pseudo-science...
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Ok, so just trying to understand here, so when these people say this:

"This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:


CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Then they are lying?

So, that site....CSC - About CSC

Is specifically FOR the promotion of Intelligent Design.

Kuhn's statements are even taken out of context....he did not do that research to support ID (that I saw).

Most scientists CHALLENGE pieces of current theory...how do you think they learn more, make discoveries, get funding? I'm not a scientist but I saw things in there that threw red flags for me based on what I have studied.

--not all text books are up to date or updated regularly...that is not evidence of anything
--an 'explosion' of fossils from a particular period may not mean anything more than a particular location or locations were discovered or geologic or other disturbances revealed them or that different environmental conditions (oceans draining, volcanic activity, flooding, geological layering and composition, etc) preserved more or exposed more fossils during a period.
--vision, digestive systems, all that have been very adequately explained...and accepted. Where is the evidence that disputes those explanations?

But my point stands: sounds really good right? Real convincing? Plenty of 'real science' in there and neither you or I are in the position to challenge it, are we?

That is why it's important to examine your sources carefully and read many.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Views like religious beliefs and/or morals or views like algebra?

Whatever type of religious view I hold, how does that hurt or harm you? How does anyone's else's religious views or lack there of hurt or harm you? They don't. One goes to public school to learn the core subject of math, English, science etc and to church and Sunday school to learn and renew their faith.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

If so, I do not think it will get far. Hopefully a little common sense will apply. There are always those who try to force their views on others. Whoever it is or whatever it is about, that is not right.

Sure, but what I find disturbing is that this is still happening in 2011, etc. So all bets on common sense are off IMO.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I don't know, I just envision an Albert Einstein being raised by parents like that, and shudder. How many great minds have we lost to this kind of thing?

Probably none. If a person has a great mind he is smart enough to recognize something made up and what reality is. By nature humans are curious, those who are the most curious will sever anything that binds them from satisfying that curiosity.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Sure, but what I find disturbing is that this is still happening in 2011, etc. So all bets on common sense are off IMO.

LOL, I have known very few politicians with common sense whether they be school board, mayors, congressmen etc.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

He should be clear then.

He was clearly referring to religious fundamentalists (a term which has a clear meaning) which is not the same as 'everyone who is religious"
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I agree. If people aren't getting religious training at home I seriously doubt anything you learn in school is going to make much difference.
I see both sides of this issue and if I were to play devil's advocate for the pro-religion side I would say this: "we aren't looking for everyone in a public school to be christian or believe in anything christians believe in, but there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that the people who created the country will all live in did have christian beliefs, and many of those believe contributed directly to the overall fabric of the country as a whole."

i see nothing wrong with that
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

He should be clear then.

No, you should read better. First off, you snipped one sentence out of the entire conversation. If you'd actually bothered to read the rest of the conversation, you'd have seen I explicitly said this did not apply to everyone. And I explicitly said there were numerous Christians who advance various scientific fields. Then, even the one sentence you did decide to quote? Referred specifically to religious fundamentalists, which is clearly a minority group within the religious community and not every religious person. Even the rest of that post alone quite clearly was referring to a particular group, not every religious person.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't read the rest of the conversation. The alternatives are you being either a liar or stupid.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Well, I am not a republican or a christian. I am a libertarian

and an atheist. That said, I am a bit skeptical of evolution as an explanation for how we all came to exist here on planet earth.

Darwin's theory of evolution has benefitted greatly in this grand debate by the simple fact that it's primary(only, really) competitor is something as absurd as the biblical creation story. Of course evolution looks like a slam dunk winner next to that. Anyone who dares question evolution, let alone reject it, risks being labeled a crackpot bible thumper regardless of the fact they may never have indicated support for the creation story.
...so there is that. It has gone largely unchallenged in the broad secular world. Is there any other competing scientific theory? Not that i know of. Perhaps the debate was so polarizing that the instict to defend evolution has stifled healthy skepticism.

My understanding of Darwins theory is basically this;random genetic mutations lead to more successful reproduction, thus the mutation is passed on, so on and so forth. Natural selection favors those individuals among a given species who have the beneficial mutated gene, so over time they branch off from the species and the group that does not have the mutation eventually becomes extinct. (Darwins "dead end" species) right so far?

So now the questions.

How does random beneficial mutation create a functioning organ? How many mutations would it take to create a venom gland, for example?

It seems to me that evolution, as described above, would proceed at a fairly regular and steady pace over the many hundreds of millions of years that life has been "evolving". Wouldn't you agree? But if im not mistaken, the rate at which new species or phyla appear has not been steady at all has it? When was the last time a new phyla appeared? How would the 30 million years that preceeded today compare with other periods of earth's history as it regards the appearance of new species or phyla?

What is the rate of mutation for dna molecules?


It seems to me there may be plenty of good reasons to be skeptical about evolution as an answer to the question of our existence. Please understand, I know that animals evolve. I know evolution is real, for what that is worth. I can see fossil evidence that horses were small and now they are big, for example. Hehe. But that is far from turning a single cell organism into Sophia Vergara in a mere 4.6 billion years.

by the way. How many of those "dead end species" have we found fossil evidence of so far?


Jayar
 
Back
Top Bottom