Finally, Most Young Americans Now Accept Evolution Over Creationism

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Look if theists are going to make statements such as "there is ample scientific evidence that God exists" or try to force sectarian beliefs to be taught as science, then scientists have a right to enter into the discussion and examine the arguments critically. If the data indicated that God exists, then scientists would accept it. The data so far do not. If a sectarian belief was at the same time good science, then scientists would teach it in class. No such belief has yet been found.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

All (or at vast majority of scientists) believe in some kind of change in the development of life on earth. Disagreements on details exist, and the theory has developed enormously since Darwin, so don't expect every detail to be unchanged from Darwin's time. The overwhelming majority of biologists regard the basic mechanism of evolution by natural selection as confirmed to a very high probability.
From what has appeared in the lay media, intelligent design is not a theory on the par with evolution. It offers no alternative to evolution other than "Some powerful intelligent being did it." Design theorists insist that the "intelligent being" need not be God.
During the past several decades, physics has uncovered basic features of the cosmos that seem, upon first glance, like lucky accidents. Theories now suggest that the most general structural elements of the universe — the stars and planets, and the galaxies that contain them — are the products of finely calibrated laws and conditions that seem too good to be true. What if our most fundamental questions, our late-at-night-wonderings about why we are here, have no more satisfying answer than an exasperated shrug and a meekly muttered ‘Things just seem to have turned out that way’?
It can be unsettling to contemplate the unlikely nature of your own existence, to work backward causally and discover the chain of blind luck that landed you in front of your computer screen, or your mobile, or wherever it is that you are reading these words. For you to exist at all, your parents had to meet, and that alone involved quite a lot of chance and coincidence. If your mother hadn’t decided to take that calculus class, or if her parents had decided to live in another town, then perhaps your parents never would have encountered one another. But that is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Even if your parents made a deliberate decision to have a child, the odds of your particular sperm finding your particular egg are one in several billion. The same goes for both your parents, who had to exist in order for you to exist, and so already, after just two generations, we are up to one chance in 1027. Carrying on in this way, your chance of existing, given the general state of the universe even a few centuries ago, was almost infinitesimally small. You and I and every other human being are the products of chance, and came into existence against very long odds.
And just as your own existence seems, from a physical point of view, to have been wildly unlikely, the existence of the entire human species appears to have been a matter of blind luck. Stephen Jay Gould argued in 1994 that the detailed course of evolution is as chancey as the path of a single sperm cell to an egg. Evolutionary processes do not innately tend toward Homo sapiens, or even mammals. Rerun the course of history with only a slight variation and the biological outcome might have been radically different. For instance, if the asteroid hadn’t struck the Yucatán 66 million years ago, dinosaurs might still have run of this planet, and humans might have never evolved.

a reply to: toktaylor

The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor

The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.

No while it's simpler to explain everything by saying 'the creator did it' it unnecessarily complicates the issue.

Or are you saying the creator is a simple being/entity/creature/ghost/spirit etc?

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor

The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.

It's not the most simple answer, It's the most soothing answer. It gives people hope. Reality or simplicity have nothing to do with it. Some folks need that in their lives. It feels good to believe that we all live forever and will see deceased friends and family again. Unfortunately, this is all extremely unlikely, but it's nice to hope for it.

I (seem to) recall a poll about climate change, involving democrats and republicans. The resuilts being democrats were overwhelmingly convinced humans were causing climate changing. Republicans were unsurprisingly skeptical. However, what comes next is stunning: apparently, the republicans had a greater knowledge of certain (or many) topics, implying the democrats were convinced dependent on FAITH, not objective understanding. This contradicts what you'd expect!

So I ask, are some 51% of people convinced in evolution because of objective understanding, or faith? You ask faith in what? I say faith in science. Faith in evolutionary scientists.

This I think helps support my argument:
www.sciencedirect.com - Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety...

The real judge of a person is their understanding of science, not their pronouncements pertaining to it. Faith should not go blindly.

For the record, I believe evolution explains most or all things. I don't discount aliens or god(s) influencing life in our universe. It may be impossible for us to know though. That's why it's religious in nature. Religion can go places science will never go. Like another poster stated, science has difficulty with why. Moreso, science relies on what it can observe. It cannot comment on things outside observation.

EDIT: I don't know. Additionally, my science understanding is pitiful.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
All I know is I recall a poll about climate change, involving democrats and republicans. The resuilts being democrats were overwhelmingly convinced humans were causing climate changing. Republicans were unsurprisingly skeptical. However, what comes next is stunning: apparently, the republicans had a greater knowledge of certain (or many) topics, implying the democrats were convinced dependent on FAITH, not objective understanding. This contradicts what you'd expect!

I take it 'Many things' didn't include the scientific method or climate science?

Do you have a link to this study?

So I ask, are some 51% of people convinced in evolution because of objective understanding, or faith? You ask faith in what? I say faith in science. Faith in evolutionary scientists.

Comprehensive trust in the scientific method, because it works....

The real judge of a person is their understanding of science, not their pronouncements pertaining to it. Faith should not go blindly.

For the record, I believe evolution explains most or maybe all things. I don't discount the possibility of aliens or god(s) influencing life in our universe. It may be impossible for us to know though. That's why it's religious in nature. Religion can go places science will never go. Like another poster stated, science has difficulty with why. Moreso, science relies on what it can observe. It cannot comment on things outside observation.

If something cannot be recorded, detected or observed in any way, what's the difference between that and something that doesn't exist?

a reply to: Prezbo369
I'm sorry I cannot recall. I think it was a poll. It was linked years ago in a blog by Dr. Jeff Masters at the weather underground. I can't be certain. Essentially all it seemed to show was the republicans had greater knowledge about some (or most?) of the climate change information. However, greater knowledge didn't mean greater confidence about AGW. What I took from it was that your party affiliation--whether it be republican or independent or democrat--has more influence on whether you believe in human-caused global warming than many want to admit.

Most scientists are independent and democrat. I respect their opinion more than an average person. They know science better than average people. Average people are kind of stupid, I think. I consider myself average. I certainly don't KNOW humans are causing global warming. I can only have faith in the climate scientists and in science in general. Thing is, I think some people are more confident than is warranted.

Some will argue Democrats aren't prejudiced and accept the science, whereas republicans are prejudiced and cannot accept it however much they might know. I disagree with this. I think both democrats and republicans are prejudiced. Democrats are in favor of environmental sciences especially. They're also typically against military things. On this issue, democrats want their cake and want to eat it too. If both sides would admit to prejudice our political system would benefit.

It's the raw science which matters. Climate scientists are in the best position to arrive at a conclusion. That doesn't mean tey're right, but I have the most trust in them. And 97% of them believe climate change is primarily human caused. I have to throw my weight behind them. BUT keep in mind the republicans will distrust scientists since most scientists are democrat or liberal leaning--so their science is prejudiced apparently.

EDIT: I found some links which seem to spark some of my memory:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov - Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States....
web.sta nford.edu - The Association of Knowledge with Concern About Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking...
www.people-press.org - A Deeper Partisan Divide Over Global Warming...

a reply to: Prezbo369

If something cannot be recorded, detected or observed in any way, what's the difference between that and something that doesn't exist?

What if the things that are not detected, observed or recorded are simply too far beyond us atm to do so?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor

The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.

No while it's simpler to explain everything by saying 'the creator did it' it unnecessarily complicates the issue.

Or are you saying the creator is a simple being/entity/creature/ghost/spirit etc?

In my personal view the creator is the one who created and according to ancient texts with help. The rest is a big unknown as of yet so why worry about it.I value all ancient texts which are repeating the same information in all parts of the world throughout varying time spans. I don't value them based on any collecting and weeding different religious decided on.

I like to get perspective by imagining myself creating some little people the size of my pinky

Now I would certainly love a creation like this made in my own likeness and they certainly would be my "children". Suppose those little guys chose to follow someone with values I find abhorrent instead of me their Dad their creator? If you continue in this vein of thinking with multitudes of scenarios including advanced mankind doing the creating it can be interesting and fun. Add in the possibility of virtual reality as one possible concept of the creation.

We have so very little knowledge at this point, in my Grandmothers day her family had a covered wagon to travel, give it time before we decide we know it all.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor

The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.

It's not the most simple answer, It's the most soothing answer. It gives people hope. Reality or simplicity have nothing to do with it. Some folks need that in their lives. It feels good to believe that we all live forever and will see deceased friends and family again. Unfortunately, this is all extremely unlikely, but it's nice to hope for it.

I disagree having been a lover of all areas science all my life I see a creator as the simplest answer in every way.

We don't know much yet, some of the science today that people think is new is in fact very old and only finally being followed up on.

What would seeing deceased Family mean in terms of virtual reality? Reinstating the characters program? What if it is simply a matter of form, all energy could have intelligence even the electricity in your home. What if we are reincarnated by being reborn in amongst our loved ones in a new scenario to live it for a purpose we as yet do not understand?

Dr. Ian Stevenson. Instead of relying on hypnosis to verify that an individual has had a previous life, he instead chose to collect thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life.

reluctant-messenger.com...

Ever wonder why a cockroach did not evolve past humans or a Turritopsis dohrnii, the immortal jellyfish?

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

a reply to: toktaylor



The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.

It's not the most simple answer, It's the most soothing answer. It gives people hope. Reality or simplicity have nothing to do with it. Some folks need that in their lives. It feels good to believe that we all live forever and will see deceased friends and family again. Unfortunately, this is all extremely unlikely, but it's nice to hope for it.

I disagree having been a lover of all areas science all my life I see a creator as the simplest answer in every way.



We don't know much yet, some of the science today that people think is new is in fact very old and only finally being followed up on.



What would seeing deceased Family mean in terms of virtual reality? Reinstating the characters program? What if it is simply a matter of form, all energy could have intelligence even the electricity in your home. What if we are reincarnated by being reborn in amongst our loved ones in a new scenario to live it for a purpose we as yet do not understand?

Dr. Ian Stevenson. Instead of relying on hypnosis to verify that an individual has had a previous life, he instead chose to collect thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life.

reluctant-messenger.com...



Ever wonder why a cockroach did not evolve past humans or a Turritopsis dohrnii, the immortal jellyfish?

two points: first, being a "lover of of all areas science" does not a certified expert make you. second, a creator is not only the simplest solution, it is the laziest. you forgot that part.

...but as you were.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

And if it turns out we live in a virtual environment are you going to continue this line of reasoning?

I will continue to go wherever the evidence leads.