Republicans' acceptance of evolution fades

Must be all of that evidence for ID, like... Nope, drew a blank.

I do wonder, however, what the margin of error is, and if the change is more, or much more, than that. If Republicans have declined, though, I wonder if some of that could be due to fewer of those who accept science being less willing to identify with the GOP.

Meanwhile, the particulars of evolution become ever better known, with genomes providing evidence for what has been selected and what hasn't been so much. I think the creationists play their cards reasonably well by ignoring (certainly not explaining) all of the old evidence that all of life is related in the patterns and with the limits expected of evolution (not that there couldn't be separate origins, but there couldn't be many, almost certainly), as well as the "progression of life" through time as evolutionarily predicted, instead carping about supposed problems. Just make it sound as if it were doubtful, and many will doubt.

When a third to a half of Americans believe in alien visitations at some point (possible, but no convincing evidence at all), I don't suppose it's surprising that many will believe in creation, especially since there are rewards promised for the latter. The two ideas even go together, since many "ancient alien theorists" have aliens designing humans.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Must be all of that evidence for ID, like... Nope, drew a blank. I do wonder, however, what the margin of error is, and if the change is more, or much more, than that. If Republicans have declined, though, I wonder if some of that could be due to fewer of those who accept science being less willing to identify with the GOP. Meanwhile, the particulars of evolution become ever better known, with genomes providing evidence for what has been selected and what hasn't been so much. I think the creationists play their cards reasonably well by ignoring (certainly not explaining) all of the old evidence that all of life is related in the patterns and with the limits expected of evolution (not that there couldn't be separate origins, but there couldn't be many, almost certainly), as well as the "progression of life" through time as evolutionarily predicted, instead carping about supposed problems. Just make it sound as if it were doubtful, and many will doubt. When a third to a half of Americans believe in alien visitations at some point (possible, but no convincing evidence at all), I don't suppose it's surprising that many will believe in creation, especially since there are rewards promised for the latter. The two ideas even go together, since many "ancient alien theorists" have aliens designing humans. Glen Davidson

I think the poll shows that educated people are leaving the Republican Party in droves. They are left with a bunch of inbred, Fox News, Ann Coulter cretins. Led by Ted Cruz their bigotry will consume them.

The "rewards" of an idyllic afterlife promised by religion/s, to see and be with one's beloved ancestors and other kin, as well as one's dearly departed pets as well, for an eternity in the land of milk and honey, far outweigh the cold, calculating, impersonal knowledge and rational ideas, evidence notwithstanding, that science makes available to the human mind. Fear of our impermance, our own personal deaths, make this notion difficult to resist.

Doc Bill said: I think the poll shows that educated people are leaving the Republican Party in droves. They are left with a bunch of inbred, Fox News, Ann Coulter cretins. Led by Ted Cruz their bigotry will consume them.

I wonder if some of that could be due to fewer of those who accept science being less willing to identify with the GOP.

I wonder if some of that could be due to fewer of those who accept science being willing to identify with the GOP.

Interesting implication: if the general number of Americans who accept evolution is about the same, but the number of Republicans who accept it has gone down, then A) more Democrats accept evolution now than 4 years ago, and B) Republicans are quite literally holding America back on this issue by backsliding away from science and demonstrable fact.

A sad result of their anti-science and anti-intellectual rhetoric of late.

For conservatives, rejecting evolution is a political gesture above all else. You can't refute a loyalty oath. Since the issue has nothing much to do with biology for most of them, both the arguments made against creationism and the sporadic attempts of the other side to create a scientifically defensible semi-hemi-Creationism (I.D.) are kinda beside the point, which is struggle about values rather than a debate about facts.

That said, the increase in the percentage of Republicans who reject evolution does mean something. It's evidence of an increase in the ideological fervor (or cultural desperation) of the part of the right.

DavidK said: The "rewards" of an idyllic afterlife promised by religion/s, to see and be with one's beloved ancestors and other kin, as well as one's dearly departed pets as well, for an eternity in the land of milk and honey, far outweigh the cold, calculating, impersonal knowledge and rational ideas, evidence notwithstanding, that science makes available to the human mind. Fear of our impermance, our own personal deaths, make this notion difficult to resist.

Finally, I use “accept” evolution, rather than Pew’s and CBS’s “believe in,” because evolution – descent with modification – is a scientific fact and not a belief.

richarddmorey said: Using the "accept" language doesn't change anything, because it simply means "accept (as true)", which is synonymous with believing it. I suppose you could say that the word "accept" has the additional implication that it is also true, but using loaded language would not be a great way to construct a poll if your goal is simply to find out what people think.

On the other hand, as seen on Fox News, Republicans believe in Santa Claus (and know that He is white).

I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution.

I do not believe that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," instead I believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." This however just means that I accept that there has been, and continues to be, adaptive change within the human species. This indeed can be concluded from observational evidence and therefor could be called a "fact."

I do not however, think that the evidence allows for the conclusion that all life has common ancestor, or that the unguided process of natural selection has the creative ability to produce new species and generate the diversity of life we observe. To hold these beliefs one has to make inferences that have not been confirmed through scientific observation.

The survey would have been more accurate if thy would have defined the term evolution using the more controversial definitions. If that was done, I think the results would have displayed an even stronger indication that the right is starting to see through the fog of academia's deceptive practices.

DavidK said: The "rewards" of an idyllic afterlife promised by religion/s, to see and be with one's beloved ancestors and other kin, as well as one's dearly departed pets as well, for an eternity in the land of milk and honey, far outweigh the cold, calculating, impersonal knowledge and rational ideas, evidence notwithstanding, that science makes available to the human mind. Fear of our impermance, our own personal deaths, make this notion difficult to resist.

fittest meme said: I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution.

I do not believe that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," instead I believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." This however just means that I accept that there has been, and continues to be, adaptive change within the human species. This indeed can be concluded from observational evidence and therefor could be called a "fact."

I do not however, think that the evidence allows for the conclusion that all life has common ancestor

or that the unguided process of natural selection has the creative ability to produce new species and generate the diversity of life we observe.

To hold these beliefs one has to make inferences that have not been confirmed through scientific observation.

The survey would have been more accurate if thy would have defined the term evolution using the more controversial definitions. If that was done, I think the results would have displayed an even stronger indication that the right is starting to see through the fog of academia's deceptive practices.

Regarding "accept" vs. "believe [in]": George Lakoff got his 15 min of fame a decade or so ago with (I think) Moral Politics, sort of an expanded magazine article in which he argued that Republicans are better at framing than are Democrats. He was right: if you cede the vocabulary to someone, you are halfway toward losing the debate. For this reason, I never say conservative*, but rather say far right (which is much more polite than reactionary); never say shooter, but rather say gunman; never say intelligent design, but rather say intelligent-design creationism; and never say believe in evolution because that plays into the far right's claim that evolution is a religion.

* Unless I am referring to a Democrat.

Oh dear. Please do not let the "meme" troll derail the thread.

I find it interesting that, as the evidence for evolution increases, acceptance of evolution does not. It's almost as if some people have beliefs that are not constrained by evidence. Imagine that. One would have thought that the last seven hundred years of scientific progress would have convinced everyone of the efficacy of empiricism.

DS said: I find it interesting that, as the evidence for evolution increases, acceptance of evolution does not. It's almost as if some people have beliefs that are not constrained by evidence. Imagine that. One would have thought that the last seven hundred years of scientific progress would have convinced everyone of the efficacy of empiricism.

DS said: I find it interesting that, as the evidence for evolution increases, acceptance of evolution does not. It's almost as if some people have beliefs that are not constrained by evidence. Imagine that. One would have thought that the last seven hundred years of scientific progress would have convinced everyone of the efficacy of empiricism.

Matt Young said: Regarding "accept" vs. "believe [in]": George Lakoff got his 15 min of fame a decade or so ago with (I think) Moral Politics, sort of an expanded magazine article in which he argued that Republicans are better at framing than are Democrats. He was right: if you cede the vocabulary to someone, you are halfway toward losing the debate. For this reason, I never say conservative*, but rather say far right (which is much more polite than reactionary); never say shooter, but rather say gunman; never say intelligent design, but rather say intelligent-design creationism; and never say believe in evolution because that plays into the far right's claim that evolution is a religion. * Unless I am referring to a Democrat.

happy new year robert

The problem with those who feel that evolution was guided is that they do not grasp a FUNDAMENTAL concept in evolution, which is that there is no need to invoke guidance - the evidence for randomness (mutation and drift) and selection is adequate.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few years back in which the writer described a study in which the researchers claimed that not only are there genes which contribute to our abilities, there are genes which contribute to our ability to use those abilities. By way of analogy, think of the cliche that we are all dealt a hand in life, but it is up to us how we play it. The researchers would say that there is a second level of control which governs our ability to play our hand. The writer accurately described the study, but in a final, gratuitous sentence demonstrated that he had entirely missed the point (in such a manner as would reassure the demographic group which is the WSJ's target audience). Do we really want students to entirely miss this vital point of evolution?

Matt Young said: never say shooter, but rather say gunman

The reason for the science denial is obvious. The point of the religious right is to justify right wing policies in religious terms, to claim that "the Bible" justifies such policies. But for centuries upon centuries some people have interpreted the Bible differently from that. So their trick is to claim that "the entire Bible is literally true", and then to ignore all except a few harsh passages that they can use to justify their social and political agenda. When you claim that the Bible is "literally true", you run afoul of science. But if you claim it can be interpreted, you allow more benevolent interpretation of harsh passages. They'd rather run afoul of science.

Matt G said: The problem with those who feel that evolution was guided is that they do not grasp a FUNDAMENTAL concept in evolution, which is that there is no need to invoke guidance - the evidence for randomness (mutation and drift) and selection is adequate.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few years back in which the writer described a study in which the researchers claimed that not only are there genes which contribute to our abilities, there are genes which contribute to our ability to use those abilities. By way of analogy, think of the cliche that we are all dealt a hand in life, but it is up to us how we play it. The researchers would say that there is a second level of control which governs our ability to play our hand. The writer accurately described the study, but in a final, gratuitous sentence demonstrated that he had entirely missed the point (in such a manner as would reassure the demographic group which is the WSJ's target audience). Do we really want students to entirely miss this vital point of evolution?

fittest meme said: I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution. I do not believe that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," instead I believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." This however just means that I accept that there has been, and continues to be, adaptive change within the human species. This indeed can be concluded from observational evidence and therefor could be called a "fact." I do not however, think that the evidence allows for the conclusion that all life has common ancestor, or that the unguided process of natural selection has the creative ability to produce new species and generate the diversity of life we observe. To hold these beliefs one has to make inferences that have not been confirmed through scientific observation. The survey would have been more accurate if thy would have defined the term evolution using the more controversial definitions. If that was done, I think the results would have displayed an even stronger indication that the right is starting to see through the fog of academia's deceptive practices.

harold said: the scientific understanding of evolution, under "theistic evolution", is identical to the normal scientific understanding of evolution.

fittest meme said:

harold said: the scientific understanding of evolution, under "theistic evolution", is identical to the normal scientific understanding of evolution.

I agree with this statement and it is another reason I think the survey is misleading. It does not acknowledge, nor accurately measure the growing number who recognize the scientific deficiencies of neo-Darwinian thought and the attractiveness of Intelligent Design theory. Those who believe an intelligent agent had a role in the process of universe creation are either pigeon holed into the easily challenged position of not believing that species change over time, or believing that evolution (in the neo-Darwinian sense) was theistic-ally driven, or in my case appearing to be a believer in unguided evolution. In my post above I mentioned that because of the way "evolution" was defined in the first question (change over time) I would have fallen into the majority category that professed a belief in evolution. However, I would not have answered, in the second question, that I thought God directed the process. It is my current understanding that God established the foundational order of the universe and wrote the specific genetic code for each species (including the genetic diversity that allowed the species to adapt to environmental changes through natural selection). It would not be my understanding that God steps in to whimsically effect every life and death interaction on earth that results in the adaptive change to a species over time. The survey's equivocal use of the word "evolution" skews the results. I guess the most pertinent question is whether they have done this purposefully or simply due to carelessness and or lack of knowledge on the subject.

The very worst news: The Republicans are down 5 % from 4 years ago.

...your second link shows a 9% drop not a 5% one. Specifically, PEW reports that in 2009 54% of Republicans accepted evolution while in 2013 the number is 43%.

From now on I’ll say “gun owner.” As in, “A white Christian gun owner just killed 32 children.”

DS said: Your understanding is contradicted by the evidence.

meant to say "opinion survey" instead of just "opinion" in the post above.

I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution.

While the numbers aren't great for a first world country, they aren't as bad as they look.

1. 20% of the US population are Geocentrists who think the sun orbits the earth and can't diagram the solar system, a task I learned in the first grade.

Half of all USians have IQ's less than 100.

2. This is the Crazification Factor. 20% will believe anything, no matter how stupid it is. Supply side economics, UN agenda 21, elves, Elvis, ghosts, witches, mass weapons of destruction in Iraq, and on and on.

They are just baggage being dragged along by our society and contributing nothing much. They aren't that important. Every society has their quota of baggage.

Republicans’ acceptance of evolution fades

"It is my current understanding that God established the foundational order of the universe and wrote the specific genetic code for each species (including the genetic diversity that allowed the species to adapt to environmental changes through natural selection)."

Your understanding is contradicted by the evidence.

As for the survey, I will stipulate that it may be inaccurate, as is every survey.

fittest meme said: It is my current understanding that God established the foundational order of the universe and wrote the specific genetic code for each species (including the genetic diversity that allowed the species to adapt to environmental changes through natural selection)

Hey phhhht, take a downer. I think it's pretty well established here that I don't hold the same beliefs as the rest of you. This thread however is about a survey that attempts to categorize people with different beliefs on the topic of evolution. Take some comfort in the fact that because of me you are able to get some actual first hand evidence on how the survey may have been understood by those with different beliefs from your own. That's the idea behind objective analysis of evidence is it not?

Just take some deep breaths . . . you'll be alright . . . and I'm sure you'll have a chance to debate me on the evidence of evolution in the future when there's a blog post that starts with such a topic.

fittest meme said: Hey phhhht, take a downer. I think it's pretty well established here that I don't hold the same beliefs as the rest of you. This thread however is about a survey that attempts to categorize people with different beliefs on the topic of evolution. Take some comfort in the fact that because of me you are able to get some actual first hand evidence on how the survey may have been understood by those with different beliefs from your own. That's the idea behind objective analysis of evidence is it not? Just take some deep breaths . . . you'll be alright . . . and I'm sure you'll have a chance to debate me on the evidence of evolution in the future when there's a blog post that starts with such a topic.

phhht said: Like the other christians who post here, you are unwilling or unable to say why you believe what you do.

fittest meme said: It does not acknowledge, nor accurately measure the growing number who recognize the scientific deficiencies of neo-Darwinian thought and the attractiveness of Intelligent Design theory.

By the year 2492 creationists will number 2 x 10^52. Let us assume each creationist can be fit into a volume of one cubic meter, folded up tight. By 2492 they will form a man-sphere 26 light-years in radius, expanding outward at the speed of light.

Your standards for what counts as "dependable eyewitnesses" and the reportage of their "evidence" does not speak well for your "intellectual acuity".

So FM offers an apology for a behavior that he then demonstrates, again.

Time for the bathroom wall, again.

fittest meme said: Hey phhhht, take a downer. I think it's pretty well established here that I don't hold the same beliefs as the rest of you. This thread however is about a survey that attempts to categorize people with different beliefs on the topic of evolution. Take some comfort in the fact that because of me you are able to get some actual first hand evidence on how the survey may have been understood by those with different beliefs from your own. That's the idea behind objective analysis of evidence is it not? Just take some deep breaths . . . you'll be alright . . . and I'm sure you'll have a chance to debate me on the evidence of evolution in the future when there's a blog post that starts with such a topic.

fittest meme said:

phhht said: Like the other christians who post here, you are unwilling or unable to say why you believe what you do.

I'm sorry if you have been disappointment by the actions of myself and other Christians. We like all of humanity are imperfect. I believe what I do because the evidence I have seen through scientific observation and the testimony of those I trust is consistent with logical reason and what I perceive to be right, true, real and good. More simply, my belief in one Creator God stems from the fact that I believe there is one objective truth that is outside of my subjective understanding. Pursuit of a better understanding of this truth through observation, reason, and interaction with others is equivalent to seeking a better relationship with God. *snip*

fittest meme said:

phhht said: Like the other christians who post here, you are unwilling or unable to say why you believe what you do.

I believe what I do because the evidence I have seen through scientific observation and the testimony of those I trust is consistent with logical reason and what I perceive to be right, true, real and good.

More simply, my belief in one Creator God stems from the fact that I believe there is one objective truth that is outside of my subjective understanding. Pursuit of a better understanding of this truth through observation, reason, and interaction with others is equivalent to seeking a better relationship with God.

I am specifically a Christian because I believe the testimony of many dependable eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ came to this earth as God himself and truth incarnate. In addition to being a role model for a perfect Christian life he more importantly became an atoning sacrifice for my sin and the sin of others who believe he was who he said he was. This belief, while admittedly hard to fathom, is unavoidable if one really pursues a critical understanding of the testimonial evidence presented in the Bible (even if this pursuit is driven by skepticism as it initially was for me).

... at least I have given you the explanation you said was lacking.

apokryltaros said: And yet, here you are, arrogantly trying to instruct your blatantly obvious betters in Evolutionary Biology because you are too arrogant to look at the evidence that contradicts your blinkered worldview, for fear of it somehow magically upsetting God, and more importantly, upsetting the Party Leaders. It's one of the many reasons about what's wrong with the Republican Party, in that its members incessantly seek to damn "prove wrong" something, anything, that does not agree ten-thousand and one percent with Party Dogma.

phhht said: What evidence, fitso? What empirical evidence do you have for the reality of gods? Be specific, not vague. And tell us how we can test this dubious claim of yours to determine whether what you say is true or mistaken. No more baseless assertions.

fittest meme said:

phhht said: What evidence, fitso? What empirical evidence do you have for the reality of gods? Be specific, not vague. And tell us how we can test this dubious claim of yours to determine whether what you say is true or mistaken. No more baseless assertions.

Life has never been observed to have come from anything but previous life.

fittest meme said:

phhht said: What evidence, fitso? What empirical evidence do you have for the reality of gods? Be specific, not vague. And tell us how we can test this dubious claim of yours to determine whether what you say is true or mistaken. No more baseless assertions.

Life has never been observed to have come from anything but previous life. There is life. Therefor there must be something that is beyond our observational and rational capacity to fully understand that preceded and gave life to life. For lack of a better description we refer to this entity as God.

phhht said: That belief is not just hard to fathom, fitso. It is entirely without any reason or rational basis. It is utterly naked of any real-world support. Or is it me who is mistaken?

unfittest meme: Life has never been observed to have come from anything but previous life.

Have you read the 4 Gospel Accounts of Jesus and studied the outside evidence that would support or discredit that they were real accounts of a real life?

fittest meme said:

phhht said: That belief is not just hard to fathom, fitso. It is entirely without any reason or rational basis. It is utterly naked of any real-world support. Or is it me who is mistaken?

Have you read the 4 Gospel Accounts of Jesus and studied the outside evidence that would support or discredit that they were real accounts of a real life?

I believe the testimony of many dependable eyewitnesses that Jesus Christ came to this earth as God himself and truth incarnate.

Name three. Hint: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John don't count since they didn't write the books to which their names have been attached. Come to think of it, how could any human observer be an "eyewitness" to Yeshua Ben Yusuf's status as "God himself and truth incarnate." At most, you could have an eyewitness to YBY's making such a claim about himself, and only the author of John, whoever he was, says YBY made such a claim, and on internal evidence, the actual author, whoever he was, could not have been an eyewitness.

fittest meme said: Life has never been observed to have come from anything but previous life.

CJColucci said: At most, you could have an eyewitness to YBY's making such a claim about himself, and only the author of John, whoever he was, says YBY made such a claim, and on internal evidence, the actual author, whoever he was, could not have been an eyewitness.

fittest meme said:

CJColucci said: At most, you could have an eyewitness to YBY's making such a claim about himself, and only the author of John, whoever he was, says YBY made such a claim, and on internal evidence, the actual author, whoever he was, could not have been an eyewitness.

I guess this is what you'd call a "no-God of the Gaps" argument. The verbal testimony of eyewitnesses was recorded by the Gospel authors, - whomever they were, as well as those those who's writing was not one of the 4 Gospels. Tacitus and Flavius Josephus are examples of these extra-biblical historians.

ksplawn said: So your rebuttal to the idea that life came from non-life is that life came from non-life.

phhht said:

fittest meme said:

CJColucci said: At most, you could have an eyewitness to YBY's making such a claim about himself, and only the author of John, whoever he was, says YBY made such a claim, and on internal evidence, the actual author, whoever he was, could not have been an eyewitness.

I guess this is what you'd call a "no-God of the Gaps" argument. The verbal testimony of eyewitnesses was recorded by the Gospel authors, - whomever they were, as well as those those who's writing was not one of the 4 Gospels. Tacitus and Flavius Josephus are examples of these extra-biblical historians.

Could you be more explicit about precisely what you think Tacitus and Flavius Josephus say about Jesus and the factual reality of the bible and its tall tales?

phhht said: Could you be more explicit about precisely what you think Tacitus and Flavius Josephus say about Jesus and the factual reality of the bible and its tall tales?

fittest meme said:

ksplawn said: So your rebuttal to the idea that life came from non-life is that life came from non-life.

Using your strict biological definition of life (which as you know is difficult to pin down - ie viruses) I guess you are correct in your understanding of my belief. The theory of Intelligent Design by itself however, without my theistic interpretation, makes no such restriction upon the prediction of where life came from other than it had attributes of intelligence (or the ability to create complex, specified information).

fittest meme said:

phhht said: Could you be more explicit about precisely what you think Tacitus and Flavius Josephus say about Jesus and the factual reality of the bible and its tall tales?

Now you're just making me jump through hoops. I think you're big enough and smart enough to find this on your own. You won't believe it if you don't discover it for yourself anyway. Sorry to Matt that the string got off topic. I'll quit responding.

phhht said: There is no need to stop responding fitso. Let’s take it to the Wall.

fittest meme said:

phhht said: There is no need to stop responding fitso. Let’s take it to the Wall.

No thanks. Matthew 7:6 records advice attributed to Jesus that I think I'll follow.

Please, no more pointless bickering with the meme troll.

Wrong. Science discovers fact by observation and tests it by further and repeated observation, if possible empirically, so as to more closely define it. Fact, under this regime, means "an observation so thoroughly established by observation that denying it would be merely perversity".

Major evolutionary change at the speciation level has been observed in nature, at least a dozen times. Separation of higher taxa requires longer time frames than are available to a human lifetime, or to human history, but is attested by fossil evidence.

Yes, you have to believe in evolution (or, if you like, accept it), if you are accessible to evidence and rational thought. Alas, if not, not.

Wrong. Fish crawling out of the sea with limbs would be saltation, which is specifically rejected by the theory of evolution. Fish didn't "crawl out of the sea". They colonised new environments, following the plants: muddy, weed-choked river estuaries, in a continuous graduation from sea to shallow water to tidal pools to seasonal mudflats to dry land. They evolved lobe fins, because lobe fins provided some weight-bearing capacity as the water got shallower, and then mobility between pools. Simultaneously, swim bladders were modified into lungs because muddy pools are oxygen-poor and select for fish that can use some atmospheric oxygen - again, in a continuous process. Lobe-fins were similarly selected for better weight-bearing and mobility. This is a series of seamless, evolving changes well-attested in the fossil record.

Reptiles did not acquire feathers, but some gracile therapod dinosaurs evolved extended scales, then fronded scales, then shafted feathers, probably for insulation, long before some lines developed them further to serve as airbrakes when turning on the run, then gliding surfaces in forests, then wings. All this, too, is attested in the fossil record.

There is no evidence that such a development is not possible. All the evidence is to the contrary; that not only is it possible, it is inevitable, if the environment so selects. And it does.

Check ISP please.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/RdfV1YQJ1oSFPntEbv7Ug6z0.CM6DYqt6t6ZE0XxwYlRtQ--#ad533 said: There are no “facts” in science, only observations. Since major evolutionary change has not been observed in Nature, this means that evolutionism is something you just have to believe in.

fittest meme said: Life has never been observed to have come from anything but previous life.

Your position argues that life came from nothing.

Check ISP please.

Scott F said: ... is that "life" came from the random chemical interactions of atoms and molecules.

This continues a long-term trend in which both parties are shrinking into smaller entities at opposite extremes.

Just Bob said:

Scott F said: ... is that "life" came from the random chemical interactions of atoms and molecules.

A minor quibble. IANAS, but chemical interactions are not random. I'm sure you know better, but labeling things 'random' that are anything but is a common creationist misunderstanding--and sometimes a deliberate distortion or outright lie.

Ray Martinez said:

raven said:

I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution.

This is just wrong. The theory of evolution is a biological scientific theory. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Yes, that's why it is pro-Atheism: no religion = Atheism.

PA Poland said: Baseball is pro-Atheism, since there is no religion in it.

PA Poland said: Which will only increase ignorance and confusion. Which creationism REQUIRES to be even worth considering - the more one knows about the real world, the sillier and more ridiculous the creationisms become.

Scott F said: It would be an interesting intellectual exercise to see Ray and FL argue about which of their creation stories is correct. But, alas, they will never do that. Ever.

If you don't have an alternative account for the appearance of new species, then your view is indistinguishable from "things just happened to turn out this way, rather than any other one of the vast number of possibilities" - that it, pure random chance.

fittest meme said: I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution. I do not believe that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," instead I believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." This however just means that I accept that there has been, and continues to be, adaptive change within the human species. This indeed can be concluded from observational evidence and therefor could be called a "fact." I do not however, think that the evidence allows for the conclusion that all life has common ancestor, or that the unguided process of natural selection has the creative ability to produce new species and generate the diversity of life we observe. To hold these beliefs one has to make inferences that have not been confirmed through scientific observation. The survey would have been more accurate if thy would have defined the term evolution using the more controversial definitions. If that was done, I think the results would have displayed an even stronger indication that the right is starting to see through the fog of academia's deceptive practices.

harold said: Nothing to do with traditional Christian ideas like reuniting with loved ones or turning to Jesus in times of trouble. You can get all of that at some liberal hippie church attended by science professors in Boulder, CO (I've never been to Boulder but guarantee that there must be a church like that there).

John said:

fittest meme said: I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution. I do not believe that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," instead I believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." This however just means that I accept that there has been, and continues to be, adaptive change within the human species. This indeed can be concluded from observational evidence and therefor could be called a "fact." I do not however, think that the evidence allows for the conclusion that all life has common ancestor, or that the unguided process of natural selection has the creative ability to produce new species and generate the diversity of life we observe. To hold these beliefs one has to make inferences that have not been confirmed through scientific observation. The survey would have been more accurate if thy would have defined the term evolution using the more controversial definitions. If that was done, I think the results would have displayed an even stronger indication that the right is starting to see through the fog of academia's deceptive practices.

As many here at PT know already, I am a Conservative Republican who "accepts" evolution, especially since I was trained in evolutionary biology. There are notable Conservative and Republican intellectuals like radio talk show host John Batchelor, George Will (Washington Post), Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post), Paul Gross (formerly, Provost, University of Virginia, and Director, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, co-author with Barbara Forrest of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design), political scientist Larry Arnhart (author of "Darwinian Conservatism"), Timothy Sandefur (attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation and long-time Panda's Thumb contributor), among others, who accept the scientific reality of biological evolution. The time is long overdue for you and other fellow Conservatives and Republicans to recognize that biological evolution is extremely well established science and that current evolutionary theory remains its best scientific explanation. Acceptance of biological evolution as a scientific fact does not require any belief in - or acceptance of - Christianity or some other faith. To claim that "belief" in evolution means acceptance of atheism is an irrational assumption, period.

John said:

fittest meme said: I think the survey is poorly worded and thus is hiding an even more concerning problem for those of you attempting to defend the atheistic nature of evolution. I do not believe that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," instead I believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." This however just means that I accept that there has been, and continues to be, adaptive change within the human species. This indeed can be concluded from observational evidence and therefor could be called a "fact." I do not however, think that the evidence allows for the conclusion that all life has common ancestor, or that the unguided process of natural selection has the creative ability to produce new species and generate the diversity of life we observe. To hold these beliefs one has to make inferences that have not been confirmed through scientific observation. The survey would have been more accurate if thy would have defined the term evolution using the more controversial definitions. If that was done, I think the results would have displayed an even stronger indication that the right is starting to see through the fog of academia's deceptive practices.

As many here at PT know already, I am a Conservative Republican who "accepts" evolution, especially since I was trained in evolutionary biology. There are notable Conservative and Republican intellectuals like radio talk show host John Batchelor, George Will (Washington Post), Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post), Paul Gross (formerly, Provost, University of Virginia, and Director, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, co-author with Barbara Forrest of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design), political scientist Larry Arnhart (author of "Darwinian Conservatism"), Timothy Sandefur (attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation and long-time Panda's Thumb contributor), among others, who accept the scientific reality of biological evolution. The time is long overdue for you and other fellow Conservatives and Republicans to recognize that biological evolution is extremely well established science and that current evolutionary theory remains its best scientific explanation. Acceptance of biological evolution as a scientific fact does not require any belief in - or acceptance of - Christianity or some other faith. To claim that "belief" in evolution means acceptance of atheism is an irrational assumption, period.

If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent?

"Darwinism" is not a scientific fact. Evolution, common descent, hereditable variation, natural selection resulting in diverging morphology over deep time - those are scientific facts. "Darwinism" is a word, and no more, coined as a dishonest attempt to misrepresent the fundamental theory of biology as a doctrine or orthodoxy.

Worse even than such an outpouring of ignorance and falsehood is the fundamental attitude displayed. Science and scientists, says this fool, exist in "cloistered academic towers". That's a lie. They exist in the daily rough-and-tumble of contact with bruising reality. Their work, which has given the writer practically everything he knows or uses every single day, consists of "feed(ing) at the tax trough". This is a mind that fortifies its own superstition and ignorance with falsehood and reinforces its ingratitude with baseless insult.

They didn't laugh at Wegener, whose name the writer can't even spell correctly. They said, pretty much, "It's a neat idea, but how does it work?", and Wegener didn't know. But when the answers to that question came in, those who had doubted didn't "disappear into irrelevance". Nor did they found a new creed, produce another theological school, become a "movement" or ideology or political party. They were scientists. They tested the evidence, found it sound, and accepted it.

Which is exactly what the writer refuses to do. Well, let him. Let him be a "dissident" from reality, since he feels so strongly about it. We'll see who becomes irrelevant.

Dave Luckett said: "Darwinism" is a word, and no more, coined as a dishonest attempt to misrepresent the fundamental theory of biology as a doctrine or orthodoxy.

“Darwinism” is a word, and no more, used as a dishonest attempt to misrepresent the fundamental theory of biology as a doctrine or orthodoxy.

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

SLC said: Kwok's hero George Will is a global climate change denier and a serial liar on the subject. Kwok's pal, Charles Krauthammer, has also devolved into a skeptic about global climate change; at one time he was a stand up guy but has deteriorated into a shill for the tea party. The fact is that the Rethuglican party has has degenerated into an anti-science mind set, as evidenced by their shills on the Fascist News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, Matt Drudge, et al.

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

bigdakine said:

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

Nobody is afraid of dissent, regardless of how uninformed it is. Frankly, I would care not one whit about creationists or IDers or any related group, except for the corrosive effects they have had on science education. Yes Wegner got laughed at; he stated some things that were laughable. However, a discussion of that would be wasted on you. One can only guess why you bring up one of the great paradigm shifts in science. It was not creationists or IDers, or any other such person that *discovered* Plate Tectonics. It was scientists doing what they do best, data gathering and formulating hypotheses. The same way the *Darwinian Revolution* came about. I can scarcely fathom why you think the Plate Tectonics revolution somehow buttresses your claims regarding TOE. This is why people like you should be kept far away from science programs. You can babble incessantly to credulous adults if you like.

bigdakine said:

bigdakine said:

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

Nobody is afraid of dissent, regardless of how uninformed it is. Frankly, I would care not one whit about creationists or IDers or any related group, except for the corrosive effects they have had on science education. Yes Wegner got laughed at; he stated some things that were laughable. However, a discussion of that would be wasted on you. One can only guess why you bring up one of the great paradigm shifts in science. It was not creationists or IDers, or any other such person that *discovered* Plate Tectonics. It was scientists doing what they do best, data gathering and formulating hypotheses. The same way the *Darwinian Revolution* came about. I can scarcely fathom why you think the Plate Tectonics revolution somehow buttresses your claims regarding TOE. This is why people like you should be kept far away from science programs. You can babble incessantly to credulous adults if you like.

As an aside, Continental Drift as proposed by Wegner is a failed hypothesis. The fella whose ideas evolved into Plate Tectonics was Sir Arthur Holmes, a contemporary of Wegner. Wegner's biggest accomplishment was popularizing this nascent idea of a dynamic earth. But Plate Tectonics evolved from Holmes's ideas; he predicted the existence of subduction zones, invoked the mechanism of mantle convection, etc.

John said:

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

"Darwism" (sic) is not a scientific fact, but, rather, in its original form as the theory of evolution via natural selection, a credible, quite powerful, scientific theory that explains the mechanism of Natural Selection - as conceived independently of each other by Darwin and Wallace - as the process responsible for descent with modification - in Darwin's words - or more commonly, biological evolution. There exists ample dissent regarding the tempo and mode of evolution, with a substantial minority in support of punctuated equilibrium in lieu of phyletic gradualism, but this disagreement - or rather, "dissent" - does not alter the well established fact of biological evolution or the likelihood that Natural Selection remains a key - if not the sole key - mechanism for descent with modification.

That makes it one apiece. I managed to misspell "odyssey".

John said:

SLC said: Kwok's hero George Will is a global climate change denier and a serial liar on the subject. Kwok's pal, Charles Krauthammer, has also devolved into a skeptic about global climate change; at one time he was a stand up guy but has deteriorated into a shill for the tea party. The fact is that the Rethuglican party has has degenerated into an anti-science mind set, as evidenced by their shills on the Fascist News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, Matt Drudge, et al.

SLC forgets that George Will urged Governor Jindal not to sign the Louisiana Science Education Act, saying that it would be a serious setback for quality public school science education in Louisiana if Jindal signed it. SLC also forgets that both Will and Krauthammer endorsed the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District board ruling within days of its release. I'm not going to defend either Will or Krauthammer's climate change skepticism. But if SLC seems determined to paint with a broad brush, then he needs to explain whether his risible screed applies to me, attorney Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation - and long-time Panda's Thumb commentator - as well as other like-minded Conservatives and Republicans who post here occasionally to condemn all forms of creationism and express their recognition of biological evolution as a well established scientific fact and current evolutionary theory as its best existing scientific explanation.

nilsson said: Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule.

SLC said: Natural Selection remains a key - if not the sole key - mechanism for descent with modification Oh boy, Larry Moran would beg to differ with this claim.

John said:

nilsson said: If "Darwism" is a scientific fact, as you believe, why are you so afraid of dissent? Dogmatists crush all dissent. Darwinists are modern day Inquisitors seeking to burn all heretics with vitriol and ridicule. In cloistered academic ivory towers they feed at the tax trough and pour their bilious contempt on the cretins who pay their salaries. The same bunch laughed at Wegner for continental drift and fought plate tectonics until they just disappeared in irrelevance. The same fate awaits the Darwinist.

"Darwism" (sic) is not a scientific fact, but, rather, in its original form as the theory of evolution via natural selection, a credible, quite powerful, scientific theory that explains the mechanism of Natural Selection - as conceived independently of each other by Darwin and Wallace - as the process responsible for descent with modification - in Darwin's words - or more commonly, biological evolution. There exists ample dissent regarding the tempo and mode of evolution, with a substantial minority in support of punctuated equilibrium in lieu of phyletic gradualism, but this disagreement - or rather, "dissent" - does not alter the well established fact of biological evolution or the likelihood that Natural Selection remains a key - if not the sole key - mechanism for descent with modification.

SLC said: Unfortunately for Kwok, those like minded Rethuglicans who post here are unrepresentative of today's Rethuglican party. Aside from the clowns whose names I mentioned, we have the clowns in the US Congress like James Inhofe, Joe Barton, Steve King, Michele Backmann, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, etc. Right here in Virginia, we have the dishonorable Bob Marshall of the Virginia House of Delegates and the three clowns that the Rethuglicans ran for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General, namely Koo Koo Ken Cuccinelli, E. W. Jackson, and Mark Obershain. Kwok just refuses to acknowledge that his party has been hijacked by the Tea Partiers and instead of coming on this blog and trumpeting Tim Sandefur, he should be out trying to cleanse the party of these jokers. And by the way, not to pick on Virginia and Texas, the Rethuglican candidate for governor in 2010, Carl Paladino would give Koo Koo Ken a run for his money as a first class clown. By the way, speaking of Jindal, last I heard he was not only a Rethuglican but a biology major graduate of a certain institution in Providence, RI. I'll be nice and not mention the name of that august institution.

John said:

SLC said: Unfortunately for Kwok, those like minded Rethuglicans who post here are unrepresentative of today's Rethuglican party. Aside from the clowns whose names I mentioned, we have the clowns in the US Congress like James Inhofe, Joe Barton, Steve King, Michele Backmann, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, etc. Right here in Virginia, we have the dishonorable Bob Marshall of the Virginia House of Delegates and the three clowns that the Rethuglicans ran for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General, namely Koo Koo Ken Cuccinelli, E. W. Jackson, and Mark Obershain. Kwok just refuses to acknowledge that his party has been hijacked by the Tea Partiers and instead of coming on this blog and trumpeting Tim Sandefur, he should be out trying to cleanse the party of these jokers. And by the way, not to pick on Virginia and Texas, the Rethuglican candidate for governor in 2010, Carl Paladino would give Koo Koo Ken a run for his money as a first class clown. By the way, speaking of Jindal, last I heard he was not only a Rethuglican but a biology major graduate of a certain institution in Providence, RI. I'll be nice and not mention the name of that august institution.

You're getting to be as bad as some of the resident creotards, SLC. You have not addressed my observations regarding myself and Timothy Sandefur in any credible fashion. As for Jindal, I don't blame that "august institution" for counting him and David Klinghoffer as fellow alumni (or myself or Ken Miller).

Carl Drews said:

harold said: Nothing to do with traditional Christian ideas like reuniting with loved ones or turning to Jesus in times of trouble. You can get all of that at some liberal hippie church attended by science professors in Boulder, CO (I've never been to Boulder but guarantee that there must be a church like that there).

That's correct; I know the church. We have science professors attending the conservative Christian churches, too. Hey harold, you should come to visit us in Boulder some time! You could legally buy marijuana just to say that you've done it. ;-) Matt, shall we take harold out to dinner next time he visits Boulder?

Carl Drews said:

harold said: Nothing to do with traditional Christian ideas like reuniting with loved ones or turning to Jesus in times of trouble. You can get all of that at some liberal hippie church attended by science professors in Boulder, CO (I've never been to Boulder but guarantee that there must be a church like that there).

You could legally buy marijuana just to say that you've done it. ;-)