Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

blacknwhite321 said:
I understand your point. But just so we're on the same page, I haven't yet made a statement regarding any of what you just stated in my question directed to 1966stang. ;) It's hard to tell if you presume that I have based on your reply to my question to someone else. I am simply interested in what attributes certain people are even willing to give a "creator of the universe", without implying that the subject of a creator's attributes have anything to do with science... :cool:

I know the kind of reaction I'm probably going to get for saying what I'm about to say, but... I don't think the theory of evolution is all that "scientific". And before anyone explodes or emotionally attacks me without reading any further, it's not that I don't think science is involved in any aspect of the theory, but that much of it is not rooted in observable, provable facts, but instead, a preponderance of the theory is based on unproved assumptions that were built as the theory was still developing. A short example is that DNA (specifically, the double helix structure and detail thereof) had not even yet been examined while the theory of evolution had taken off in the "scientific" community. So by the time DNA was more closely examined, the "scientific" community ignored the actual probability of DNA modifying itself the way that it HAS to in order to get all the variations of life found on earth over time. Instead, they just assume that it can, despite the fact that no direct DNA observations were made to reasonably conclude this BEFORE the theory took off.

Much of the theory of evolution has been accepted blindly, without any genuine challenges to the theory's basic tenants. I believe that this happened because there was a hunger among many people (including scientists) to be able to explain life in a purely naturalistic way. And I genuinely believe that the more actual facts that appear to oppose the very tenants of the theory are found, the more quickly the scientific establishment simply insists that their theory is accepted "overwhelmingly", and is only challenged by "non-credible", "idiot", "religious" people, so as to try and silence and rebuke any critics, no matter the basis or reasonable question asked.
Click to expand...
This is a thoughtful, rational reply, which I appreciate.if your ever in Columbus, Ohio I would love to have you out to dinner with a few biologist friends so we could discuss this in depth. It is not something that can easily be broken down into sound bytes in an internet forum discussion. Might I suggest you start with Finding Darwin's god by Kenneth Miller. An excellent book that does a sanejob of looking at evolution from both a religious and scientific research point of view.
 
1966stang said:
This is a thoughtful, rational reply, which I appreciate.if your ever in Columbus, Ohio I would love to have you out to dinner with a few biologist friends so we could discuss this in depth. It is not something that can easily be broken down into sound bytes in an internet forum discussion. Might I suggest you start with Finding Darwin's god by Kenneth Miller. An excellent book that does a sanejob of looking at evolution from both a religious and scientific research point of view.
Click to expand...
I haven't ever talked about this subject over a meal before, because for one thing, I don't know how emotional someone may get over this subject, and I usually want everyone to have a good time at dinner and such. I like to laugh and have a good time when I'm eating. But this subject can be very personal for scientists, especially if they come to the realization that they may have accepted certain scientific dogma without questioning it as they may have done if the community was more free and open to the exchange of various ideas, propositions, without chastising those who challenge certain tenants of theories, etc.
 
blacknwhite321 said:
I haven't ever talked about this subject over a meal before, because for one thing, I don't know how emotional someone may get over this subject, and I usually want everyone to have a good time at dinner and such. I like to laugh and have a good time when I'm eating. But this subject can be very personal for scientists, especially if they come to the realization that they may have accepted certain scientific dogma without questioning it as they may have done if the community was more free and open to the exchange of various ideas, propositions, without chastising those who challenge certain tenants of theories, etc.
Click to expand...

I would not worry about that. And I am all for open exchange. But I find no real evidence of direct special creation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
4349e754a62fa8bde3cd4d40a8b60d1a.jpg


A new Pew Poll shows that only 43% of Republicans believe humans evolved as compared to 54% in 2009. Lack of education and religiosity tend to be the major reasons why.

The GOP...going backwards since 1980!

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
Click to expand...
I don't believe in evolution the way you simians see it. I was created by the Divine, and so were you. Even your destiny is more grand than you think, so get over it! ;)
 
1966stang said:
You have implied metaphysacists have laboratories. They do not. The supernatural is by definition non falsifyable.
Click to expand...

???.....I guess you didn't read the post very well.....my point was that what you claim about the science of evolution is also not found in laboratories........your supernatural is also not falsifiable....nothing there about meta-physicists having laboratories....
 
On the contrary. Evolution is based in a number of models that are falsifyable. Why do we not find cows and dinosaurs buried together in the fossil record? Unlike religion, science makes a number of directly testable falsifyable claims. Perhaps there is a community college near you with classes in basic biology. You might want to check out actual science before you make baseless claims.
 
sorry, chimpspawn......your baseless claims aren't cutting it.....you've bought into the myth of macro-evolution and nothing is going to shake your beliefs......certainly not the lack of even a shred of scientific evidence.....you've made your faith choice about what science "proves" just as I have......the difference is that I admit I've made a faith choice and you delude yourself with visions of rationality.......

what makes it amusing is that I have a better grasp on what "actual science" says than you do.....you carry the delusion it supports your beliefs...
 
You have also failed to show that Evolution is not based in verifiable falsifiable science. Since you are seeking to overturn the paradigm held by hundreds of thousands of actual scientists who hold multiple faith persuasions the world over, the burden of proof is actually on you. That you say the Theory holds no evidence shows a gross lack of scientific understanding. Again, I am sure your local community co0llege will be happy to assist you.
 
1966stang said:
You have also failed to show that Evolution is not based in verifiable falsifiable science.
Click to expand...

simply stating "evolution" begs the issue....there are many different beliefs underlying the term.....
do you merely believe science can demonstrate evidence that 37,000 varieties of beetle evolved from the line of beetles.....or do you believe science can demonstrate evidence that human beings evolved from single celled creatures.......

check with your community college profs and get back to me.....

{by the way, as a postmodernist, I loved the way you capitalized "Evolution"......it underscores my argument about your belief structure}.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
simply stating "evolution" begs the issue....there are many different beliefs underlying the term.....
do you merely believe science can demonstrate evidence that 37,000 varieties of beetle evolved from the line of beetles.....or do you believe science can demonstrate evidence that human beings evolved from single celled creatures.......

check with your community college profs and get back to me.....

{by the way, as a postmodernist, I loved the way you capitalized "Evolution"......it underscores my argument about your belief structure}.......
Click to expand...

....and as someone who occasionally likes correct grammar I loved how you didn't capitalize your first sentence. It backs up that community college thing.

Science demonstrates common descent. Why are we discussing basic biology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top