Do you believe in evolution … and why?


Greetings, fellow minions. Sastra OM, here, belatedly logging in as guest blogger #4. My smooth entry into the blogosphere was temporarily delayed by my fierce objections to signing Seed’s contract, which to my horror appeared to involve some sort of ritualized Cthulhu chanting to the Elder Gods. Turns out it simply needed reformatting. My bad.

Unlike some of the other guest bloggers this week, I do NOT have a strong background in biology and impressive credentials from prestigious universities and research labs. Instead, I have a BA in English Lit from Western Illinois University (everybody go OOooo) and a passing familiarity with various skeptic and atheist organizations and issues.

So I am starting out my guestblogging by passing on a link to a survey on the public understanding of evolution from Michael Shermer’s Skeptic Society at Cal Tech. It’s part of a study they’re doing “on general knowledge of and beliefs about evolution,” and it only takes a few minutes. So, by the powers of Pharyngula invested in me, I command you go forth. Only if you feel like it, of course.

http://www.evolutionsurvey.com/

One thing I found particularly interesting (and challenging) about this survey was that it

requires essay answers, instead of the usual multiple choice. Good choice. I think that approach is more likely to get down to the nitty gritty of what and how people actually think.

First question: “To the best of your understanding and in your own words, please explain what ‘evolution’ means.” And you may enter up to 1001 characters. Just like a test.

How easily can you do it – summarize the theory of evolution while being brief, accurate, and even eloquent, just off the top of your head? In your “own words?” I found it a bit difficult myself.. I wasn’t sure where to start, what to put in, and what to leave out. I was also concerned about getting terms right, and not making a sloppy or fatal mistake.( I hated exams, too.)

The next question is more personal: “If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not.” And another whopping 1001 character limit. They then have you select your education level, religious belief, location, age, ethnicity, sex, and so forth.

I find that I usually try to “psych out” the goals of any survey I take, partly to know how I’m supposed to interpret any ambiguous questions, and partly out of curiosity. What are they expecting to discover: what are they trying to isolate? What would I expect to find? The big payoff in any study, I think, is being surprised by the result.

One of the interesting results of a similar survey on religious belief – also done by Shermer – was that people of faith have a strong tendency to think that other people believe in God because that’s what they were taught as children – but that they themselves had used reason and evidence to evaluate and confirm their views. I would have expected their rose-colored interpretation of God’s convincing evidence would have been extended to other believers as well. I’m not sure what interesting bits will come out of this one.

Here it looks like Dr. Shermer is once again seeking to dig beneath the statistics and try to understand the psychology behind them — “why smart people believe weird things.” The most obvious thing they may be looking for is to see if the people who accept evolution understand it, and the people who don’t, don’t. I think that’s a reasonable prediction. It might be especially useful to see what types of errors creationists are making. But I can think of a lot of other possibilities they might be exploring. I suppose it depends on how closely they’re going to look at and dissect the answers.

Do evolutionists – or atheists – approach the questions differently than creationists/theists? Is one side more likely to use narrative, or focus on mechanism? Does the process of science get emphasized, or only the particulars of evidence? What about when you look at sex? Or country? Are there consistent distinctions?

And for the second question, on WHY you do (or don’t) accept evolution, they could also separate the answers according to different criteria. There would be answers that were personal, and answers that are impersonal. Emotional motivations vs. factual conclusions; authority vs. self-discovery; consequences vs. process. You could also look to see which side, if any, was more verbose. Or used ALL CAPS. One could have all sorts of fun and games sorting the data.

On the issue of science and religion, there are presumably 3 basic groups here: theistic creationists, theistic evolutionists, and atheistic evolutionists (if there’s a 4th group of ‘atheistic creationists,’ that might set off its own new survey.) What sorts of distinctions would you expect to find? What would surprise you? It will be interesting to compare what the different groups think – and how they think — about evolution, when the results are out, and no doubt summarized in the very excellent Skeptic Magazine (a plug).

Good luck then to the Skeptic Society, and sympathies to the poor grad students and flunkies who are going to have to wade through and categorize what will probably be multiple complex factors teased out of a lot of complicated and long-winded essays.

Now then – what answers did you give? To start you off, here are my own (and now that I look at them again I see they certainly could have been better):

To the best of your understanding, and in your own words, please explain what “evolution” means.

Descent with modification, through replication — variation — and selection. Through a simple, mindless, algorithmic process, plants and animals have become more complex by adapting over time to fit their environment; those which were slightly better adapted tended to leave more offspring, and pass on the slight changes in their genes.

If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; or if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not.

The theory of evolution is the best explanation for the evidence across many disciplines, and has generated testable hypotheses, made successful predictions, withstood stringent criticism, and today forms the underlying basis for our understanding of how living things got to be the way they are. It is the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion, and is constantly being modified and improved. Scientists do not “believe” in evolution: they use it, and accept it because it continues to work.

Ok. Your turn.

Comments

  1. says

    Evolution and natural selection are different things. Lots of evidence for both, but there have been alternate mechanisms proposed to explain the evidence of evolution from fossils, genomes, and so on.

    I doubt that distinction will make much difference to the results, however.

  2. A Rice says

    Shortest definition of Evolution, in my own words: Evolution = Change/Time or E=C/T

  3. Steve LaBonne says

    In a nutshell and in Darwin’s own words: descent with modification. Because I am trained in molecular biology and genetics I am especially cognizant of the molecular evidence for descent with modification; it is several orders of magnitude more than the minimum that would be needed to be completely conclusive. There are few if any things in science about which there is less room for informed doubt.

  4. says

    When I was in Jr High our teacher had a model of a backbone. He said it was an amazing strusture, and laid it horizontally between to blocks (like a bridge) and then he demonstrated how firm it was by pounding on it with his fist. It hardly moved at all.

    Then he picked it up and held it vertically, from the bottom and it waggled about in a most ridiculous fashion.

    This, he explained, is why so many people have back problems, the spine evolved to be horizontal.

    That convinced me 100%.

  5. Steve LaBonne says

    P.S. And yes scientists most certainly do “believe” in evolution. I must again object to the denigration of that harmless and useful, nay indispensable word. Do not confuse beliefs in general with only unjustified beliefs. It’s the latter we should strive to avoid.

  6. Fifi says

    Sastra,

    I do not believe in the theory of evolution.

    I have trust in the theory of evolution.

    Meaning that, if a great doubt about it were to down on me, I would be able to pick up biology where I left it (in high-school) and go by myself verify the many evidences that support it.

    As they say “Trust. Trust and verify”.

    But you can’t do that with belief.

  7. MAJeff, OM says

    Hi fellow guest-blogger, and welcome aboard! It’s nice to have another non-biologist doing the writing. (And don’t get me started on narratives…that’s my dissertation shit!)

  8. says

    There are a multitude of reasons but the #1 reason for me is easy. My Grandfather.

    My grandfather is the single most influential person in my life. I grew up in awe of him. He was an ecological entomologist who had made a name for himself as a professor at NC State University. Throughout my childhood every vacation I spent with him in the agricultural fields around Raleigh, NC or in the North Carolina mountains near the Linville Gorge were a science lesson. I can’t count how many times we would be on a hike and he would stop to pick up an insect or point out a plant species, name its scientific name and then go into detail about how this little critter or plant made its way through its life. As I got older and school projects started to come in I always counted on him to help. We’d go out hunting bees and when we found one he’d reach out, grab it while being stung unmercifully and calmly place it in a glass tube for me.

    Once I was old enough to begin understanding we would have much deeper discussions on science and eventually evolution (and philosophy but that’s another subject). Being that he was an “bug guy”, we spent a lot of time on insects but did not solely focus on them. These talks / walks provided the basis for my future entry into NC State ecosystems assessment program in the Department of natural resources and life long appreciation of science.

    Continuing I find the science of evolution a much more plausible explanation for the bio diversity on this planet in a large part because my first teacher made the learning process so thorough and understandable and trustworthy.

    The science just falls into place after that.

    as a side note, Ken Miller did a lecture at a series in my grandfather’s honor a few years back (E.O. Wilson was the first guest lecturer). That was quite the proud day for moi.

  9. BMcP says

    My definition would be: Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next through natural selection.

    Years ago, I was a Young Earth Creationist, mainly because that was what taught to me by my church and I figured that they must be telling the truth. My YEC views was also a testament to the lack of real science education in public schools as evolution wasn’t covered in such a way to challenge me to think about it seriously.

    Later I became an Old Earth Creationist as through my own readings I came to the conclusion that the Earth being a few thousand years old was absurd in light of the evidence (one of my first science loves was geology). I was however still cool towards evolution.

    Starting a couple years back I really started to look at evolution as a result of debates of myself and YECs who would call me an “evolutionist” for not accepting a 6000 year old Earth. Because I felt the term was nothing more then some misapplied insult, I started to look more deeply what evolution really meant versus the universal application creationists used it for (in regards to geology, cosmology, etc). The more I read the more fascinated I became, reading about evolution in an open way really challenged my view of how we came to be, and that encouraged me further out of curiosity. The more I read the more I realized that most creationists were lying about the theory and the evidence behind it. This angered me, I felt lied to and decided I really want to truly understand evolution versus what people just say and decide for myself the validity of it’s claims. Through study and time I learned that the evidence indeed overwhelmingly points to evolution as the reason why life on Earth is the way it is and I now find myself staunchly defending it.

  10. JimboB says

    “I have a BA in English Lit from Western Illinois University (everybody go OOooo)”

    OOoooo!

  11. Sastra says

    Thanks, MAJeff. I think I finally figured out how to imbed the link, too.

    The title of the post, by the way, is not mine: it was how the survey was introduced on eSkeptic.

    I notice that the word “believe” was exchanged for the more accurate word “accept” in the actual question, though.

  12. JustAsItSounds says

    Have to join in and quibble with the phrase ‘believe in evolution’.

    I accept the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution as the best explanation of the fact of evolution as evinced by the fossil record, nested homology, genetic evidence and observations of speciation. Saying one ‘believes’ in it, to me, just shores up the creationist idea that scientific fact and theory are just matters of ‘faith’ and that reality somehow conforms to what one wants to be true.

    … and then I read the rest of the entry. Sorry, nothing to see here, move on.

  13. says

    Because I was trying to be totally honest, as I saw it, my answer to #2 was in two parts. First I said that the available evidence supports evolution, and while I hadn’t read ALL the papers/books I have read some and it was a compelling argument.

    Then I said I accept the theory of evolution because I trust the professors who taught it to me. Because I HAVEN’T read everything, and I’m not an intellectual giant. At some point, I just have to trust that my bio teachers and professors were not full of crap.

    Well, not exactly those words. (and sorry if this makes no sense, I’m trying to type while watching the Opening Ceremonies)

  14. says

    Hi, Sastra!

    (ahem) Ooooooooooo! (/ahem)

    Heartiest congratulations on your brevet promotion, and the same hopes for a peaceful term of service that I’ve pitched to the rest of your team.

    The MadPanda, FCD

  15. Steve LaBonne says

    Goddamit, people, please acquire some philosophical background and get over this bullshit idea that there’s something wrong with the concept of “belief”. One of the standard definitions of epistemology is “the study of justified belief“. Every time somebdy comes out with this “belief is for creationists” nonsense it’s like chalk on a blackboard.

  16. Mena says

    You went to WIU too? My degree is in Geology/Biology. Should I ask when you went there or will I feel old? ;^)

  17. JoJo says

    I accept evolution for two reasons:

    1. The only formal training I’ve had in biology was in high school ever so many years ago. I’ve done some reading about it, mainly science popularizations. The vast majority of biologists accept evolution and I tend to trust professionals when they’re talking about their particular expertise. I’m a trained and experienced nuclear engineer. I expect a biologist to believe me when I tell him or her about how a nuclear reactor works. I grant the same courtesy to biologists’ knowledge of their field.

    2. Evolution makes sense. It appears straightforward and elegant. Plus it’s falsifiable, that makes it science. Miracles aren’t falsifiable, so goddidit isn’t science.

  18. CJO says

    The differential survival of imperfectly replicating forms competing for resources in a limiting environment. As long as the terms apply, there’s no stopping it. I also believe in convection currents and erosion, which are no different in their physico-logical necessity. It’s only the denial that makes “belief” sound more appropriate to the case of evolution.

  19. says

    @#2

    While your equations sounds correct when read out loud, mathematically, it states that as time gets bigger, changes over time will become smaller meaning there is less diversity over time instead of more.

    A less poetic option would have evolution = changes * time. This way if changes or time increases, the entire term increases and there is more diversity. It can be read as “evolution equals the product of change and time.”

  20. says

    I agree that “belief” is a generic word simply meaning that one is convinced of something. Even the word “faith” is maligned sometimes; it often means “to be convinced of something without hard, direct evidence” rather than “without any evidence at all” (i.e. “I have faith that my wife is not sleeping with the mailman” might mean that while you may not have a spy cam tracking her, you know her well enough to think it is very unlikely she’d do such a thing)

    Another thing that gets on my nerves is people who want to make a big deal of the difference between “evolution” and “evolution by natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin and now accepted by mainstream science”. Come on, you know what we mean. Only in certain rare contexts is there a difference.

  21. lylebot says

    I find that I usually try to “psych out” the goals of any survey I take

    I guess I am similar, because I couldn’t resist pointing out that “evolution” doesn’t necessarily have to mean biological evolution (since that wasn’t actually specified in the question). “Evolution” is just change over time.

    (I gave a serious answer after that though.)

  22. says

    I wish surveys would take more time on the questions; some of those were just oddly worded, making the answer options insufficient

    How confident are you that you understand the scientific theory of evolution?

    I’m not confident in my knowledge base (there’s a LOT I don’t know), but I’m completely confident in my understanding of the basic principles thereof, and the definition of it.

    Do you believe there is a God?

    This should be a Yes/No question because it’s “belief.” The answers are to a question of “Is there a God?” not “Do you believe…?”

    Do I believe? Definitely no.
    Is there a God? Very likely no.

  23. JM Inc. says

    Shit, this is harder than it seemed it would be. I’ve used up 751 characters explaining the origin of Darwin’s idea and its historical and cultural context, especially its relations to the writings of Malthus. I really need to work on my wordcounts.

  24. chgo_liz says

    I also gave a simple “change over time” type answer. Because I am not a scientist, I saw no reason to prove the depths of my ignorance about the details.

  25. says

    the theory of evolution?

    Which theory of evolution? Environmental (natural) selection? Punctuated equilibrium? Gradualism? Erratic gradualism? Sexual selection? Macro- implied by Micro-evolution? Lysenkoism? “Darwinism” (whatever that is)?

    Surely not that it happens? It has been observed in many ways and contexts. The fact of evolution is explained by many overlapping and sometimes conflicting theories (depending on context).

    I believe in the scientific method eventually winnowing down to a comprehensive theory of evolution to explain the fact of evolution, probably in terms largely present in the currently competitive theories.

    Or am I overthinking?

  26. Wowbagger says

    I’m also not from a science background (BA in Communications) so I don’t pretend to understand the intricacies of evolution – though I’ve recently learned a vast amount from reading the posts here and the pages people have linked to.

    But, for me, it makes sense. Fossils, speciation, DNA, the age of the earth, selective breeding, inherited characteristics – all support evolution, and are simple enough concepts for anyone to be able to grasp enough to know that evolution explains life on our planet.

  27. JoJo says

    I also gave a simple “change over time” type answer. Because I am not a scientist, I saw no reason to prove the depths of my ignorance about the details.

    Me too. I’ll be the first to admit I know very little about biology and what I know isn’t rigorous.

  28. Jeremy says

    I think it’s a mistake to say you “believe” in evolution, only because creationists will use that to try and claim evolution is some kind of religion. Saying you “accept the fact” of evolution is more accurate and avoids that vulnerability.

    I took the survey, and I’ll see if some family members will as well. They’re “theistic evolutionists”, so maybe their answers will help the quest for insight.

    Glad to have you as a guest blogger, Sastra, along with the others. PZ knows how to pick ’em.

  29. Steve LaBonne says

    Do you believe that you have a head? If you don’t you are a very strange person.

    Yet one more time, do not confuse the concept of “belief” with unfounded beliefs. I don’t care what creationists will say, they shouldn’t be handed the power to abuse the English language and perfectly sensible English words.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

  30. Jeremy says

    Steve, I get your point. But every time I acknowledge a “belief” in evolution, a creationist attacks it as a religion. In theory, you’re right. In practice, it doesn’t help. There are enough things to try and ram into a creationists thick skull without having to add the correct definition of “belief” to the mix.

    I’m not a philosopher or a etymologist, so the preservation of the strict definition isn’t my primary goal.

  31. LisaJ says

    Hi Sastra! Nice to have you on board. Great first post.

    I definitely accept evolution. Why? Because it just makes sense. When you put your mind to it, how can you not accept it?

  32. Steve LaBonne says

    Better you should educate them about the fact that beliefs can be more or less well founded, and how one goes about justifying a belief. I doubt that you’re impressing them at all with the weird circumlocutions needed to avoid the word.

  33. Sastra says

    Mena #19 wrote:

    You went to WIU too? My degree is in Geology/Biology. Should I ask when you went there or will I feel old? ;^)

    Class of ’78. I am one month older than PZ. Is PZ old?

    Not if he’s almost winning a “free for all, anything goes cage match” with Christopher Hitchens, he’s not.

  34. amphiox says

    Dan Klarmann, all the mechanisms you lists, with the exception of Lysenkoism, may be considered part of a larger theoretical framework which scientists call “the theory of evolution.” Big scientific theories are assembled from little scientific theories.

    Steve LaBonne, I agree with you on the meaning of belief. For a true, justified belief, I prefer to just use the term “knowledge.” So I don’t say “I believe in evolution,” but prefer “I know of evolution,” and leave it at that.

    On the other hand, I’ve always believed that since English is a living language, the definitions of its terms depends on current usage. So whatever the majority of people who use a term want it to mean when they use it, and understand it to mean when they encounter it, is the actual meaning of the word. So if the common understanding of the term “belief” has shifted through popular usage to include only concepts without or pending justification, then I think you and I are stuck with it, unless you can manage to convince a new majority otherwise.

  35. Steve LaBonne says

    For a true, justified belief, I prefer to just use the term “knowledge.”

    That may land you in some difficulties with Prof. Gettier. ;)

  36. says

    I do not believe in evolution. I recognize the fact of evolution. “Belief” does not enter into it.

    I’ve noticed that saying this tends to freak out religious types a little.

  37. Krubozumo Nyankoye says

    Nice link Sastra. Thanks for posting this. If this keeps up PZed may have a struggle on his hands wresting is blog back from you guest bloggers! :-)

  38. Jeremy says

    Steve@41:

    I prefer other approaches to debunking their myths. Arguing over the etymology of “belief” doesn’t serve that goal except in an indirectly philosophical manner. Most of the people I argue with can’t comprehend how natural selection would favor longer necks in giraffes, much less the intricacies of philosophical discourse.

    When dealing with idiots, you have to talk to them at their level. Things like “giraffe with long neck can reach food better, so it live and have babies, who then also have long necks…short neck giraffes starve and die and no have babies”. Attempting anything more complicated than that is bound to confuse the hell out of them. Hell, the giraffe statement confuses the hell out of them. It’s really sad.

  39. Crudely Wrott says

    To the first question I answered, “Evolution is the means by which life solves the riddle of staying alive.” My answers to the rest of the questions more or less follow . . .

    More important is that I do not believe in evolution. But first let me tell you what I do believe.

    I believe my mother loved me when I was born and continues to do so. I believe that my father thought long and hard about what to teach me. I believe things like that. Things for which I have not tangible evidence. No means of proof. Only my memory and my stories. This is evidence enough for me but is not scientifically sufficient. Fine by me! Like a true believer (blush), I know what I know. Assuming undiagnosed Alzheimer disease. In all, I believe in a spare double handful of things for which I have only my own testimony to offer as evidence. In light of this lack of evidence I realize that it would be presumptuous and foolish to expect anyone to believe (and accept as a fundamental fact of import) that my mother loves me and that my father considered my education to be more than the three Rs. It is not difficult to imagine arguments and challenges against my assertions.

    This cherished paucity of belief is dwarfed by the things that I accept conditionally. Evolution is only one thing. I also accept that an airplane wing generates lift; that tires keep cars on course, that spring follows winter, that youngsters are driven by chemical forces, that stars are mortal, that spirited argument engenders understanding and occasionally kind regard. If I were to encounter evidence that any of the above (or a jillion other things) were not so I would be obliged to modify my assumptions and standards. But this is what I do every day.

    Not an easy task but necessary. I do take some small pride in being able to accommodate change. I’m not as I used to be. This revelation does not prevent me from believing, with vigorous relief, in myself. And you.

  40. Sastra says

    There is a very slight change of connotation between the phrases “believe that” and “believe in.” To believe in something implies there’s a positive personal element involved, a sort of commitment, desire, or relationship.

    I believe in my wife.
    I believe in the power of hope.
    I believe in America.

    As opposed to ‘I believe that my wife is faithful or ‘I believe that America is great.’ You could also say ‘I believe that my wife is a whore’ or ‘I believe that America sucks.’ In which case, you would no longer believe in your wife, or in America.

    I suppose you could believe that God exists, and not believe in God. You know — if you think there is a God, but He’s a major disappointment.

    Perhaps we could say that New Age-ish fans of Teillhard de Chardin or process theologians “believe in” evolution, as the universe evolves to higher planes of spiritual perfection. Or whatever.

  41. Jams says

    Ditto Steve LaBonne’s point.

    I don’t remember my answers exactly (you should have warned me to remember!). I gave a variation on the “change over time” thing in one sentence. Something like: Evolution is a theory that describes complexity as a result determined by simple incremental changes.

  42. says

    I gave it a shot, but i think mine was pretty bad.

    I said something like “Evolution means that something reproduces itself perhaps with a slight variation. If the variation is beneficial then the offspring will thrive and spread that same variation to their own offspring.”

  43. Crudely Wrott says

    Well, Sastra, that’s just it. I tried twice to believe in God and was disappointed twice.

    So, after much second thinking and the attendant confusion, I decided, at some random moment, to judge an idea by its merit, not its intent.

    Philosophy is fine until science tunes the chimes.

    That is that belief embodies the desire to show the best of humanity. And so does science. The difference is in the approach. Religion says “you will be told.” Science says, “You will discover.” On the one hand is magic; on the other, hard work. Work works for me. That way I know.

  44. Jim Thomerson says

    In a discussion with a colleague in Amsterdam, I started a sentence, “I believe. . .” He cut me off, “I don’t want to know what you believe. I want to know what you think!”

    No, I do not believe in evolution. I have considered the matter and I am convinced of evolution.

  45. Benjamin Franklin says

    Hi Sastra!

    Aren’t any of you minions going to post about Ray Comfort accusing PZ of being a “no-show” on the debate? and commenting “I smell chicken”?

  46. mims h. carter says

    My answer to what is evolution: The change in allele frequency in a population over time.

    I have degrees in biology, comparative religion with minors in math, linguistics AND english literature, some of them from a similar westerly directed mid-western university. I may be prejudiced, but these directional mid-western schools are really, really good, better than many flagship universities in other areas of the country, like the Deep South, where I now live. So I will not give you a OOooo. ALL of the lit classes I took at Western Michigan were outstanding.

  47. John C. Randolph says

    I’m not really comfortable with the word “believe” when it comes to facts. Evolution happens.

    -jcr

  48. Aaron says

    Sorry to be all nitpicky and pedantic, but the proper spelling is “Caltech”, not “Cal Tech”.

    — Aaron (formerly a Caltech student)

  49. Whateverman says

    Deists get left out of the debate because we simply aren’t that exciting. We disagree with institutionalized religion, and shy away from Strong Atheism – it’s almost as if Christianity, in it’s demonizing of atheism, has forced people to view the situation as binary…

    But I digress…

    The questions were interesting, and at least one made me unconfortably choose an option I didn’t entirely agree with.

    In short, the TOE is preferable as long as its formed and qualified by the results of the scientific method. As peer review has kept it honest, I find it much more plausible than people who say “Not only did God do it, but it was *my* God that was responsible”.

  50. says

    By the time I was 12, I had been to zoos in Frankfurt, Germany, and in St. Louis, MO. I had seen kudu and okapi, who seemed to be way-stations to giraffes. Direct observations of animals, with help from encyclopedias and other books led me to easily understanding and accepting evolution. By the time I was 13 or 14, evolution seemed so intuitively obvious there was no turning back. I had also gotten interested in astronomy and easily accepted the concept of Deep Time – so descent with very gradual modification over millions of years was no problem. Evolution has always made sense to me.

  51. mims h. carter says

    Steve – ‘Justified belief = Knowledge’, this is the essence of the Anglo/American analytical philosophy tradition. I only label it so because you may find argument, even among secularists, about the veracity of this statement by (labels again) followers of the so-called continental philosophy tradition, who usually put up a straw man argument about this saying that ANY belief = knowledge, ignoring the vibrant argument about what criteria a ‘justified belief’ has. This philosphical thread is not limited to post-modernists. Those are easily ignored, I think. Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, et. al., are more interesting.

  52. Who Cares says

    How far off base am I when I answered: ”
    evolution is the adaptation of species to their environment”?

    How much cringing would I get from your average person who actually has had more then a few years highschool/college level biology?

  53. Efogoto says

    I’m with you Steve LaBonne on the use of the word “believe”. I believe you when you say you’re serious about this. I believe that the theory of evolution is a well-supported theory that has no equal in explaining the diversity of life on Earth. I believe I’ll have a beer now.

  54. negentropyeater says

    1. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth (and most certainly on other planets in the universe). It describes the natural processes which enabled a common ancestor more than 3.5 billion years ago to change over time in an unguided way into what we see today, with all the most important steps in between.

    2. It works, it fits the evidence from the fossil record, from genetics, from what we can observe today. It’s also logical that it works. Is there anything else to “accept” ?

  55. BobC says

    This question I have seen on many polls:

    On the question of the origin and development of life and humans, what do you believe?
    1. People were magically created.
    2. People developed from other animals but magic made it possible.
    3. People developed from other animals and it was a completely natural process.

    If I remember correctly about half of Americans believe in creation woo-woo. The other half are not much better. About 36% of Americans invoke magic to guide the development of people. Only 14% leave the magic man out of it.

    This tells me that most of the Americans who accept evolution don’t understand it. The combination of religious indoctrination and extremely poor science education has made America into a country of dopes.

    This problem is not getting any better. The constant attempts by Christian scum to suppress the teaching of evolution is working. They are losing in court but they have been doing an excellent job of intimidating biology teachers. Who knows how many teachers just quietly skip evolution just to avoid harassment from Christian thugs.

    Where I live in Florida the Christians are out of control. They never give up trying to suppress science education. Today’s news: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 TALLAHASSEE — Public school science teachers who want to include creationism or intelligent design in their lesson plan could not be punished by principals or school districts under a bill approved Tuesday by a Florida Senate committee.

  56. Luftritter says

    I agree whith several opinions above. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS A FACT PROBED BEYOND ANY DOUBT BY EVIDENCE!
    In other words evolution by means of natural selection is a robust, consistent and elegant scientific Theory, the link and the fundament that gives unity to the biological sciences. Whitout evolution you cannot understand ANYTHING about living beings.

  57. Lee Picton says

    Not being a biologist (Master’s in English and a career in computers), I tended to give the shortest answers that would not make me look foolish, i.e. change in allele frequency over time, 150 years of peer-reviewed research, no evidence so far offered that would weaken it, dinosaurs are cool, and, um, a couple other things that would at least indicate that I understood it. Most of you guys gave much better answers.

  58. Torbjörn Larsson, OM says

    So who misses PZ? This seems like a good opportunity to raise some hell and desecrate some religious paraphernalia.

    Okay, on topic: Every time a description of evolution comes up I waffle up something new. So here’s todays attempt:

    1st question [explain]:

    In general, _evolution_ is a process that results in heritable changes in a population.

    But to apply the definition to observable mechanisms in nature, such as selection and drift, we need to narrow it down to _biological evolution_, populations of genetically related biological organisms. (As opposed to, say, evolutionary algorithms.)

    Compliant with the above definition of evolution, an _organism_ is the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history. (I.e. virus, unicellular or multicellular systems, but not organelles.)

    Finally, _biological_ organisms are those observed in nature. (Originated by the natural process of abiogenesis, and propagated by the natural process of evolution observed as descent with modification.)

    2nd question [accept]:

    The theory of evolution is the tested theory predicting observed evolution (i.e. the process as defined above).

  59. cactusren says

    Wow! Apparently I thought about this too much. I figured since they gave us 1000 characters that I should fill things out a bit. Basically, I said evolution is the change in genotype and phenotype of a population, which can occur through natural selection and/or genetic drift, and when populations become isolated from each other (geographically or behaviorally) they become genetically less similar over time, eventually becoming distinct species. I think I also explained natural selection in a bit more detail.

    BMcP @10: Your story gives me hope. I’m glad you took the initiative to learn about evolution and geology on your own, so that you could see through the YEC bull. I hope there will be many more who follow in your footsteps.

    In terms of using the word believe for evolution: I don’t think it is technically wrong, but I think it is fodder for those religious types who assume we believe things as blindly as they do. I prefer to say that I accept evolution, or that I think the evidence supports evolution. It really seems to catch them off-guard, and bringing up the evidence can steer the conversation in that direction, and away from a who-believes-what conversation, which is generally a dead end.

  60. says

    Old coot in rocker; “Do you believe in infant baptism?”

    Other old coot in other rocker: “Believe in it? Hell, I’ve seen it done!”

    Pretty much that, yeah.

  61. tim Rowledge says

    #23 ->”Evolution = slightly sloppy replication.”
    An even pithier way of expressing what I was going to offer. To expand a little though…

    Given growth or reproduction by means of molecules splitting and/or combining (such as we can observe DNA doing);
    and given that on occasion the splitting/combining will result in mistakes (as we can see with even fairly simple equipment);
    and given that living organisms will compete for resources (as we can see in the world around us);
    then it is obvious that the best able to compete and use those resources will tend to prosper and thus those mistakes will be passed on and become a new base upon which more ‘mistakes’ will build.
    Thus we can expect evolution by natural selection to be a significant force in the history of living things.

    You don’t need any particularly sophisticated knowledge of biology, chemistry, maths or anything much to be able to understand the above. Just a willingness to think; which is of course where we hit problems.

  62. Steve LaBonne says

    Deists get left out of the debate because we simply aren’t that exciting

    Oh, I wouldn’t say that. It’s more because deism is silly in a peculiarly pointless way: you get few of the psychological goodies that theists get from their gods, but you run just as decisively afoul of science. (Unless you go all the way to the kind of Spinozism that’s logically indistinguishable from atheism, in which case it’s a purely a matter of word-juggling and thus even more pointless, but harmless.)

  63. Orson Zedd says

    Belief is one of those strange ideas that mean different things to different people. Believing evolution isn’t the same as believing a prophet or in a god or something. Belief works with things like goodness and justice, and things that don’t exist in nature. Goodness and Justice are a part of belief, because without them, the world can be either destructive, or simply less fun. We all have our irrational beliefs, but saying one believes evolution to be true, is somewhat different than saying one believes in the gods.

  64. Radwaste says

    Want some irony?

    The next time you get in a discussion about “belief”, point out that faith cannot exist in the absence of doubt. If you are certain of something, faith is banished. Yet the faithful claim to be certain of things in their religion, about which they have simply granted status as fact.

    The irony of faith is the biggest stumbling block, the core of problems the faithful have with understanding the real world.

  65. Dagger says

    Good set of questions. It’ll be interesting to see the results. Like many on here, I am not a scientist, but then again I don’t have to be. All I have to understand is one thing. Scientific Method. If an idea/theory/statement stands up to the kind of scrutiny imposed by scientific method then by definition it is the most currently plausible answer to that idea/theory/statement (while still being subject to change as more details are revealed). If the idea/theory/statement cannot stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny, then it is false. Simple.

  66. JM Inc. says

    OK, I’m a pretty verbose guy, but this is just absurd. I just finished my answer to the first essay question and, by assiduously selective wording, I have managed to come up with an answer which I am both substantially satisfied with and which contains precisely the maximum number of characters.

    ‘Evolution’ is an English-language word (“here I was uncertain about whether ‘evolution’ is a word used in any other languages in this precise form”-P.S.) which is descended from the Latin word “evolvtio”, which means ‘unfold’ in the sense of a scroll or a piece of parchment.

    Biological evolution may be described as the modification (“here I felt the word ‘modification’ implied time lapse, thus not necessitating specification”-P.S.) of heritable features (the phenotype) within organismal families by stochastic selectivity within genomic and epigenomic (the genotype) variation (“here I was uncertain whether epigenetics by definition constitutes part of the ‘genotype’, I also felt that ‘genomic and epigenomic variation’ implied population distribution, thus not necessitating the duplication of ‘organismal families'”-P.S.). Genomic variation originates through mutation, which is copy-error in heritable genes, which are function-regions within organismal genomes. Some examples of heritable (germinal) copy-error types are multiplications, deletions, modifications, and transpositions. Epigenomics consist in a variety of non-genomic or partially genomic chemical factors which modify the expressivity of genomic regions.

    In practical terms, the fact of evolution refers to the modification over time of the genotype and phenotype in organismal families by all likely means. The Theory of Evolution is an examination and explanation of all such means.

    Anybody have an opinion? I left a lot out for the character limit, especially on the side of the explanations of the cultural and historical context of the theory, as well as its subsequent development to Darwin. In case you’re wondering, I had no intention of making the precise character limit, it just turned out that way when I had to choke it down to fit it all in. Now, on to essay question two!

  67. Tony Popple says

    Confession time……

    I have worked hard to establish an understanding and appreciation of evolution that is based on a complete and honest review of the evidence.

    However, I must admit that I may have prematurely accepted the idea because of a childhood love of dinosaurs.

  68. says

    Oh, I can be flip and paraphrase something Vonnegut once said (though he was a humanist through and through): It’s the principle that death is an improvement. I miss Kurt.

    You’ll get a lot of poetic answers, I suspect, and that is the more interesting question, at least from my point of view: why do you like evolution?

    It is perhaps the most elegant process that I have ever gotten my little brain around. The concision and power of the inescapable logic that successful replicators by definition pass on the characteristics that made them good replicators in the first place, and that in a given environment, those replicators that have a comparative reproductive advantage will succeed–man, that’s it right there, baby! It boggles the mind and readily disentangles so many apparently ridiculously convoluted and divergent aspects of the world around us with supreme effortlessness, how could you not marvel at its generative power. It also puts us pipsqueaks in our place, doesn’t it? By shrinking us down to size, it makes the universe seem all the grander and all the more majestic.

    HJ

  69. says

    Okay, I wrote in to the survey. I’m also an English major (rep-re-SENT!), so I’m interested in knowing if I’m actually on the mark or not. I get into a lot of debates and I’ve been trying to hone my explanation to be more laymen’s-terms, but that may have introduced inaccuracies. I’m sure someone will let me know.

    Evolution is the encompassing term for the observed physiological changes in organisms over time.

    The accepted mechanism by which evolution occurs is natural selection, in which an organism with a characteristic that gives it some (even slight) genetic survival benefit is more likely to survive, and therefore reproduce, in a given environment than an organism lacking said characteristic. As a result, the disadvantaged variation of the organism eventually dies out of the population, leaving only organisms with the genetic information of the advantaged variation. This process may repeat indefinitely, as genetic mutations result in newly-advantaged variations.

    As different environments exert different survival pressures, what may be a disadvantaged variation in one environment may be advantaged in another. This results in speciation, where accumulated environmental adaptations eventually result in totally different populations of organisms, though they share a common ancestor.

  70. says

    To Bing McGhandi:

    Vonnegut was my favorite author until I saw him trashing evolution a few years ago on The Daily Show.

    I still love him, but I think his brain was beginning to addle.

    “I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can’t help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed.” -Vonnegut 2005

    For me – why I believe evolution can be summed up by the simplest but most straightforward evidence we have: all life shares the same genetic code and amino acids (with minor exceptions). Everything else is simply corroboration in my mind. (Yes I am understating this!).

  71. says

    Indeed, I have a great respect for evolution; belief? The word itself is indicative of falseness. You believe in things that you think cannot be proven.

    I understand that evolution is the best theory we have presently, until proven otherwise.

  72. clinteas says

    Someone should tell Mr Shermer about Australia,its missing in the “Country” selection on that survey.

  73. Scrofulum says

    My go:
    —————-
    Evolution seems to me to be the environmental selection of naturally variable traits, either being selected to continue (if they have a positive impact on the survival of the organism) or, more usually, to be eradicated if they have a negative or zero effect on that survival.

    Apart from the enormous volume of peer reviewed, objective evidence for evolution as a fact, one can apply it to everyday observations and it just seems to work. You only need a basic understanding of where the “random” part of the process occurs and where the “selection” part occurs to be able to see how succinct and effective it is as an explanation for the processes of life.

    ————

    It ain’t clever, but it’s wot I rekkon.

  74. travc says

    1001 characters… tricky to be accurate and comprehensive without resorting to mathematical formula. I’m an evolutionary biologist coming from a theoretical (more computer science and info theory) angle. Anyway, ‘evolution’ (as I understand it) is not restricted to biological organisms, and nice terse terms aren’t yet available without getting really technical.

    Anyway, as for why, I could imagine an interesting dichotomy amoung the people who accept evolution as the fact it is…

    For me (and others I hope), it isn’t the evidence as much as it is the elegance and downright logical inescapably. If the evidence did not support evolution, there would have to be a very good (and interesting) reason why. In short, the theory is convincing, the evidence is confirming.

    For most, I suspect the ‘all the evidence supports’ will be high on the list. ‘Makes biological phenomena make sense’ (puts facts/observations in context) will probably also be there.

  75. travc says

    @Aaron #59
    What year and hovse? I always preferred CIT, but that seems to be officially poo-pooed (maybe too similar to MIT).

  76. JM Inc. says

    Wait, the questionnaire asks about religious organisation membership… is this supposed to be from your perspective or the organisation’s perspective? Because some religious organisations consider you not to have left even after you leave, like the Catholic Church which considers you to be “Lapsed”, as in, still within the jurisdiction but non-practicing. What is the questionnaire looking for here?

  77. ssjessiechan says

    Whoa, fun! That was awesome, and we get data too! I just hope we don’t skew the data any. :/ That would make me very sad. But since this seems to be a who believes what and why analysis rather than just a poll, hopefully we should be okay.

    One of the questions I found interesting was the one that asked how sure you were you understood evolution. I’m betting we’ll get an interesting curve… the people who understand really well know they do, the ones who are a little unsure know what they don’t know, the ones in the middle think they know nothing, and the ones who know nothing think they know everything.

    I didn’t save my answers. v.v; For the “why do you believe” question I actually laid out some evidence and a little thought process. I envy the people who get to see these raw! But it was fun! And I can’t wait for the results!

  78. JM Inc. says

    Ehwotay, #58: Wow, sorry, didn’t see you addressing me there! In brief it’s just the degree to which Darwin was inspired by Malthus, and especially his ideas about population growth, including the notion that human population might boom until mass starvation set in (although later he softened his touch and suggested that education and welfare could be the antidote to this, which we in the west now know very well indeed). He was one among many who influenced Darwin.

  79. antaresrichard says

    Sastra, could you post more of your answers? My using the same two cribs over and over might raise suspicions.

    Sorry, I was in my “exam mode” again.

  80. truth machine, OM says

    Goddamit, people, please acquire some philosophical background and get over this bullshit idea that there’s something wrong with the concept of “belief”. One of the standard definitions of epistemology is “the study of justified belief”. Every time somebdy comes out with this “belief is for creationists” nonsense it’s like chalk on a blackboard.

    Quite so. A lot of people have said incredibly stupid things about “belief” on this blog (not just in this thread), as if they’re quite unfamiliar with the use of the word throughout English speaking culture. Stupid things like

    The word itself is indicative of falseness. You believe in things that you think cannot be proven.

    That’s retarded. I believe that there is no greatest prime, that the square root of 2 is irrational, that the sum of the angles of a planar triangle is 180 degrees … I believe every statement for which I know of a proof, plus a lot of other statements like “George Bush is President”, “Booth killed Lincoln”, and any other statement that I can truthfully assent to.

  81. Tony Sidaway says

    I can imagine some Pharygulists getting caught up in the essay aspect and wanting bigger textboxes!

    My definition of evolution was a single sentence (common descent) but my reasoning took up most of the textbox. I could have trimmed that down to a sentence, too, and probably should have.

  82. truth machine, OM says

    In a discussion with a colleague in Amsterdam, I started a sentence, “I believe. . .” He cut me off, “I don’t want to know what you believe. I want to know what you think!”

    Perhaps your colleague should learn English.

  83. truth machine, OM says

    I believe in my wife.
    I believe in the power of hope.
    I believe in America.

    The first and third statements are meaningless drivel.
    The second statement is equivalent to “I believe that hope has power”. “believe in” generally of one of those two sorts: “I believe in God” = “I believe that God exists”, “I believe in love” = meaningless drivel, “I believe in evolution” = “I believe that evolution occurs/occurred”, “I believe in you” = meaningless drivel, “I believe in the theory of evolution” = “I believe that the theory of evolution is valid”, etc.

  84. truth machine, OM says

    For a true, justified belief, I prefer to just use the term “knowledge.”
    That may land you in some difficulties with Prof. Gettier. ;)

    It can be fixed with the qualification “properly justified”, where a proper justification of a belief is one that is dependent on its truth. e.g., while the true belief that there’s a (hidden) cow in a field is justified because of an image of a cow in the field, the justification is independent of the truth of the statement because the image isn’t of any cow in the field.

  85. truth machine, OM says

    Steve LaBonne, I agree with you on the meaning of belief. For a true, justified belief, I prefer to just use the term “knowledge.” So I don’t say “I believe in evolution,” but prefer “I know of evolution,” and leave it at that.

    I prefer to use proper English. “know of” refers to familiarity, not justified belief. You might want to say “I know that evolution has occurred” — which is different from any statement about the theory of evolution. People wouldn’t mix these things up so much if they would learn how to express themselves intelligibly.

  86. merikari says

    I gave it a go.
    ———–
    It is a process by which tiny changes accumulate into extremely complex structures when the system in question is fed more energy and given enough time. The main driving force of biological evolution is natural selection, which in my understanding means that those traits better suited for their environment will, over time, become more common than other traits.

    It is a verified, peer-reviewed, and well-researched phenomenon that best explains biodiversity and mechanisms that we can observe in nature. It is also subject to change because of the scientific method, which is not backed by dogma, but always seeks to refine and seek more knowledge.

    It really does not matter if I believe in something that is real. It does not cease to exist if I do not.
    ——–

  87. truth machine, OM says

    I believe my mother loved me when I was born and continues to do so. I believe that my father thought long and hard about what to teach me. I believe things like that. Things for which I have not tangible evidence.

    I don’t know where people get this nonsense. We have plenty of tangible evidence of people’s love, thoughts, beliefs, etc. … it’s called behavior. It’s because of people’s behavior that we believe these things about them. (We also believe that our own mothers loved us when we were born from what we know of the relationship between mothers and newborns generally, both from the behavior of other mothers that we have observed and have read about, and from what we know scientifically of human parenting.)

    Leave the idiotic claims that love is intangible but we know it exists to the religious apologists who claim that similarly God is intangible but they know it exists.

  88. cyan says

    sorry if someone already addressed this:

    A Rice:

    “Evolution = Change/Time or E=C/T”

    If you must try to quantify it using a simple math formula analogy, then that is just the opposite of what you should be using. Multiply change by time instead of dividing it by time.

  89. Corax says

    1. It is hard to find a better staring point for a definition of the classical concept of biological evolution than Darwin’s ‘descent with modification’. But this must be qualified, because many who don’t belive in evolution would also accept that general proposition. The process of modification must occur by means of entirely ‘natural forces’, that is without any intelligent input or guidance. Also the modification must in principle be open-ended – i.e not limited to preset available options.
    I omit any reference ot natural selection etc, as this relates to a proposed mechanism for evolution, rather than being a definition of evolution. Don’t confuse biological evolution with darwinism (or neo-darwinism if you prefer), that latter attempts to explain how the former occured.

    2. No, I don’t believe it. I was brought up with some religious beliefs, but was always taught to question ideas. So while my father encourgaed me to question our religious beliefs, he also was always ready to challenge all ideas (in science or any other field). I loved the idea of evolution as a kid, I’m sure I’m not the only one with numerous notebooks full of hypothetical evolutionary lines. I have studied biological sciences, have an MSc and my work is in applied rather than academic science. But nonetheless, while I am no creationist, and I accept the evidence of an old and changing Earth etc, I don’t find the evidence for evolution (as defined above) either convincing or compelling.

    Arguments about whether or not a design could be better, or goodness etc are missing the point – that just tells me something about the theology of the person i.e. that they expect that if there is a creative mind it will be bound to produce the best possible designs, and be good. No disrespect, but that is in the realms of theology: after all it is possible that the creative mind could do better, or is indifferent or even evil. One of the things I have observed is that so often those who argue for evolution resort to such arguments, which are absolutely irrelevant to the question of how life got here and came to be as it is.

    When I enounter apparently poor design I consider several possibilities: 1. I am misunderstanding the purpose of it, 2. there are design constraints I am not aware of, 3. something has gone wrong during or post production, or possibly even 4. the designer wasn’t very good. However to make the leap that poor design proves something arose as a result of natural processes is a leap way beyond what logic demands or suugests.

    By the way, it is curious that people get so hung up about the word ‘believe’. One dictionary gives the following definition: ‘to regard as true; to to accepts as true… to be firmly persuaded…”. Based on comments on this blog I would say the word believe is appropriate. The other group I have encountered who do this are fundamentalist Christians who will say things like “I don’t believe, I know” – it seems that fundamentalist creationists and fundamentalist evolutionists have a lot in common.

    I have come to the conclusion that most people’s beliefs are based on a combination of their background, the authority they choose to accept and what they want to believe. The authority bit surprises me somewhat – I guess I would expect it of religious people (refering to what their minister, the pope or whoever), but it’s just as much the case with people who have a secular or scientific outlook. Even among biology graduates my experience has been that when asked to explain why they believe in evolution the majority focus on some example of alleged poor design, why is there cruelty in the world and end up by stating that some academic authority figure (maybe a professor, or a textbook or even the likes of Dawkins) says it’s true so it must be. At which point I feel despair and want to say ‘think for yourselves’.

    While I’m being controversial I would like to also add, with regard to the heated discussions that have been going on recently about the part darwinism did or did not play in Nazism and the holocaust. There is substantial evidence that darwinism did have significant influence on the eugenist movements and also on the philosophy of Nietzsche (though Nietzsche apparently disagreed with some of Darwin’s conclusions). Both the eugenist movement and Nietzsche had a significant influence on the thinking and policies of Nazi Germany. But remember “An idea is not responsible for those who believe in it.” – whether or not darwinism was a major factor in the train of events that led to the holocaust has no bearing on whether or not darwinism is correct.

  90. says

    I believe in nothing, I have no beliefs, not even the belief in my own continued existence.

    I believe they call my condition psychosis…wait a minute.

  91. David says

    This is a draft of something I am preparing for another site. I thought it might be of interest here…

    Charles Darwin, born 1809,
    Was a thinker fools love to malign.
    Though they’re clearly related
    To apes, they’ve berated
    This man who showed men aren’t divine.

    Thanks to natural selection, no god,
    Darwin showed us, was needed to prod
    Eden’s mythical dust
    And bring Adam to lust
    For his own former rib (which seems odd).

    He showed we evolved and, what’s more,
    He has helped modern thinkers deplore
    All that witless old twaddle
    We’re fed from first toddle.
    Now minds that are open can soar.

    Charles Darwin, who died in 1882, was a British biologist and writer who gave us, in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, one of the greatest insights ever into the wonders of life on our planet. It strikes the author as shameful that nearly a hundred and fifty years later untold millions are still unaware that grovelling before ridiculous ancient gods does nothing to advance the growth of knowledge and understanding. Minds freed to think independently in an earnest search for verifiable truth do sometimes soar towards new knowledge and understanding. The god-free worlds of science and common sense, as inhabited by earnest seekers of truth like Richard Dawkins are, I believe, often infinitely more beautiful than the warped visions of reality that have held back god-fearing grovellers since time immemorial.

  92. Geoff says

    Was I the only one stuck on Q3?
    Being more or less of an autodidact in evolutionary biology, I’m very sure that I understand the ToE on a basic level. I’m equally sure I don’t even know, let alone understand, most of its detail.
    I suppose my only answer could be ‘less that 10%’, but would this be meaningful? As the question was mandatory, I didn’t complete the survey.

  93. JoJo says

    When creationists say “we believe goddidit” they mean exactly that. Their belief in God and their belief that the Bible is literally word-for-word true demand that they believe in creationism. Since the creationists see evolution as being diametrically opposed to creationism, they assume that evolutionists believe in evolution in the same manner that creationists believe in creationism.

    While some of us acknowledge that we take evolution on faith, the creationists insist that all of us do. But those with a background in biology don’t believe in evolution, they accept it because their training and experience tells them that evolution is a fact.

    I suspect that certain people are objecting to the word “believe” because they don’t believe in evolution in the way that creationists believe in creationism. They accept evolution because the evidence is overwhelming in evolution’s favor. They don’t have to believe in evolution because belief or faith isn’t required.

  94. Sastra says

    Corax #105 wrote:

    But nonetheless, while I am no creationist, and I accept the evidence of an old and changing Earth etc, I don’t find the evidence for evolution (as defined above) either convincing or compelling.

    What then is your own model and mechanism for the diversity of life?

  95. Fernando Magyar says

    Aaron @ 22,

    A less poetic option would have evolution = changes * time. This way if changes or time increases, the entire term increases and there is more diversity. It can be read as “evolution equals the product of change and time.”

    While I will agree that the record so far seems to support an increase in diversity over time,
    I can’t see where it is written in stone (pun intended) that there is any guarantee that there is always going to be an increase in diversity. If all life should go extinct at some point in time, change would then equal zero and then regardless of however much “T” should increase we would be back to an abiotic world where evolution equals zero. Hopefully that will not happen for a very very long time. If nothing else, it would indeed be a less poetic world.

  96. says

    Weighing in on SLB’s side. You don’t need to split hairs and start redefining the language in order to differentiate yourselves from the godsmacked masses. Your reasons for believing evolution may be better than the IDiots’ reasons for believing goddidit, but it’s still belief. Don’t make me kick a rock.

    Also: @60, Deism is not a unique and beautiful snowflake. You say god-belief is not a binary condition; I want to know how else to characterize the comparison of [any value whatsoever] to [no value whatsoever].

  97. MPG says

    I happen to live in the town where Darwin was born and raised, so in school we ended up covering evolution in science lessons, and touching on it (along with Darwin’s life) in history lessons. The school Darwin used to attend is now the town’s main library, and there’s a big statue of the man himself outside it. And with his anniversary coming up, the town is gearing up for celebrating it – they’re even building a memorial garden with a huge fossil-like sculpture as the centrepiece. I guess living among the history has made me more interested in the subject than I might otherwise have been.

  98. PYRETTE says

    I didn’t put this in my answer, but this is what i tell fundies when asked why i believe in evolution;

    ‘I DONT ‘believe’ in evolution in the same way that i don’t believe in my pencil. I don’t need to; i’ve seen it, others have seen it, and it gets used everday to solve problems. Believing in it would be rather redundant, wouldn’t it?’

  99. leeleeone says

    Just wondering who will actually be the “lucky” people taking this survey to the results level? Will it be actual people or someone who generated a computer program who can take the essays and disseminate them into statistical information? Ahhh, this is in itself a form of evolution, not?

  100. Kimpatsu says

    Well, I completed the survey, but I’m dissatisfied, and here’s why:
    The question on ethnicity asked if I am “Japanese”. There is no such thing as Japanese ethnicity or Japanese race (which, if Doctor Shermer had bothered to consult an expert, he would have learned immediately); there is the racist preconception that there is a Japanese race, which is inculcated in racist Japanese schools by racist Japanese teachers.
    Offering the racist notion–because the notion of a “Yamato race” is automatically conflated with superiority (just ask Taro Aso)–as an option reinforces racist sterotypes. So why offer it? Merely as a sop to the racists in an effort to forestall the counterclaim that non-inclusion is a racist act? Because you didn’t know better? (If not, then why not ask; I’m right here.) Or mere “ignorance”? (Which in this case means too damn lazy to ask.)
    Enquiring minds want to know…

  101. BlueIndependent says

    I’m on board with the efforts to remove “believing” anything from my own conversations with people. I “think” rather than “believe”. First off, it makes more sense (every time I have errantly said “believe” in the past wasn’t meant to indicate I place supernatural weight on something) and is generally more accurate. Second of all, people need to hear the word “think” more, as in they need to be “thinking” about things, not “believing” in them.

    And the question of whether I believe in evolution is weighted improperly and is generally loaded. Much to my dismay, on more than one occasion on Bill Maher’s show he asked panel guests if they “believed” in evolution. I promptly tore my hair out. Evolution is a discovery; you don’t “believe” in it the same way you don’t “believe” in atomic theory, or as Pyrette mentioned, in pencils. You think evolution is true based on evidence, and our current level of understanding. Until another, better model comes along that supplants evolution, I will continue “thinking” evolution is the key.

  102. Brian English says

    This has probably been done and dusted already, but what kind of dill asks “Do you believe in evolution?”. Silly. I believe evolution is the best theory we have going and it’s great at explaining life in its multifarious life type shit. But believe in it? Evolution is a god now? bleh. :P

  103. raven says

    Evolution is very simple. People psych out the kiddies by making it more complex than it is.

    Evolution is both fact and theory.

    The fact. Evolution is change of life through time.

    The theory.
    Evolution is random mutation + natural selection (RM + NS).
    or E=RM+NS

    The rest of the theory is all details and data. Details like punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift, sexual and frequency selection and so on. And enough data to fill multistory libraries.

    The fact was recognized a century before the current theory. Even Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus had a TofE. The tipoff is that the earth is covered with fossil strata, some of it miles deep. And we know that somewhere between 99% and 99.9% of all life that ever was is now extinct.

  104. raven says

    The believe versus accept or recognize semantics is tiresome. Accept or recognize or understand are more correct descriptions of what educated people do with science.

    Believe is commonly used due to colloquil quirks in the English language. It has multiple meanings and one is “accept”. I believe the sun comes up every day and in heliocentrism.

    Around creos probably best to use accept or a synonym. They are already hopelessly confused and lost and it probably won’t make any difference but you never know.

  105. Iain Walker says

    Corax (#105):

    When I enounter apparently poor design I consider several possibilities: 1. I am misunderstanding the purpose of it, 2. there are design constraints I am not aware of, 3. something has gone wrong during or post production, or possibly even 4. the designer wasn’t very good. However to make the leap that poor design proves something arose as a result of natural processes is a leap way beyond what logic demands or suugests.

    I think you misunderstand the nature of the argument you’re attempting to criticise. The point is that poor “design” (in the neutral engineering sense of fitness for function) is better explained by a cumulative, open-ended natural process like mutation and selection than by the actions of an intelligent agent (especially an all-powerful, all-knowing one). Evolutionary theory predicts instances of sub-optimal functionality in biology, while intelligent design does not. So the alleged “leap” from poor “design” to natural processes in not intended to be one of deductive logic. It’s a perfectly reasonable empirical inference to the best available explanation.

    Remember also that the poor “design” argument doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s just one (rather minor) line of inference amongst many which supports evolution by natural processes over creation by intelligent agency.

  106. Geral says

    I don’t like using the term ‘believe’ in evolution either. Would you walk up to a man on the street and ask him, ‘do you believe in Einstein’s theory of relativity?’. Rather you ask if he understands it. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the same idea, there’s nothing to believe in but rather the important thing is to understand both theories and the evidence behind them.

    When it comes to educating someone on it, the first place I start is right at the beginning and the simplest concept. Ideas like ‘irreducible complexity’ can come in later but the overwhelming idea and if you could sum up the evolution of life in one word it would be “change”. You’d be surprised how many people don’t make it past that one word, especially if you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and species are concrete in their design.

    They’re clearly not and every line of evidence points to the contrary. Species change over flexible time scales and that at the simplest is evolution. When we look at the agents of change, there’s no evidence it’s in any way guided by an intelligent source but it’s molded through their indifferent forces of natural selection.

    Short of paragraphs of detail, that’s how I understand it.

  107. Arnosium Upinarum says

    “Evolution”:

    I woke up this morning and discovered it wasn’t yesterday anymore. Then I noticed that what I thought a moment earlier wasn’t the same thing as what I thought next.

    When I notice these many changes, I hypothesize that everything evolves in time.

    After some 19,000 mornings awakening to like circumstances of CHANGE, I am compelled to accept that everything evolves through time via an observable effect provided by a physical cause.

    What’s more, it happens all the time despite my very best efforts to stop it!

    I have therefore concluded that evolution is a tediously domonstrable FACT, which could only be rejected by the very most stupid, blind, inobservant and shamelessly ignorant.

    But an equally important lesson I’ve learned is that there ARE actually people whose minds are mired in a kind of temporal mollasses and think that evolutionary change does not occur. Even as they speak with a train of different words, they don’t get it. These people are very VERY populous.

  108. Genuinely Doug says

    Very cool survey. I hope this survey is taken by a good representation of the public, but I will not hold my breath.

    Let’s hope that Ray Comfort and other creationist take the survey too. My prediction is that 1) creationist are totally ignorant of ToE, and that 2) they probably claim to do know ToE.

    (Also, I do not “believe”, I “accept” the ToE as a good, productive theory that explains the body of evidence)

  109. Sili says

    OOoooo!

    Does anyone have a link the results of that previous survey? I think I answered (at least some of it). I was rather stumped by the ridiculous nature of some of the questions – and by the many repetitions. I got the impression that they were trying to decide if asking something patently ridiculous affected the way people answered the subsequent question. I.e. are people more likely to feel good about believing in God after having rejected Little Green Men – or vice versa.

    My apologies if this has already been touched upon. I can’t keep up …

  110. Sili says

    And since I actually tried, here’re my answers – feel free to dissect and mock as needed.

    Fundamentally “Change” – more specifically the change of the character of poulations of species over time.

    The *Theory* of Evolution explains this by the non-random selection of individuals by the environment according to their random variation of characteristics.

    I accept the ToE. To some extent by accepting the authority of scholars who have dedicated their time to studying biology in the past 150 years.

    But also, of course, because I believe myself to understand the basics of how selection (natural, sexual, artificial) can change the appearance of animals and plants.

    In short – I makes *sense*.

    I’d say I’m about 95% certain I understand what’s going on (please to tear me a new one if I’m wrong). Somewhat fiscally conservative (who isn’t?) and very socially liberal.

    My family never attended church except for ‘occasions’: marriage, baptism, funerals. I’m confirmed (Lutheran), since I was a rather conformist child. These days I go to church for the architecture, art and most often music. If that, as it does in Bath, includes a Prayer of Thanks, I bow my head and cross my hands – mustn’t upset the natives.

  111. Jay McCaffrey says

    I was immediately suspicious when I saw the questionaire asked if I “believe” in evolution. That signalled to me that this was some kind of pseudo-scientific survey put forth by someone with a religious agenda. One doesn’t “believe” or not “believe” in evolution. Evolution is a term that describes Darwin’s theory of how life evolved. Evolution, as a theory, is constantly undergoing challenges both from within and from outside the scientific realm. So far, as with all scientific theories, evidence continues to pile up, and with the case of evolution, the original theory has been demonstrated to be adequate to explain natural occurances. Does tnat make me a “believer” in evolution, having said that? I answered the questions honestly, and giving the takers of the survey the benefit of the doubt, despite their unfortunate choice of the word “believe,” I trust my response will give them the tiny bit of information they need and I hope that my honesty is rewarded by them with a similarly high degree of honest on their part.

  112. says

    Steve LaBonne, Jams: I share your pet peeve about people who seem to think “belief” is equivalent to “dogmatic belief” or “belief without evidence” or “faith.”

    Jay McCaffrey, #128: Argh!

  113. BobC says

    Posted by: Corax #105:

    But nonetheless, while I am no creationist, and I accept the evidence of an old and changing Earth etc, I don’t find the evidence for evolution (as defined above) either convincing or compelling.

    You reject evolution, but you’re NOT a creationist? That sounds very dishonest to me. It’s obvious you want to invoke magical creation to explain the diversity of life. But you say you’re not a creationist. Yeah, you’re definitely a liar. I’m not surprised. I never met an honest creationist. At least most of them have the decency to admit they’re creationists. You can’t even be honest about that.

  114. says

    [i]To the best of your understanding, and in your own words,
    please explain what “evolution” means.[/i]

    Evolution is how all species are linked and the means by which all life has developed complexity or simplicity. Evolution says that all life shared a single common ancestor. Evolution explains how our bodies learn to fight off disease and then pass this ability down to other generations. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology and has practical applications in modern medicine. So I guess the answer could be condensed down to “evolution means quite a lot…”

    [i]If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; or if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not.[/i]

    I was a Christian until the age of fourteen (2004) and a creationist for another year. Once I did some research on evolution (equally so for the big bang), I found that I didn’t understand anything at all about either. Were this 2004, you might find me claiming that I would need a crocaduck for evidence. But I see how evolution produces variation in small things such as bugs and how those not fit are eliminated from the gene pool. I also feel its effects because thanks to evolutionary knowledge in medicine, I’m alive — and well! Without evolutionary knowledge, smallpox would still be extremely contagious and extremely deadly. Not that it isn’t for suckers like me who probably weren’t vaccinated for it, but it shouldn’t be for the older generation… but it probably evolved and there are new vaccines. I have no faith in evolution, no belief, and I don’t pray to an evolution god… because evolution takes none of that. It’s an observable fact that is completely random.

  115. Aaron says

    @travc #90
    Ricketts ’05. I don’t know if it’s officially poo-pooed, but the
    impression I got was that “CIT” was considered somewhat quaint, and
    that “Caltech” was preferred.

  116. says

    To the best of your understanding, and in your own words,
    please explain what “evolution” means.

    Evolution is how all species are linked and the means by which all life has developed complexity or simplicity. Evolution says that all life shared a single common ancestor. Evolution explains how our bodies learn to fight off disease and then pass this ability down to other generations. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology and has practical applications in modern medicine. So I guess the answer could be condensed down to “evolution means quite a lot…”

    If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; or if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not.

    I was a Christian until the age of fourteen (2004) and a creationist for another year. Once I did some research on evolution (equally so for the big bang), I found that I didn’t understand anything at all about either. Were this 2004, you might find me claiming that I would need a crocaduck for evidence. But I see how evolution produces variation in small things such as bugs and how those not fit are eliminated from the gene pool. I also feel its effects because thanks to evolutionary knowledge in medicine, I’m alive — and well! Without evolutionary knowledge, smallpox would still be extremely contagious and extremely deadly. Not that it isn’t for suckers like me who probably weren’t vaccinated for it, but it shouldn’t be for the older generation… but it probably evolved and there are new vaccines. I have no faith in evolution, no belief, and I don’t pray to an evolution god… because evolution takes none of that. It’s an observable fact that is completely random.

    This is a duplicate because I used BBCode instead of HTML in the first one and wanted it to be properly formatted.

  117. Ichiro says

    Yes, I believe in evolution. I also happen to believe in a spiritual creator God. Sorry, did I just pop some little irrational atheist worldviews?

    If the universe has a beginning (i.e. the Big Bang) what caused it? It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing. It cannot have caused itself to come to be if it did not always exist. Thus the universe is either eternal, with no beginning or end, or finite, which necessitates a prior cause.

    Can the world really be eternally self-caused? Well, lets think. Being Itself must be eternal, because Nothing cannot cause Something. So if the world/universe is eternal, it must either be Being Itself or eternally caused to Be by Being Itself.

    But it would seem that Being Itself cannot change. That would mean that new being came into existence and some part of being went out of existence IN ITS NATURE. I don’t mean that some form/nature that has existence can’t cease to exist as a particular form/nature. I mean that Being Itself, the form/nature of Existence, ceased to exist. It’s logically impossible. Existence’s nature is to exist, it can’t stop existing or start existing.

    Clearly the universe changes, thus it’s nature is not Being/Existing, it’s nature is Nature, a set of physical rules determining how things change.

    Therefore the Universe must have an external cause of existence, namely Being Itself. It is this that we call God.

  118. Bjørn Østman says

    #134 (and many others before you); How is it that it is known that “‘Nothing cannot cause something”? Why must everything have a cause? How do we know this? It is true that it seems that way, from our experiences. But we have no experiences with big bang, or quantum physics, etc. Why do people always just say, without questioning, that everything must have a cause? (Oh, and then go on to say that the first cause is God, and refrain from dealing with the question of what the cause of God is, except to say he is eternal)

  119. truth machine, OM says

    “While some of us acknowledge that we take evolution on faith … belief or faith isn’t required”.

    Why is it so difficult for you dimwits to understand that “belief” and “faith” are not synonyms, that faith is unjustified belief?

    Steve LaBonne, Jams: I share your pet peeve about people who seem to think “belief” is equivalent to “dogmatic belief” or “belief without evidence” or “faith.”

    Indeed. Those who treat the word “belief” that way are just as ignorant and/or pigheaded as any creationist who denies the evidence or willfully misinterprets it.

    Jay McCaffrey, #128: Argh!

    Yup. There’s a fool who is “signalled” of something absurd as a consequence of his own failure to understand the English language.

  120. JoJo says

    The First Creator argument is a form of special pleading. “Everything was created…except for one thing.” What’s the qualitative difference between “except for one thing” and “except for five/ten/a thousand/everything but one thing”?

    Being Itself must be eternal, because Nothing cannot cause Something.

    Your evidence for this is what? How do you know that nothing cannot cause something? You might want to learn something about the “absurdities” of quantum physics. For instance, a Hawking black hole sheds particles (or wavicles, if you prefer) constantly, creating something out of nothing.

  121. truth machine, OM says

    Sorry, did I just pop some little irrational atheist worldviews?

    It’s always nice to identify yourself as an idiot asshole right up front. Atheists are well aware that many evilutionists are also theists.

    If the universe has a beginning (i.e. the Big Bang) what caused it?

    Try actually learning some cosmology. In particular you should read Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”.

    It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing.

    Oh really? I would like to see your derivation from the axioms of logic.

    It cannot have caused itself to come to be if it did not always exist.

    A silly strawman. No one claims that the universe caused itself to exist — the universe isn’t a causal agent.

    Thus the universe is either eternal, with no beginning or end, or finite, which necessitates a prior cause.

    There is no such necessity. “cause” refers to the ways events are related through physical mechanisms and processes; it lacks semantics when extended beyond that. And this is a false dichotomy. For instance, modal realism is the view that all possible worlds, those with finite time spans and those with infinite time spans, exist; this universe, being just one of infinitely many, is no more “caused” than any other.

    Can the world really be eternally self-caused? Well, lets think. Being Itself must be eternal, because Nothing cannot cause Something. So if the world/universe is eternal, it must either be Being Itself or eternally caused to Be by Being Itself.

    Capitalizing like that is the opposite of thinking. This paragraph is a mass of category errors. “being” is an abstraction, not the sort of thing that be caused or that has a time span.

    Being Itself. It is this that we call God.

    No it isn’t. And you started out by referring to “a spiritual creator God”, but “Being Itself” not only isn’t what we call God, it isn’t spiritual and isn’t a creator. So you’re full of not just ignorant but intellectually dishonest crap.

  122. Brian Macker says

    Yes, I believe in evolution. Why? Because it’s a fact.

    I also believe in The Theory of Natural Selection as the best theory to explain that fact. Why I believe that is too complex to post in a comment.

  123. Chigurh says

    @Ichiro

    I think most atheists would select “highly improbable”. There is no way to test if a god exists or not (and is thus completely irrelevant)

    No great physicist or biologist, including Dawkins or Hawking, or Einstein, has ever ruled out completely the possibility of a creator. But rather if that last question was rephrased to “do you think there is a judaic/islamic/christian god?” the unanimous answer would be NO.

    It comes down to your understanding of the principle:debating the existence of a god is not the same as debating the existence of your god

  124. Ichiro says

    Well, this is quite fun. I especially like “Truth Machine’s” response to my very brief and bare-bones argument. For example: “It’s always nice to identify yourself as an idiot asshole right up front. Atheists are well aware that many evilutionists are also theists.”

    You are right and I apologize. It’s just that the majority of atheists that I meet are not particularly well informed about their own beliefs, let alone those of theists. So forgive me for my snarkiness, it’s born of seeing my viewpoints constantly stereotyped by people who supposedly champion openmindedness and free thought.

    “Try actually learning some cosmology.”

    Try presenting an argument. Interesting unrelated side note, did you know the Big Bang theory was first put forth by a Catholic priest?

    “‘It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing.’

    Oh really? I would like to see your derivation from the axioms of logic.”

    I’m sorry, are you really questioning that? Zero alone cannot produce one, ever. Nothing is the opposite of something or being. If there is nothing or no thing, then, no space can exist to contain energy or a void with space and no objects or a void with space and fluctuations which create objects; no energy or fluctuations can exist to create matter or reality. I hadn’t realized that the theory of spontaneous generation was so very alive and well in our supposedly scientific age.

    “‘It cannot have caused itself to come to be if it did not always exist.’

    A silly strawman. No one claims that the universe caused itself to exist — the universe isn’t a causal agent.”

    It wasn’t a strawman, it was a link in an argument. But now I’m confused, if the universe didn’t cause itself to exist, and presumably you’d say God didn’t, than what did/does? Are you saying it was caused by nothing? Because it’s much more plausible to say it causes itself.

    “’cause’ refers to the ways events are related through physical mechanisms and processes; it lacks semantics when extended beyond that. And this is a false dichotomy. For instance, modal realism is the view that all possible worlds, those with finite time spans and those with infinite time spans, exist; this universe, being just one of infinitely many, is no more ’caused’ than any other.”

    A cause is the producer of an effect, result, or consequence in common parlance (and in generic philosophical idiom there are four types, which I won’t get into). Everything must have a cause, either in itself or another. Otherwise, we’re back to the old “something from nothing” absurdity. And simply saying “all universes exist” without no explanation why is not an argument. And the infinite multiple universes idea is just dividing the infinite single universe idea by positing a change in physical laws. It doesn’t answer the question of why they exist at all.

    “Capitalizing like that is the opposite of thinking. This paragraph is a mass of category errors. “being” is an abstraction, not the sort of thing that be caused or that has a time span.”

    It’s hardly the opposite of thinking but I’ll forgive the hyperbole. I was attempting to avoid confusion of the noun form of the word being with the verb. By the way, to say that being is an abstraction is to support my argument that existence is not the nature of physical world but something in which it participates. You have to abstract it from the universe to consider it, unlike gravity or light. But to say that an abstraction doesn’t exist is to disbelieve in numbers and geometric shapes.

    “‘Being Itself. It is this that we call God.’

    No it isn’t. And you started out by referring to “a spiritual creator God”, but “Being Itself” not only isn’t what we call God, it isn’t spiritual and isn’t a creator. So you’re full of not just ignorant but intellectually dishonest crap.”

    Speak for yourself. Being qua being is what I, the Catholic Church, Avicenna, Avveroes, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle call God.

    And it follows that if God is not material (ie part of the created universe) he is by definition spiritual. And if he is the being qua being on which the physical world relies on to exist, he is a creator.

    Just because you don’t understand the argument doesn’t mean I’m full of shit or ignorant. If you don’t assume that, I won’t assume you’re intellectually constrained and unjustifiably arrogant.

  125. Jams says

    “Interesting unrelated side note, did you know the Big Bang theory was first put forth by a Catholic priest?” – Ichiro

    I know you’re not addressing me, but maybe I can add some substantive arguments to the general effort. I don’t think that persons with religious beliefs are generally incompetent. I have no problem with the notion that a Catholic priest first put forth the big bang theory, but I would have a problem with the notion that ONLY a catholic priest could have come up with the big bang theory. For whatever that’s worth. It may be be useful too to note that the big bang doesn’t at al help the argument for god’s existence.

    Onto more substantive point. Consider these two statements.

    “Zero alone cannot produce one, ever.” – Ichiro

    “But now I’m confused, if the universe didn’t cause itself to exist, and presumably you’d say God didn’t, than what did/does?” – Ichiro

    These two statements can’t possible coexist. I realize the second is a question, but the question rests on the assumption that existence (let’s call it 1) arose from nothing (let’s call it 0). Why are you asking for an explanation for how nothing can become something when you’ve already said that one can never arrive from zero?

    Maybe your difficulty comes in here:

    “And it follows that if God is not material (ie part of the created universe) he is by definition spiritual.” – Ichiro

    There’s so much confusion in this sentence, I don’t really know where to start. What do you think spiritual means? More importantly, can you describe the mechanism by which spiritual things effect material things?

  126. Michael X says

    So lets review. The argument we have so far is “Something can’t come from nothing.” A self refuting argument coming from a christian of any stripe. If the original recommendation of “A brief history of time” is too much for you, they have come out with “A briefer history of time”. And I too recommend either as a way to remedy your confusion on this subject.

    As for your last argument I’ve made some changes.

    And it follows that if the {Flying Spaghetti Monster} is not material (ie part of the created universe {and thus out of our ability to falsify}) he is by definition {Pasta-normal}. And if he is {something necessary because I say so} on which the physical world {in my imagination} relies on to exist, he is a creator {because there is little left to do at that point}.

    I’m sure you’re convinced. I’ll also mention that your intro if in that paragraph is so large and wobbly it’s caving in on itself as I type.

  127. Josh K says

    Hmmmm…I went with ‘adaptation over time’ as a definition, but I feel #65 was very helpful to me (re: random mutation as mechanism *of* change, with natural selection being the reinforcement of said change).

    My background is not in biology, nor in any pure science; simple concepts that are at the mile high level of accuracy are useful for me.

    As for the reason I believe in it, it fits existing observations and is useful (predictive of future observations) which is my personal (layman’s) yardstick for any science.

    Well…maybe not a yardstick. More of a plumb line. :)

    Excellent poll and good conversations in this thread.

  128. BobC says

    Ichiro, God is just another word for magic. You want to invoke magic for what you don’t understand. Why don’t you just say “I don’t know.” Invoking magic is idiotic and magic doesn’t solve any problems.

  129. BobC says

    People who say God-Did-It are really saying “I don’t understand how something happened, nobody else understands it, nobody ever will understand it, and nobody who hasn’t been born yet will understand it, therefore it was magic.”

    Somebody who isn’t a god-soaked idiot would say “This is a research opportunity, let’s get to work.”

  130. Josh K says

    Somebody who isn’t a god-soaked idiot would say “This is a research opportunity, let’s get to work.”

    Actually, this came up on Friday, although ‘god’ was called ‘tech support’. We needed 600 accounts updated with new passwords for performance testing; there were significant delays (i.e. request was a week old).

    My counterpart (there are two of us in the perf group) was mentioning it as a major stumbling block, so I said “sounds easy; just a little bit of win shell probably. that’s what it’s for, after all”.

    Took us about 20 minutes once we decided to actually do it.

    Though…’god’ called us back after we told ‘im we’d already fixed it. He wanted to know how we did it.

    6 lines of vb script = magic

  131. Brandon Lee says

    I personally believe more in evolution than in anything else. I think that it is the most logical reason that explains how we got here. The only way I would change my views is if I were to see physical proof that God existed. I do not see the bible as proof that God existed either. I think that anyone could have written it.

  132. JohnnieCanuck, FCD says

    @#148.

    Pfft. Which one? Why do you imply there is only one? What’s wrong with all the others?

  133. Josh K says

    @148

    Heathen! How dare you defy the philosophy of centralized network authority!

    PS: They still called up to ask me how I did it. Hopefully I will be employed come Monday. :)

  134. cicely says

    Ichiro @ 134:

    Whenever the question of “Who/What created the universe?” comes up in conversation with theists, there always seems to be the same underlying assumptions; that, while it is impossible/unlikely for the universe “always having been there” (i.e., it must have been created/started somehow, by something/One), there never seems to be the same objection to the idea of a god/gods “always having been there” (i.e., no question of who/what created God/Gods). In other words, it’s quite all right to assume an eternal god existing before the universe began, but not that, maybe, we’re using too restricted a definition of “universe”, and that there may be some larger structure pre- and co-existing with this particular “universe” that is all that we can perceive; and that some natural action (no, I’m not saying intelligent action), dictated by the laws governing that larger structure, may have precipitated the “creation” of this universe we are sitting in, and possibly universes just as real and unique-seeming to their inhabitants (if any).

    I admit that I haven’t gone deep into physics; anything “quantum” is well outside my understanding. It may be (probably is) that I’m re-inventing the wheel, and I’m certain that what I’ve just written could be done more succintly and coherently, but it seems to me that a lot of people are willing to grant “infinity” to their deity while rejecting the possibility of “infinity” for a non-supernatural universe.

  135. scievolution says

    I am sure I am echoing comments from others, yet it does not hurt to mention them again. First, evolution is simply defined as the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Second, evolution is both a fact and theory. Evolution has/is happening…fact. The mechanism which causes it to happen is a theory (which is still 99%…think natural selection). Third, I do not understand the whole belief aspect…I don’t walk around saying that I believe in ecosystems or the cell cycle. Evolution is a scientific concept which requires understanding of genetics, ecosystems, matter cycling, anatomy, physiology…or better yet all of biology, geology, chemistry and physics. Finally, I can be sure of this…science will refine and change its ideas as new discoveries are made. This certainly not a religious issue and does not need to be made one.

    Yet there is a problem when evolution is over simplified or not defined properly. Case and point try using several sources like dictionaries, encyclopedias and a couple of biology books and look up the definition of evolution. I am almost positive you will not find the exact definition twice.

  136. tony says

    First, I have to say that neither a creationist view or a pure evolutionary view related to creation is absolutely provable. This is a philosophical issue and not a scientific one. Anyone pushing otherwise is merely ego stroking. Viewing the fossil record (which can NOT show gradual change over time given the sparsity of the material available) or spewing forth based on the Bible/Koran/Dianetics/etc simply does not give enough data to draw conclusions that are any more than guesswork or faith.

    Personally, there are holes in evolutionary theory that I just can’t get past in terms of a primordial soup->human beings. I just can’t grasp the implications of the time scale involved. Just because progress is made for gradual one step at a time improvements, that doesn’t lead me to believe that it can result in the huge number of complex systems that have to work together in perfect harmony to result in a functioning living being.

    It is this perception that leads me to believe that there must have been some kind of creative force involved the universe we see today. I’m not an intelligent design nut. I don’t know what I think about a biblical god or jesus or any of that stuff. I just keep coming back to personally not being able to understand how the random chance that had to occur at some stages along the way to human beings could have worked. For every step forward, there must have been thousands of steps backwards. At every step forward there must have been far more factors working against it. If mutation happens that starts the first stage of an arm, that first stage isn’t an inherent benefit and it is far more likely to be discarded than it is to move on to the next stage.

    So, what? How do I deal with not understanding it? FFS, stop arguing about it. If a fraction of the effort that goes into arguing the point were redirected into improving other peoples lives, society would be much better off. That is the reality we need to deal with.

  137. Josh K says

    Evolution has/is happening…fact.

    I will disagree here, though primarily on semantic grounds. ‘Fact’ is a very rare thing in science, if it exists at all; what is ‘fact’ today can be proven ‘not quite right’ tomorrow.

    The strength of science is in it’s theories, which is something that creationists who insist ‘evolution is just a theory’ don’t get: when we have real cause to question the explanation of previous observations, we discard or revise them to more closely match the new observations, thus arriving at a more accurate representation of our world.

    I personally don’t think anything is going to come along that reasonably disputes the theory of evolution, but if something did, providing reasonable explanations for existing observations and proving to be a better predictor of future observations, I would adopt it.

  138. Oscar says

    No. I believe evolution. Believing “in” something requires some type of faith. There is an abundant amount of evidence available to the public for people to need faith for believing evolution.

  139. Spork says

    Evolution does not require belief. It requires that you only accept evidence and scientific fact. That is nowhere near the same thing as “belief.”

  140. Wowbagger says

    Tony #155,

    First, I have to say that neither a creationist view or a pure evolutionary view related to creation is absolutely provable.

    Well, proof is for maths and logic and isn’t the word to use here. However, both are subject to the discovery of irrefutable evidence. If god exists then he can choose to appear and tell us he created life; that would go a long way to supporting creationism.

    Alternatively, if scientists can replicate the creation of life from chemicals then that will go a long way to providing irrefutable evidence for abiogenesis and, subsequently, evolution.

    Most of the ‘reasons’ you’ve listed aren’t reasons at all – they’re logical fallacies that indicate you aren’t familiar enough with what the TofE actually proposes. I don’t claim to understand every aspect of evolution either – but that doesn’t mean I can’t accept it as true. Go to Talk Origins and read through the FAQ. It helped me a great deal.

    FFS, stop arguing about it.

    I think scientists would love to stop arguing about it and just keep working, but it’s not up to them. The arguments exist because certain people claim that it shouldn’t be taught because it conflicts with their beliefs – not the other way around. Scientists aren’t demanding to speak in churches; however, the religious are demanding to be heard in classrooms.

  141. tony says

    Evolution can not be unequivocally proven as the mechanism of creation from basic elements to human beings. Arguing that it can’t/won’t be disproven isn’t the same as saying that it is proven true.

  142. BobC says

    tony #155:

    It is this perception that leads me to believe that there must have been some kind of creative force involved the universe we see today.

    Translation: It is this perception that leads me to believe that there must have been some kind of MAGIC involved the universe we see today.

    Tony doesn’t understand, so he invokes magic.

  143. BobC says

    tony, nothing in science is proven, but the evidence for evolution is powerful enough to call it a fact.

    Mechanism of creation? Why do you call it creation? That’s a religious word that means magic.

  144. Wowbagger says

    Tony, you can’t prove that you don’t owe me $10,000 – would like to know to whom to make the cheque out?

  145. tony says

    Handwaving off the idea as magic isn’t any more unrealistic than deciding that an evolutionary process from zero to life is fine, even though we can’t observe it or prove it. You’ve just chosen your brand of magic. And no, saying it can’t be disproven doesn’t help your position.

    the evidence for evolution isn’t powerful enough to call it fact. Science sees glimpses of a process, but they are infinitesimal slices of observation over a timescale that can’t be realistically quantified into a bigger picture. That is far far different than the idea that specific issues of physics, chemistry or biology or any other scientific field can be observed repeatedly and confirmed. You are drawing conclusions based on almost none of the total data.

    I tell you what, repeat evolution from base elements to living being in a lab, and I’ll start to believe that you actually understand the process have the credibility to be regarded as knowing what you are talking about. Its the same challenge someone tossed out there regarding God appearing to prove that he exists. Of course, that would be hard and impossible to get grant money for because review panels would laugh it off, so it is about as likely to happen.

    Short of that, you are just spewing your opinion like any priest.

    Short of that, you are just trying to sound smarter and more self-righteous than you ought to.

  146. BobC says

    Tony just called evolution “your brand of magic”.

    Tony, you just proved beyond any doubt you’re an uneducated idiot. Why don’t study science for a few years, then get back to us.

  147. Josh K says

    Evolution can not be unequivocally proven as the mechanism of creation from basic elements to human beings.

    I daresay this is correct. Keep in mind, it is only recently that we’ve been able to demonstrate evolution in bacteria. Rolling our own humans out of lab materials is way, way, way out there. And even then, if we were able to create humans out of raw elements in the lab, we can’t *prove* that’s how humans came to be.

    We weren’t *there*.

    There are no observations as to how life originated. We peer through the mirror, darkly, and summarized events as best we can to explain our observations, then test the theory of these observations against new phenomena as best we can.

    That’s what science is.

    Arguing that it can’t/won’t be disproven isn’t the same as saying that it is proven true.

    You are correct, these are not the same things.

    However, this argument against evolution all too often turns into “since you can’t explain it, I’m free to make up any explanation I want”.

    Science is about explaining observations, and using those explanations to predict future events. That’s the entire *point* of science: further the human understanding of the natural world. Because science is a flexible approach to understanding the natural world, it can adapt to new observations, and new interpretations of those observations. It is not wed to any particular explanation; it can change. Because it’s a process, not an end unto itself.

  148. Wowbagger says

    Tony, you started off okay; now you’re getting very confused.

    You wrote: …evolution from base elements to living being in a lab

    Evolution does not require an explanation for the creation of life from non-life. That is abiogenesis. Look it up.

    As I wrote earlier, you are arguing from a position of profound ignorance. Go to Talk Origins and you’ll find that a lot of your so-called ‘reasons’ to doubt evolution are refuted, with thorough explanations.

    Or are you afraid of what you’ll find there?

  149. horse-pheathers says

    My answers?

    “Imperfect replication + fitness test = adaptive changes over time.”

    ….and….

    “Science works, bitches.”

    I like brevity. And XKCD… ;)

    — Pheathers

  150. BobC says

    the evidence for evolution isn’t powerful enough to call it fact.

    Tony, you don’t have any idea how much evidence there is and how powerful it is. Did you know this is a science blog? Are you sure you want to tell the biologists here you know more about biology than they do?

  151. Ex says

    I believe the question was “do you accept the theory of evolution”, not “do you believe in it”. These are entirely different things.

    I would also say “evolution” and “the theory of evolution” are also obviously different things. To be honest, I never knew there was a “the theory of evolution” it seems to me evolutionary biology is a rapidly developing field always changing and, fittingly enough, evolving.

  152. tony says

    Lol. I’m going to get offtopic here, but Wowbagger said “I think scientists would love to stop arguing about it and just keep working, but it’s not up to them. ”

    Have you actually MET any of these people? I work with them every day. Scientists are the most arrogant and self-righteous people I have ever met. They are about one step down from politicians and are just as pragmatic when it comes to getting money from NSF/NIH/DOE/DOD. It is rare to find a PhD in the science community who actually stands on principal in the face of losing or keeping grant money.

    Peer review is almost as corrupt a system as you have ever seen. The staff at the agencies control the money and peer review is so politicized as to be laughable. I’ve served on and been the victim of multiple panels that have been completely controlled by the program officer in charge instead of the scientific peers. I work on projects where the scientists in charge are completely forced down blatantly wrong paths by the people who hold the money. Eventually, these scientists fold because they have to compromise in order to do the best they can.

    Maybe all of this impacts my ability to accept scientific conclusions. I don’t know. I’ve spent hours discussing this crap with a couple friends of mine over the past few months and am honestly searching. My experience and observation is that the scientific community is just another kind of priesthood with all of the same kinds of corruption as the churches of the world today.

    I am absolutely positive a lot of you will trash me for that statement. Maybe you are right. However, I am also positive that the vast majority of you don’t have the first clue what goes on in the scientific community.

    caveat emptor

    Seriously. Don’t put the science community on a pedestal. I honestly wish I could. I would love to say that science is pure and uncorrupted by pettiness.

  153. Kevin says

    I believe in God. As a Catholic, this much has always and will always be obvious to me. By no means does me believing in God interfere with my forrays into science. There’s no discounting evolution at this point in time – there’s plenty of evidence for it. Catholic take a non-literal stance to the Old Testament – we believe it’s there for guidance on issues, not as a history book. I repeat, the Old Testament is not a history book.

    Having said all this, I dislike that the author only provides two groups – evolutionists (atheists) and creationists (theists). I see myself fitting exclusively into neither of those categories as they are. That’s the only real beef I had, though.

    The Pope and Evolution –
    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns269.html

  154. Josk K says

    Seriously. Don’t put the science community on a pedestal. I honestly wish I could. I would love to say that science is pure and uncorrupted by pettiness.

    I, for one, can say I don’t. For instance, I’ve been an AGW skeptic for 30+ years, and only recently tried to look at the existing data. (Harvey). It isn’t absolutely conclusive (gah! don’t hit me!) but it is extremely suggestive, as any real science that can’t be reproduced in the laboratory will be, given there isn’t a lab big enough.

    People are people, and wherever there are people, there too are politics. Don’t let dislike of the people involved mess with your desire to understand the natural world.

  155. Wowbagger says

    Tony,

    Fair enough. I’ve never working around scientists so I can’t comment on that. But I don’t think that any of that should have any impact on evolution being true.

    Put it this way – I’m what you’d call a layperson to both schools of thought (science and religion) and probably know equally as much about what each proposes. Faced with the choice I have to go with science.

    Creation, apart from anything else, means a creator, and then the whole cycle begins over again – because, if there is a creator, who/what created him/her/it?

  156. Bob says

    Evolution assumes we understand what nature is, imho, nature and god are equivalent. They are both believed in, yet the nature of which is not understood at all.

    When we say ‘nature’ all we mean is an environment we can detect and have access to. What about other environments we can’t detect and don’t have access to? Our science IMHO is too primitive to begin to answer the question of how life arose. The if Paley were alive today, his watchmaker hypothesis would have been predicted and verified, I’ll assume that Paley would have believed in a spinozan, or deistic god had he lived into the 20th century.

    Evolution unfortunately cannot explain the information problem in biology: Biology is more then just conglomerations of molecules and particles, these particles encode and contain patterns of information which is highly specific.

    The fact is humans are too stupid to even begin to really grasp the complexity of evolution, I’m waiting on quantum computation and AI to tell us the real answers. Human beings are too invested via EGO, and primitive animal prejudices to think clearly on the matter of origins.

    Just because our ancestors religions are false, does not mean the doctrine of naturalism is true, or that we understand what the true nature of our environment is.

    Information that is culturally accepted as science is limited to the technology and minds available at the time and age in which it exists.

    Humans are too primitive unfortunately to grasp the answers, why can’t people just admit they just aren’t smart enough to know the answers because it is beyond them?

    Experts don’t mean squat, since I’ve been around experts all my life and they make mistakes and blunders constantly like every other human being. Taking the long view of history, history shows us that men are more frequently wrong then they are right and that entire worlds can live in darkness and yet believe what they think and accept is actually sound knowledge.

    We should all be critical and be able to distance ourselves and keep a keen eye on what we hold sacred, that is the only spirit of a true seeker of truth should have. I’m reminded of a quote by Ibn al-Haytham:

    “Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”

    http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham.html

  157. Andrew says

    I must say, the range of comments here is amazing. I found this survey to be very insightful and helped me to put into words what I really felt about evolution. I hope my answers are not alone in their eloquence and reasoning.

  158. nhoj says

    Thats easy
    Evolution equals mass times the speed of light squared
    OR
    E = MC^2
    see evolution is a no brainer, einstein wasn’t that smart afterall.

    According to evolutionary theory, the rate of mutation is proportional to mass. As an organism gets heavier is has more DNA, this means more exposure to UV radiation which in turn leads to a linear increase in the rate of evolution.

    Because evolution is responsible for the big bang, it logically follows that the rate of evolution (due to mutation)of the universe depends on your frame of reference.
    This makes perfect sence because his noodley appendage has created an eather-like eucledian time-space universe through unilateral-perpendicular-bisecting-unitary-3dimensional spreading of his tenticles.

    checkmate!

  159. Bob Carroll says

    Nice minionizing! Again so many replies that reading them is a challenge. My quiz answers pretty much fits in with others: I said, allele frequency variation leads to “descent with modification.”
    My formal bio education ended with high school. My bio teacher was most likely a contemporary of Charles D, in that their lifelines probably overlapped. Well, I’m not so young, either. I didn’t think much about the Great Controversy until I was assigned to teach courses in “Scientific and Technological Literacy.” Happened about 12 years ago. Prior to this I was teaching chemistry, including quantum chemistry. The students then weren’t interested in this stuff. But I had a lot to learn.

    I learned. Joined the NCSE. Started incorporating my new understanding in the non-science major course. Truthfully, I haven’t run into much creationist reaction from the kids. Partly because I’m in NY, partly because many of the kids are inarticulate. (or they don’t give a damn) My best source has always been talk.origins. I’ve read books by Behe, Kitcher, Schermer, Gould, Gardner, Pennock, Miller,Humes, Lebo, too many to name.

    So when I said that my acceptance of evolution was >95%, I have sufficient reason. Yes, a lot of the reading is at the popular level. But the most convincing argument in favor of evolution for me involves chemistry. The detailed comparison of DNA from, now, thousands of species shows unmistakable family relationships, especially the genetic errors, such as primates being unable to generate vitamin C even though we, like almost all species, have the genes to do this– our genes are broken. Broken in an identical way, from one species to another: us, chimps, gorillas and others.
    Well, enough for now.

    Bob

  160. Emma says

    To the best of your understanding, and in your own words, please explain what “evolution” means.
    The natural process whereby random mutations in individuals are selected for and spread through a population if they are adaptive or advantageous. Over time if sufficient mutations accumulate in a population, a new species will have evolved. Mutations that are not adaptive nor advantageous will be selected against since the individuals with them will be less likely to reproduce. Evolution can be a lengthy or short process depending on the variability of the population, isolation of subpopulation, changes in the environment, degree of competition. Other factors include predator-prey relationships, loss of habitat, sudden expansion of habitat, etc.

    If you accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why; or if you do not accept the theory of evolution, please explain in your own words why not.
    Evolution is scientific theory that best explains the living world around us. It has been repeatedly challenged by critics and sceptics, yet still stands as the best explanation of the diversity of life. It can be used to generate testable predictions which can be verified through experiments. It is routinely confirmed by experiments and examination of the fossil evidence.

    How confident are you that you understand the scientific theory of evolution?
    more than 90%

    On the question of the origin and development of life and humans, what do you believe?
    I believe that life and humans evolved through natural forces without the guidance of by God.

    Do you believe there is a god? (a purposeful higher intelligence that created the universe)
    Likely not.

    On average, when you were growing up, how often did you attend religious services?
    More than once a week.

    How often do you presently attend religious services?
    Once a month

    Current religious organization membership:
    Unitarian

    If you selected “other” above, please state your religious membership below:
    (optional)
    Wiccan

    What is your highest level of education?
    College

  161. TheMoniker says

    @Tony:
    “Handwaving off the idea as magic isn’t any more unrealistic than deciding that an evolutionary process from zero to life is fine, even though we can’t observe it or prove it.”

    I believe that you are thinking about abiogenesis here, which is not an evolutionary process. Evolution does not explain how life originated, but rather, the changes in a population’s genetics over time (and associated mechanisms).

    “Scientists are the most arrogant and self-righteous people I have ever met.”

    I’m also around scientists every day (I’m a fourth year student in physics, studying particle physics and physical oceanography). Three of my friends have their Ph.D.s (one is in applied math, one is in biology and another is in climate science). My girlfriend’s father is an astronomy professor. I can say that, on the whole and from my experience, scientists are not an arrogant, self-righteous lot. There are issues with journals and reviewers, petty squabbles sometimes, and the occasional jerk here and there (I hear a lot of the gossip and details, sadly) sure–but the scientists that I’ve met have been, in general, decent, hard-working people, often remarkably humble.

    Of course, neither one of us has a large enough sample size from which to draw on to make a statement about the hundreds of thousands of people working as scientists the world over–but, my experience has certainly been quite different from yours. Maybe you’re just in a bad department?

  162. says

    I would question the reference to science, to which or what science are we referring?

    This is an important question because it determines the value of the information presented.

    The value of any evidence rests on one’s perception of that being examined or observed. And in this respect the common perception determines those general principles we refer to as modern science.

    Without an understanding of the basic principles determining the form and function of physical structure the validity of a theory such as that pertaining to the subject of evolution should at best be considered a work in progress.

    Of course change occurs over time, due to the dynamic nature of universe, but does change alone explain the origin of the species? I would hope not.

    Keeping in mind that the development of science itself remains in its infancy the question of evolution determining the origin of the species is just that, a question.

  163. Matt Penfold says

    Keeping in mind that the development of science itself remains in its infancy the question of evolution determining the origin of the species is just that, a question.

    The real question regarding how speciation happens is over the relative importance of the various mechanisms that bring about evolutionary change. There is genuine debate amongst biologists over how important genetic drift is, compared to natural selection.

  164. Iain Walker says

    tony (#155):

    Viewing the fossil record (which can NOT show gradual change over time given the sparsity of the material available)

    Oh, for crap’s sake. The fossil record can and does show gradual change over time. For some examples, see:
    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html

    The fact that in most cases it doesn’t is due to the fact that most species don’t fossilise in large enough numbers, and fossilisation doesn’t usually occur under conditions of continuous sedimentation over long periods of time. But where they do (e.g., with planktonic species like radiolarians where these conditions are most likely to obtain), we can obtain a detailed record of changes in the population over time, including the divergence of populations into separate species. It’s a practical problem of the size and frequency of the samples preserved in the fossil record, not a problem in principle.

    I just can’t grasp the implications of the time scale involved.
    [snip]
    It is this perception that leads me to believe that there must have been some kind of creative force involved the universe we see today.

    So your self-admitted failure of comprehension somehow justifies an entirely speculative leap to positing some unspecified “creative force”? That’s really not much of an argument.

    I just keep coming back to personally not being able to understand how the random chance that had to occur at some stages along the way to human beings could have worked. For every step forward, there must have been thousands of steps backwards.

    Well, harmful mutations tend to outnumber beneficial ones by a fair margin. But that’s where natural selection comes in – the beneficial mutations are more likely to be preserved and passed on to subsequent generations, and the harmful ones are more likely to be weeded out. Evolution involves far more than “random chance”, and most of the heavy lifting is done by natural selection – which is not random.

    Furthermore, short term rates of evolution (as measured today) are many times faster than the long term rates of evolution that can be inferred from the fossil record. So yes, there are often steps backwards (and steps sideways, and steps in every direction as species respond to local environmental fluctuations), but averaged out in the long term, they still result in measurable overall trends.

    If mutation happens that starts the first stage of an arm, that first stage isn’t an inherent benefit and it is far more likely to be discarded than it is to move on to the next stage.

    Don’t be silly. Tetrapod limbs didn’t spring out of nowhere. They were modifications of existing structures (bony fins), which already had their uses.

    If a fraction of the effort that goes into arguing the point were redirected into improving other peoples lives, society would be much better off.

    And one way of improving people’s lives is to improve the quality of their education – part of which means preventing religious ideologues from undermining it with politically motivated pseudoscience. And that requires speaking out and challenging their misconceptions, falsehoods and sloppy reasoning.

  165. Smithi says

    It is a fact that some people say Evolution is a fact while it is also a fact that others say Evolution is not a fact. It is a fact that EVOLUTION as a word and concept, is old enough to have a Latin origin. When one says Evolution one usually refers to The Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is a complex sub-set of EVOLUTION. The Theory of Evolution is EVOLUTIONARY in two ways, 1. The Theory of Evolution it self has evolved since its inception, definition wise and regardless of its validity, to the point where some are calling the theory a fact. The Theoreticians of The Theory of Evolution, use real subsets of EVOLUTION as proof of their theory, validity by association. 2. The Theory of evolution is a subset of that other example of complex EVOLUTION, “The New World Order”, it is a sister of Karl Marx’s Communism manifesto, and part of that line of events that include the knights Templar, Free Masons, Illuminati, and its numerous derivatives. The sources for this can be found in in the book:

    HOPE OF THE WICKED, The Master Plan to Rule the World, by TED FLYNN.

  166. Iain Walker says

    Ichiro (#134):

    If the universe has a beginning (i.e. the Big Bang) what caused it?

    Since applying the concept of causality to universes can be a tricky business, let’s just interpret this as generally as possible – i.e., what are the conditions under which universes like ours arise? Well, that depends on the cosmological model you think is best supported by the available evidence (e.g., colliding branes, false vacuum fluctuations undergoing inflation, etc etc).

    Otherwise, the answer is: We don’t know, so let’s try and find out.

    It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing.

    If that’s the case, then coupled with the observation that something does indeed exist, this allows us to conclude only that something or other must always have existed (with respect to some frame of reference or other). It doesn’t allow us to conclude that any one particular thing (e.g., our particular universe) has always existed or that anything exists bearing any resemblance to your deity of choice. Frankly, this is a ludicrously thin foundation on which to try and support the claims of theism, ’cause it ain’t gonna bear the weight.

    Clearly the universe changes, thus it’s nature is not Being/Existing, it’s nature is Nature, a set of physical rules determining how things change. Therefore the Universe must have an external cause of existence, namely Being Itself. It is this that we call God.

    Nope. The most that you’ve demonstrated with your Significant Capitalisation is that the set of existing things must always have at least one member, and that one particular member (our universe) must stand in some kind of ontologically dependent relationship with something else. It does not follow that that something else is “Being Itself” – it could easily be some other member of the set. Furthermore, “Being Itself” isn’t a thing which can enter into causal relationships, but an abstract concept (and a poorly defined one at that). You might as well claim that the universe was caused by the square root of two – it makes about as much sense.

    Nor have you given any reason to identify “Being Itself” with God. And yes, I’ve read your follow-up post at #141. Appealing to the authority of Aquinas et al doesn’t make this any less question-begging. In any case, you still have to explain how an abstract concept can also be something concrete (i.e., an agent), since the God of theism is, first and foremost, an agent. I’m with Truth Machine on this – I call “category error”.

    And while I’m at it, from #141:

    And it follows that if God is not material (ie part of the created universe) he is by definition spiritual. And if he is the being qua being on which the physical world relies on to exist, he is a creator.

    Two non sequiturs. Firstly, if God is not material, then all that follows is that he is not material. You need to provide a coherent (and non-question begging) account of what counts as “spiritual”, and then show that it is the only possible alternative to being material. Secondly, you still haven’t given any reason to suppose that “being qua being” is the kind of thing that can enter into any kind of relationship of ontological dependence.

  167. Iain Walker says

    Smithi (#185):

    2. The Theory of evolution is a subset of that other example of complex EVOLUTION, “The New World Order”, it is a sister of Karl Marx’s Communism manifesto, and part of that line of events that include the knights Templar, Free Masons, Illuminati, and its numerous derivatives.

    Thank you Smithi, for making everyone else look sane and well-informed by comparison.

  168. BobC says

    Posted by tony: Handwaving off the idea as magic isn’t any more unrealistic than deciding that an evolutionary process from zero to life is fine, even though we can’t observe it or prove it. You’ve just chosen your brand of magic. And no, saying it can’t be disproven doesn’t help your position.

    It’s this kind of breathtaking stupidity that has made America the laughing stock of the world.

    Tony is an evolution denier which makes him equal to a flat-earther. Even worse this moron defends magic. He believes in magic and he’s proud to believe in magic. It’s impossible for a person to be more stupid and more insane than creationists like Tony.

  169. ST says

    To everyone except BobC: Is it just me or is ‘BobC’ having some kind of fit? Do you reckon he was the kind of kid who didn’t play well with others?

    To BobC: Calm down mate – it’s just a friendly debate. So far you’ve described people who don’t agree with you idiots, liars and morons. They might be wrong, but your the one begining to look like your manic. Do us a favour – stop ranting – argue your case like a grown-up, and if you cant manage that go sit in a quiet room and have a cold beer.

  170. Sky says

    Claire Grave’s study of values would point towards some answers here: (To overly simplify), the way in which people value the world (which has ramifications on how they interpret ‘being’) evolves through various systems. The system before rational reductionism, within which evolution makes rational sense is very different form the system that precedes it, which is a dogmatic ‘believe what your authority figure tells you’ way of seeing the world. If a person has these values they can be quite capable of ‘rational’ thought if their authority figure has told them it is ok to ‘reason’, but they ultimately still believe in the authority, which could also insist in a creation myth. You can also get someone who is dogmatically atheist, and believe so simply because their authority tells them it is true rather than because their values are intrinsically rational.

  171. BobC says

    ST, You can suck up to religious morons if you want mister. I will say want I want to say. If you have a problem with that, go fuck yourself. You’re not my boss, and you can’t tell me what I can say and what I can’t say. Take your censorship elsewhere asshole.

  172. BobC says

    ST thinks he can tell other people what they can say and how they say it.

    I don’t know if ST is pro-science or if he’s a creationist retard, but he’s definitely an asshole.

  173. Michael X says

    ST, I appreciate your wish for a friendly and gentle debate, but keep in mind that the other side may in fact be an idiot, liar or moron, and that the topic being debated may actually have some serious importance to those debating. Before we go telling someone to refrain in their descriptions of someone, we should first inform them why that description is incorrect.

  174. BobC says

    ST wrote:

    They might be wrong

    What do you mean they MIGHT be wrong. Creationists are most definitely wrong. If you don’t know that then you must be a creationist retard yourself.

    ST also wrote:

    it’s just a friendly debate

    That’s more evidence you’re a crap-for-brains creationist. There is no debate about evolution. The fact of evolution is as strong as the fact that you’re a stupid asshole.

  175. BobC says

    There is no debate about evolution.

    I should have said there’s no debate about the basic facts of evolution. The minor details are debated, but biologists agree all life evolved and all life is related.

  176. Chris says

    I didn’t go to the survey, just read all the comments/debate here. I’m not a scientist. Do not have multiple degrees. Here is what I think:

    I believe there is a Creator. I also think some aspects of evolution are not in disharmony with that belief. Natural selection makes sense. Adaptation to environment can be studied and hypotheses drawn. Other than briefly stating that things would reproduce according to their “kinds”, the Bible doesn’t say what a “kind” is..so that leaves a lot of room for speculation.

    I’ve always wondered though why evolution is expounded with such fervor. If there is no Supreme Being, then it doesn’t matter what I believe. Belief or disbelief in evolution does not really affect the ultimate outcome of my existence – death. So why defend evolution with such vociferousness? It seems pointless. Who is going to care?

    On the other hand, if there is a Higher Being, then perhaps I’m accountable for what I do, and perhaps there is something more than just this brief existence. So maybe I’m a bit more scrupulous in my dealings with fellow humans and creatures, a bit more honest than naturally inclined to be. And I live with hope of something better than 70 or 80 years and then non existence for the rest of eternity.

    I think scientific inquiry is a noble pursuit. To better understand the world and the universe around us a worthy goal. Some arguments on this board are espoused by knowledgable, obviously learned people, but then again there was a time when bloodletting was the pinnacle of medical science.

  177. BobC says

    I’ve always wondered though why evolution is expounded with such fervor.

    I think evolution is “expounded with such fervor” because pro-science people are amazed there’s people who still deny it. It’s like living in a country where millions of people think the earth is flat.

  178. BobC says

    And I live with hope of something better than 70 or 80 years and then non existence for the rest of eternity.

    That’s called wishful thinking. I would also call it a few other things. Perhaps this is why you reject evolution. I think you’re terrified of reality.

  179. amphiox says

    BobC #199. Oh, I think it’s worse than thinking the earth is flat. At least there with that you can point to the ground at your feet and say “see, it looks kinda flat.”

    It’s more like watching apples falling from trees and insisting they are falling up.

  180. Alex says

    I don’t care what religious people think, they have the right to belief or disbelief whatever they want and I certainly doubt any argument I make will cause a radical change in belief.

    What I DO have a problem with is that Intelligent Design is considered a valid alternative scientific theory to evolution.

    There are enormous bodies of information that disagree with ID’s predictions. Also an intelligent designer is not a naturalistic explanation of what we observe, and science above all should be naturalistic.

    The poster child of ID is the bacterial flagellum. The catchphrase is Irreducibly Complex. The argument is that these flagellum as so complicated that it couldn’t arise randomly because if any part wasn’t there it wouldn’t work correctly. This is all well and good until you realize that there are many examples of a broken bacterial flagellum having a positive impact on a cell’s function. The type III secretory system is a very broken bacterial flagellum, and it allows Yersinia pestus to be so virulent. What we see is that the flagellum is actually a collection of smaller biochemical machines that had sometimes completely different uses that were evolutionarily important, and that even with one or two or three or more pieces missing these so called “Irreducibly Complex” systems actually continue to provide a function to the lifeform. The best example is the Mammalian hemoglobin system which is “Irreducibly Complex”, but we see hundreds of versions of this system that ID would predict would have no use. Not only do they have a use but even the most “broken” versions are vitally important and even serve the same function.

    To quote Richard P. Feynman:

    “It’s a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They’ve learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don’t like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. ”

    When it comes to ID it is not a matter of scientific debate. The actually experiment and evidence is very clear. Any “debate” is actually a debate on your world view.

    Do you believe that there is a rational, naturalistic, explanation for the world around us that is best described by a theory which is based on experimental evidence or do you disagree with the entire premise of science?

    I would be fine with that debate, the only problem is Intelligent Design threatens the very definition of science. It isn’t science, it makes no predictions that are observable, all evidence contradicts it, it isn’t a valid alternative theory. Sure it is a valid alternative philosophy, but it IS NOT SCIENCE.

  181. Kev says

    Sure. I believe in evolution. It’s logical. I find it impossible to believe in creationism or “ID” because it hinges on the face that there is a God or higher power out there somewhere who made all this stuff. If that were true…. where is this entity today? How come we haven’t heard from this deity in millions of years? This ‘god’ just kind of wanders by and creates life in the middle of nowhere and then disappears never to be heard from again. It just doesn’t make sense. Evolution is the logical conclusion based on scientific method and observation of facts. If the ‘god’ who created the universe would like to prove otherwise all he has to do is show up and explain.

  182. Serena says

    Chris:
    “On the other hand, if there is a Higher Being, then perhaps I’m accountable for what I do, and perhaps there is something more than just this brief existence. So maybe I’m a bit more scrupulous in my dealings with fellow humans and creatures, a bit more honest than naturally inclined to be. And I live with hope of something better than 70 or 80 years and then non existence for the rest of eternity.”

    Do you really think that people who do not believe in a higher being have no sense of personal accountability? If so, then I could not disagree with you more.
    I have a very strong sense of personal resposibility. This is the only life I am going to have, the only chance to experience….well, anything. So I really don’t want to mess that up now do I? 70-80 years may not be much, but there is no alternative.
    I am honest with my fellow humans because I want to have open, honest, and meaningful realationships. I can think of no greater reason for honesty.
    And I am really not to worried about “…non existence for the rest of eternity”. Whatever that means.

  183. BobC says

    Alex wrote in #202:

    What I DO have a problem with is that Intelligent Design is considered a valid alternative scientific theory to evolution.

    Intelligent design (ID) means magically created and of course there’s nothing scientific about it. I bet most of the proponents of ID magic know it’s not science, but they dishonestly claim it is science so they have an excuse to stick it into biology classes. The creationists are not satisfied with brainwashing their own children. They want to destroy the education of everyone else’s children. They will never give up their war against science education until more people start ridiculing them and their idiotic Christian death cult.

  184. london says

    I believe in evolution based off of the human population today. If there was no such thing as evolution, everyone would look the same and exhibit the same behaviors. DNA would not express itself differently in different people, and there would be no color differences amongst people, because of course, our bodies wouldn’t adapt to the climate and darken in hot environments or lighten in others if it couldn’t evolve.

  185. rage poop says

    Evolution isn’t a “belief”, it’s a fact. Saying you “believe” in the “theory” of evolution is like saying you “believe in the theory that the sky is blue”. It’s a theory as all scientific understanding is a theory, but that does not make it any less unproven.

  186. ST says

    Regarding BobC – hell I wish fish bit as well as him. That plonker really goes for the bait doesn’t he :)

    BOBC – Get back on the medication, you need it badly. So you think I am “a creationist retard”, “a crap-for-brains creationist”, an “asshole” and “a stupid asshole” and told me to “go fuck yourself” – did you manage to think those up all by your little self? – surely you can do better than that? ;) You are really presenting yourself as a reasoned logical man, not like those irrational creationists – lol. By the way, your right, I’m not your boss – indeed I’d be surprised if with your attitude you manage to hold down a job of any kind.

    For the information of the rest of you out there I’m not a creationistm – I just can’t stand rude ignorant loudmouths.

  187. BobC says

    You’re not a creationistm? Is that how you spell creationist? I looked thru this thread and I found no evidence you accept evolution. I think you’re a liar. I know you’re an asshole.

  188. BobC says

    To ST, I earlier talked about the breathtaking stupidity of creationists.

    You said you’re not a creationist (I think you were lying about that.)

    Why don’t you explain to me why creationists are not the most stupid people in human history. If you can’t do that, then go fuck yourself asshole. And take your censorship elsewhere.

  189. Torbjörn Larsson, OM says

    @ # 171, tony

    Yes, it is indeed off topic, as the characters of has no relevance on whether science is correct or not – the free market of ideas and peer review guarantees that.

    Scientists are the most arrogant and self-righteous people I have ever met. They are about one step down from politicians and are just as pragmatic when it comes to getting money from NSF/NIH/DOE/DOD.

    Trying to have it both ways, are we? Arrogant people don’t give a fuck, pragmatic people gives a fuck.

    And what principles do you think scientists should use? The main principle or rather goal is to produce good science, and that happens.

    Peer review is almost as corrupt a system as you have ever seen. The staff at the agencies control the money and peer review is so politicized as to be laughable.

    Been there, done that. As regards market systems like the market of ideas (for publication or for grant money) they are as democracy – the system is flawed, but there isn’t any better. And it works well enough.

    Same goes for peer review. But I should add that publication misconduct isn’t a laughing matter nor common enough to make scientist community consider the process laughable. There is always a healthy discussion on how to improve or replace it though – “peer review” of peer review. How else should it be?

  190. BobC says

    ST, I said earlier I think you’re a liar, but actually I’m sure you’re a liar. You said you’re not a creationist, but earlier you said, while talking about creationists (and insulting me), “they might be wrong”. Might be wrong? Only a creationist would say that. Definitely you’re a liar. I’m not surprised. Most assholes are liars, and you’re no exception.

  191. says

    About these millions of years continually referred to, is there some scientific basis for this, as in scientific evidence?

    It would seem that we have invented a few things to accommodate our perception of universe, such as the idea of time following linear sequences of identical duration.

    We appear to be putting a lot of stock in the correctness of such an assumption. If there are no actual years to count it would seem doubtful that we should be able to account for millions let alone billions of them.

    So where does that leave us?

  192. Michael X says

    David, could you clarify as to the practicality of your question? Are you asserting that time cannot be measured or that events don’t follow one after the other? Is this a view you take with you into everyday life?

    Our measurement of time, while imperfect, is hugely practical and has proven itself useful over billions and billions revolutions of the earth around the sun, and around its own axis.

    So that leaves us right where we are. Measuring duration as best we can and getting close enough to send satellites into orbit for decades and to measure the speed of light consistently. What else would you have us do?

  193. Kseniya says

    Michael, David simply another sophist who is only trying to say this: “Scientific findings don’t support my favorite superstitions, so I reject them.”

  194. BobC says

    David Barclay wrote:

    About these millions of years continually referred to, is there some scientific basis for this, as in scientific evidence?

    Yes, there’s strong evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a universe at least 3 times as old as the earth.

    Determining the age of the earth was one of the greatest accomplishments of the human race. Are you suggesting scientists throw out all that hard work to accommodate the weirdo religious beliefs you have?

  195. cicely says

    Tony @155:

    For every step forward, there must have been thousands of steps backwards.

    What would be ‘forward’, or ‘backward’? These presuppose a planned destination. Every step is just a “step” that either works, in and organism’s current circumstances, or doesn’t.

    And don’t forget the steps….sideways. Things that don’t, in the organism’s current circumstances, make much of a difference to survival or reproductive success (or, aha, survival to successfully reproduce). Is there any advantage to humans in, for instance, having green eyes instead of brown? Maybe not, in current circumstances; but circumstances change, in the physical environment and in the social environment. Maybe, suddenly, green eyes are considered in some way wrong or evil, and social forces act to reduce the number of people with green eyes, which (and here’s the important part), also has the effect of editing out the complete sets of genes those people had; Boom!….out of the genepool for you! On the other hand, maybe in other social circumstances green eyes are considered lucky….given humanity’s history of believing in gods, maybe having green eyes is thought to attract the favor of the local god, and green-eyed people are particularly sought after as mates. What a stroke of luck for them! and incidentally, for the rest of their genes as well. Or maybe it isn’t the green-ness of the eyes in and of themselves. Maybe it’s something that incidentally tends to come “bundled” with the genes for green eyes. If that bundle is useful, the green eyes get to come along for the ride. And if it’s useful enough, brown eyes could gradually be replaced entirely.

    Now select between a lot of variants to a lot of different characteristics (proportionate length of limbs to torso, shape and number of teeth, length of digit….etc.), all at the same time; and continue this plan for a very looooong time. Even better yet, do all of this, simultaneously, in several populations that have fallen out of reproductive contact with each other (and remember that what gets editted from one population won’t necessarily be editted from them all, and will therefore still be “on the table” for future selection in thosepopulations). Species—->subspecies—–>a number of different species.

    (Disclaimer: I admit that I don’t know the particulars of how the genes for eye color are distributed; this non-real-world example is presented only to help me illustrate my point.)

  196. Dave Finn says

    The original post by PZMinion is interesting in containing the seed of a valid non-Darwinian theory of evolution. There appears to be a total unwillingness of the “establishment” to recognise the fundamental difference between a belief that evolution occurred, and occurred by purely material mechanisms and the belief, for which there is no evidence, that it occurred purely by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms (random change, natural selection). The key word is algorithm. A major fault in evolutionary theory is that it divides the biological world into the superior human species (us cheer cheer) and the lower orders of life (boo boo) to which neo-Darwinian ideas apply. It should be possible to talk of the evolution of any organism, including domestic species, whatever its history, so long as it has an ancestry going back to original life and has been constrained by genetics and biochemistry, neither of which divides life into human/non human. The trick is to abandon “natural” and talk of algorithm driven evolution and algorithm free evolution – the latter being classical neo-Darwinism. It is important to note that the genes of an organism do not encode bits of the organism, they encode algorithms for building and operating the organism. When one allele of a gene is substituted for another the associated algorithm is tuned and consequently the behaviour or appearance of the organism. The validity of neo-Darwinism can be seen to depend on the absence of genetically encoded evolutionary algorithms. Darwinists assert that these do not exist but it is easy to provide counter examples. The following algorithm is probably the most important as it automatically generates the observed complexity of life:

    A species has a set of genetically encoded algorithms. An environment has a variety of species. When there is an abrupt change in the environment different species are often affected differently. This situation has failing species, with their bag of algorithms in a worse survival situation than the successful species with their bag of algorithms. There is, briefly, a direction to evolution for the failing species – if their bag of algorithms was more like that of the successful species they would be more likely to survive. Hence the algorithm – while you are not surviving and some other species in the environment is thriving whenever you encounter genetic material from a/the thriving species add it to your genome.

    Note that this algorithm will normally transfer a genetically encoded algorithm from the thriving species to the failing species and is clearly proven in the case of acquired antibiotic resistance in bacteria, although logic should apply to all species.

    Note also that such a transfer is highly error prone and the algorithm can assemble a totally different genetically encoded algorithm. If this new algorithm provides sufficient advantage it will be retained and may later be passed on to other species.

    This counterexample shows that there is no basis for the claim that neo-Darwinism must provide the explanation for evolution.

  197. BobC says

    Dave Finn:

    A major fault in evolutionary theory is that it divides the biological world into the superior human species (us cheer cheer) and the lower orders of life (boo boo) to which neo-Darwinian ideas apply.

    Where did you get the idea humans are superior? Can people fly? Live under water? See like an eagle? Run like a gazelle? Have the short term memory of a chimpanzee? (tests have shown chimpanzees to have a much better short term memory.)

    It’s a creationist idea that humans are big deal, magically created to be separate from the rest of nature. The truth is people are nothing more than apes, and they’re much weaker than the other ape species. The human apes are just one small branch on the tree of life.

  198. says

    Hi Bob, you don’t like people much eh?

    I don’t know about you but determining the age of the earth and the universe strikes me as a formidable task. But you say it’s a done deal.

    You go along with the consistency of light speed extending over periods of millions and billions of years do you?

    I hope you realize this would necessitate a static universe, which makes for a wee bit of a problem.

    You see Bob, years are a human invention, an invention of convenience, which for the most part has served society very well, but when you attempt to extend this measure of time into your evaluation of universe you run into some difficulty, especially in attempting to evaluate a dynamic condition of universe.

    The reason being that time is not static or is space static or even motion. The time, space and motion of universe is relative Bob, as the condition of universe remains relative to the system of reference. This means there is a different condition remaining relative to each system and there are a whole lot of systems. More than I could possibly count.

    But maybe you know a whole lot more about this than I do Bob, maybe you can measure the age of the earth and the universe, maybe you really can.

    Just the same I find it just a bit difficult to believe you can apply static terms to a dynamic universe.

    You see Bob you are playing a shell game, and you are fooling yourself by thinking you can figure out under which shell the pea is hiding simply by throwing blind insults around.

    Science is still in its infancy Bob, it hasn’t grown up yet, but one day it will and it will probably look a bit different than it does today.

    Let me leave you with something I think would be helpful; when you go to the store to buy your beer it has a label on each bottle. It tells you how many ounces are in each bottle and the alcohol content, but did you know that no two bottles have exactly the same amount of beer in them?

    Whoa, what’s going on here Bob and the alcohol content is a teeny weeny bit different too. This is not good Bob, not good at all.

    You see Bob we people find it real handy to put arbitrary values on things like our bottles of beer and close enough is close enough for us already eh.

    But when it comes to the universe we have this crazy idea that we can do the same thing as we do with our beer. But you know what Bob, it doesn’t wash. Nope, don’t work.

    In fact we even think we can measure the speed of light, just like we can measure the speed of a train or a bus. Wow, what a trip. Like the light is in linear motion maybe? What do you say Bob, want to give it a try.

    And don’t forget what I told you about time, the old clock trick……wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean Bob.

  199. Ms. Garrison says

    In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its Retard frog-squirrel, and then “that” had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog and then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you!

  200. me says

    Every new generation of a animal is slightly defferent than the past generation. Out of the new generation of animals, more offspring are left by the animals who were more fit for there enviroment.

    example:
    Eventually Rabbits eyes move to the side of there head, because rabbits with eyes farther apart can see more predators, and they live. The close-eyed rabbits die and the next generation of rabbits are all far eyed.

    Evolution is HOW God made us. not why.

  201. BobC says

    Posted by Kseniya #216:

    David simply another sophist who is only trying to say this: “Scientific findings don’t support my favorite superstitions, so I reject them.”

    You sure got that right.

    sophist: One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.

    David, instead of babbling nonsense, why don’t you tell us how old YOU think the earth and universe is.

  202. BobC says

    Posted by “me” #223:

    Evolution is HOW God made us. not why.

    Obviously you’re pro-science. Just a minor correction if you don’t mind. Mr. God had nothing to do with it.

  203. BobC says

    Ms. Garrison, unless you’re joking in #222, you might want to consider reading a biology textbook.

  204. BobC says

    I don’t know about you but determining the age of the earth and the universe strikes me as a formidable task. But you say it’s a done deal.

    I don’t know about the universe, but the age of the earth is a done deal. If you don’t know that then you are proving to everyone here you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Ask any geologist. The age of the earth has been determined to be about 4.5 billion years. I sure would like to hear your estimate. Why don’t you check your Bible and get back to us.

  205. nhoj says

    G’day people,
    I am from Australia and we don’t have creationism. Kid’s at school have a very descent education in science.

    We laugh at the ideas of creationism, it is clearly religion and is not associated with science. I think it is unfortunate for people who do not have a clear understanding of why creationism is not science.

    Evolution can be described as:
    1. Variation exists within a population
    2. Selective pressures, such as predators or available resources select for the best adapted species
    3. These species reproduce, passing their traits on to their offspring.
    4. Given a long time, species will gradually evolve to become better adapted to their environment.

    This is what I would say is day one biology. Unfortunately for Darwin, he didn’t know about genetics but WE DO. Molecular genetics, gene mapping, embryology, comparative anatomy just blow creationist ideas out of the water. If you are introduced to these enormous fields you’ll realise what a joke creationism is. No seriously it is a joke, a very funny one that people here fall on the ground laughing when they hear this nonsense.

    Check out pubmed.com to see how far we have progressed, you can exam the exact DNA sequences that codes for thousands of thousands of proteins that makes up different organisms. We know the function and 3-Dimensional structure of these proteins at the atomic level, you can actually look at these atomic models on the website for free :)
    Amino acid differences in proteins between organisms matches with evolutionary relationships, take for example the cytochrome C protein. Research it.

    Best of luck to those seeking an education in biology, it is a fascinating and fast ‘evolving’ field. (couldn’t help the pun)

    John

  206. Iain Walker says

    Chris (#198):

    Other than briefly stating that things would reproduce according to their “kinds”, the Bible doesn’t say what a “kind” is..so that leaves a lot of room for speculation.

    Furthermore, the notion of organisms reproducing “according to their kind” is quite compatible with evolution – if it is taken to mean no more than that the offspring of a member of “kind” X will also be a member of X. This is true even if evolution is true, since it allows that the kind itself may still change (as the distribution of characteristics within the population changes), so that after many generations the population now counts as “kind” Y (because it is now so different from the original X). Because the change is gradual, there is never any sharp cross-over point between X and Y (which are, after all, only labels of convenience for a given population at particular points in time), and it will always be the case that the offspring of a member of that population will still be a member of the same “kind” as the parent.

    I’ve always wondered though why evolution is expounded with such fervor.

    Because it is attacked with such fervour by religious idealogues. It might be more constructive if you were attend to the beams in the eyes of your less enlightened co-religionists before taking us to task for the motes in ours.

    On the other hand, if there is a Higher Being, then perhaps I’m accountable for what I do, and perhaps there is something more than just this brief existence. So maybe I’m a bit more scrupulous in my dealings with fellow humans and creatures, a bit more honest than naturally inclined to be.

    That’s all well and good, but has some rather disturbing moral implications. It suggests that you don’t necessarily feel accountable to your fellow human beings in the here and now, and that your good behaviour has more to do with hopes of reward and/or fear of punishment than feelings of empathy or respect for other people.

    This kind of thinking is one of the reasons some (if not many) humanists consider theism to be morally corrupting.

  207. Iain Walker says

    Dave Finn (#219):

    A major fault in evolutionary theory is that it divides the biological world into the superior human species (us cheer cheer) and the lower orders of life (boo boo) to which neo-Darwinian ideas apply.

    Incorrect, and a really weird choice of straw man, because nothing could be farther removed from the implications of Darwinism.

    It should be possible to talk of the evolution of any organism, including domestic species, whatever its history, so long as it has an ancestry going back to original life and has been constrained by genetics and biochemistry, neither of which divides life into human/non human.

    … which is precisely what modern “neo-Darwinian” evolutionary theory does.

    Hence the algorithm – while you are not surviving and some other species in the environment is thriving whenever you encounter genetic material from a/the thriving species add it to your genome. Note that this algorithm will normally transfer a genetically encoded algorithm from the thriving species to the failing species and is clearly proven in the case of acquired antibiotic resistance in bacteria, although logic should apply to all species.

    Horizontal gene transfer is a recognised process in modern evolutionary theory. However, I’m not aware of any observations which suggest that there is a preferential uptake of useful genetic material from more successful species. What mechanism gives rise to this? How are beneficial “algorithms” distinguished from non-benficial ones prior to incorporation into the organism’s genome? How can an organism “tell” whether the genetic material comes from a successful or an unsuccessful species? Perhaps you can provide us with a few references for this, since I, for one, am a little skeptical.

    In any case, examples like antibiotic resistance are more easily explained by the random uptake of genetic material coupled with natural selection.

    And logic doesn’t justify the extension of bacterial mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer to other species (in fact, logic frowns on such casual generalisations). Horizontal gene transfer usually takes place in multicellular organisms by more indirect methods (e.g., endogenous retroviruses).

  208. Will Von Wizzlepig says

    Whose survey is that? There’s no identifying info on the site or in a domain dossier lookup on it either.

  209. Torbjörn Larsson, OM says

    @ Dave Finn, #219

    The validity of neo-Darwinism can be seen to depend on the absence of genetically encoded evolutionary algorithms. Darwinists assert that these do not exist but it is easy to provide counter examples. The following algorithm is probably the most important as it automatically generates the observed complexity of life:

    A species has a set of genetically encoded algorithms.

    Complete strawman. In as much as evolutionary theory describes observable mechanisms that provides predictions, such as in population genetics, it is describing evolutionary algorithms. They are shared over genetic mechanisms and their environment.

    And it is easy to see why your proposal of them being hard coded as frontloaded “genetically encoded” entities fails – descent with modification means species vary as their environment varies. That means there isn’t an intelligent algorithm that can cope with that without learning from the environment, as the genome does under evolution. Exactly as population genetics predicts.

  210. says

    Hi Bob, thanks for asking.

    The existing information indicating the Earth to be roughly 4.5 billion years old is very important to the theory of evolution because it is commonly believed that long durations of time were required to produce the existing life forms.

    Unfortunately much of the Earth’s history and its age remain within the realm of unknowns.

    However, we can be sure that attempting to determine the Earth’s age on the basis of one year durations is not the brightest of ideas.

    Time as I pointed out is different for every system and time associated with our planet Earth is accelerating, yet we seem oblivious to the fact. We seem to like counting years whether there are any years to count or not.

    The age of the Earth is actually decreasing while at the same time the age of the universe remaining relative to the Earth is increasing, which I will admit is a bit of a mind bender.

    You see Bob the age of the universe cannot exceed a value of one (1), as in one whole unified field, nor can it be reduced below zero (0). So the age of the Earth, in terms of a unified field, is different depending where you are located, such as at the center of the Earth, a few miles below the Earth’s surface, at surface or somewhere above the Earth’s surface.

    On top of this the age of the Earth is continually changing, whereby the age of the Earth is increasing and decreasing simultaneously at different rates depending on your location.

    And to add to this picture it is important to realize that the orbit of the Earth changes periodically, whereby the length of your one year durations become shorter or longer.

    When you consider that this is equally true for all the various systems of universe you get a much different picture than you might have considered possible.

    And when you talk about genetics in relation to genes, do you know what genes are Bob? They are field receptor relays allowing for the continuance of the various species existing at any given time. And it is a distortional effect which causes genetic mutations to occur. Distort the uniform continuance of field and you get non-uniform distortions, which are not usually beneficial.

    Are you getting the picture Bob?

    The 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is very important to some people, perhaps because it simplifies things to the point where their self importance manifests in the form of an authoritative figure.

  211. BobC says

    Wow David Barclay, are you ever full of shit. All those words and you didn’t say anything. You also didn’t answer the simple question I asked, how old is the earth according to you.

  212. BobC says

    David Barclay, you can do your babbling with somebody else. I’m not interested in talking to a full-of-shit everything-is-magic creationist like yourself.

  213. Bjørn Østman says

    BobC, I do think you generally use too many expletives. However, in the case, I must admit I was thinking the same when reading Mr. Barclay’s #233. He wrote (among other equally stupefying gems):

    the age of the Earth is increasing and decreasing simultaneously at different rates depending on your location.

    Meaning that a little above the Earth’s surface, the Earth is a little older/younger than below the surface, and that the rate at which the Earth age is different between these. “The age of the Earth is decreasing” !!??!?

    Seriously, whatever. Call it science. Whatever you say, Mr. Barclay. You sound like a madman, and I suspect that is exactly what you are.

  214. Iain Walker says

    David Barclay (#233):

    And to add to this picture it is important to realize that the orbit of the Earth changes periodically, whereby the length of your one year durations become shorter or longer.

    You’re confusing the standard unit of measurement with the phenomenon on which it based. For most purposes in science, the unit “year” is defined as 365.25 days (aka the “Julian Year”), while a day is defined as 86,400 seconds, while a second is defined as:

    “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.”
    http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html

    These are arbitrary, standardised conventions, and as such they are fixed. The earth is still approximately 4,500 million years old, irrespective of how much the planet’s orbital periodicity may have varied over that time, because the term “year” refers to the fixed standard unit of measurement.

    As for the rest of your post, I’m with BobC and Bjørn. It appears to be gibberish.

  215. eric says

    You lads have missed the big picture. And much of it was even laid out for you. Too bad you made asses of yourselves with such comments, although I doubt you ever saw it that way. What bliss ignorance can be. I didn’t fully get what was suggested either, but enough to know the answer is before me. BobC, looks like you’re in over your head. May I recommend something more your speed… like MySpace.

  216. eric says

    You lads mocking the comment at #233 have missed the big picture. And much of it was even laid out for you. Too bad you made asses of yourselves (Bob) with such comments, although I doubt you ever saw it that way. What bliss ignorance can be. I didn’t fully get the notion of what was suggested either, but enough to know the answer is before me. BobC, looks like you’re in over your head. May I recommend something more your speed… like MySpace. Some very interesting comments, and rather than clarification you just label them as full of sh*t and stupefying? Does that mean you (you know who you are) happen to understand everything and are experts in every field, therefore, you have the right to say anything you like?

    David, despite some of the yahoos share a bond of idiocracy, I hope you might consider elaborating on your comment…
    “the age of the Earth is increasing and decreasing simultaneously at different rates depending on your location.”
    On behlaf of those interested, further explanation would be appreciated. Please ignore the rude comments. It’s simply over there head. Mine too, but I question request more info rather than sling insults. Forgive Bob, for he doesn’t mean any harm (he’s “special” y’know… )

  217. eric says

    disclaimer – I do not know David, but felt the remarks were uncalled for (Bob!) and I’m hoping for more info. Yes, I noticed my spelling error above – mock if you must!

  218. Iain Walker says

    #241:

    Thanks for that, eric. So we now know that David can’t spell Lyell, and does not appear to be particularly well informed about the history of the geological and biological sciences. Please carry on.

  219. says

    Iain Walker,

    We still call them seconds don’t we?

    And what do you think happens to those values when the orbit of the earth shifts? You don’t think they change?

    Accuracy is a tricky business in relation to determining exact values because it tends to blind us to the fact that despite our best efforts we are missing the whole point.

    You are assuming the earth to be 4.5 billion years old on the basis of a fixed system of accounting, which translates into a mental perception of the earth existing in a stable orbit around the sun for an extremely long time.

    You did use the term years, as in 4.5 billion years or is someone going to argue that too.

    That provides you with a linear duration of age, which is all very fine, but you keep talking about science and this mental image of the earth’s age has nothing to do with it. It might be applicable to your old grandmother, but it is hardly applicable in attempting to understand the dynamics of planetary development.

    It seems very important to many that they know how old the earth is in years, but years are not applicable to the age of planetary systems.

    The reason being that the value of time itself is different for every system of universe, while those values of time are themselves changing continually.

    So what might appear old on one hand is young on the other and so on. The universe around us remains relative to our planet earth in relation to the condition of universe to which we are presently exposed and confined.

    And when you take the simultaneous condition of universe into account you realize that our existing perception of the planet’s age is a bit less than rock solid.

    To be honest we don’t know how old the earth is, not by a long shot. Nor do we know how old the universe is, in fact we don’t have the faintest idea.

    But you go right ahead and say what you will about it, but no amount of yelling and swearing is going to change the situation.

    We do live in a dynamic universe which means it is subject to change without prior notification. This might be a bit inconvenient for some, but it’s just the way it is.

    And as far as the history of the geological and biological sciences go, good luck to you.

    The age of the planet is used to reinforce the process of evolution, in relation to a sequence of changes attributed to genetic modification. And in what sequence did these changes occur? Do we have any idea at all?

    I think the only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know very much, science is a work in progress. And the work has only just begun.

  220. Zarquon says

    The reason being that the value of time itself is different for every system of universe,

    Not enough to matter, and we can work out what the differences would be anyway.

  221. Iain Walker says

    David Barclay (#244):

    And what do you think happens to those values when the orbit of the earth shifts? You don’t think they change?

    Does the shifting of the earth’s orbit affect the ground state of the Caesium 133 atom? If not, then no, of course they don’t change.

    You are assuming the earth to be 4.5 billion years old on the basis of a fixed system of accounting, which translates into a mental perception of the earth existing in a stable orbit around the sun for an extremely long time.

    Nope. The “year” used in radiometric dating is a derived SI unit (as described in #237) and is defined entirely independently of any variation in the earth’s orbit.

    The age of the planet is used to reinforce the process of evolution, in relation to a sequence of changes attributed to genetic modification.

    Nope again. The age of the planet is a quite separate question to evolution, as any Old Earth Creationist will tell you.

    By the way, I had a quick gander at your bio on your website. Nice use of the Galileo Gambit.

    And have a lovely time discovering anti-gravity. Bye.

  222. says

    Iain

    You can fix all the values you want, but that will not in anyway change the situation.

    You are talking about linear durations of time which as you so kindly pointed out are based on fixed values. And the ground state of cesium doesn’t change? Lovely, and long linear based durations of time are not important to the theory of evolution? What more could a guy ask for?

    But I love the one from Zarquon about differentials in time existing between the various systems of universe not being enough to matter and we can work out what the differences would be anyway. It’s my favorite, I do have a sense of humor.

    Are you aware that adjustments have to be continually made to allow for time differentials between the atomic clocks on board NAVSTAR satellites and the ground based clocks, otherwise GPS would be useless. And yes these are cesium driven clocks, whoa, kind of bends your head a bit doesn’t it?

    And yes it is fun working on gravity control. Anti-gravity doesn’t need to be discovered, it’s been around for a very long time.

    All the best to all of you.

  223. Sphere Coupler says

    I’ve gotten to this post late and have not read the entire 200+ responses. Although it seems Sastra has struck a nerve.
    And here’s an OOoooo for W.I.U. Back in the 70’s o’l Rocky wasa rockin. Top ten and all. Well heres my two cents.

    One does not need to believe in a creator to exist. You do need to follow logical deduction to advance. We will all preform the final lab test at termination time. Only then will I form my theory or maybe I wont. I really don’t have to believe in either…I just have to function.

  224. Sphere Coupler says

    OK I finally got around to reading the (rest of the blog).
    I believe the problem lies with people using the wrong tools for the job. What I mean by this is that religion and science are both tools used for the advancement of mankind,one of these tools works best for the psychic well being of the developing man, whereas the other helps in the development of man. apparently the inventors of modern religion did not conceive that their writing would be outdated any time soon, alas the religions have not kept pace with science and now we have a quandary. so in a drastic attempt to adapt, religion is struggling to gain a foothold on science by seeking acceptance in forming ID,s and probably other forms. This process has happened in the past and was successfully concluded. However, the task of adaption is compounded by the ever accelerating pace of science. On another note the truth of our genetic history will not fully be understood until geology and sub atomic particle physics is interrelated. I know this is vague but throughout history much information in geology hes been suppressed in concern for the above process. It’s not that the truth isn’t out there, just that it takes a bit of digging to find and then the ability to merge different disciplines.We have recognized the need for interdisciplinary positions, however the specific individuals to fill such needs are rare indeed. Religion should concentrate on the moral constructs of man and leave the theories and discoveries to science.

  225. sweetShelby says

    Any scientific theory stands or falls when put to the acid test: the experiment. Two quick examples:
    1) Darwin’s Finches have already proven to cross mate amongst the divergent strains, calling into doubt the whole ‘one way’ divergence mechanism as postulated (Was in a recent National Geographic article) and setting up a major rethinking of that whole line of speculation.
    2) The wonderful ‘Moth and pollution’ scam is easily disproved by any biologist with any field knowledge of moths and nocturnal bird feeding habits. The moths in question rarely land on the shaft of the tree, but rather, as a defensive mechanism, on the underside of limbs. this makes them less vulnerable to passing predators. On the other hand, ‘nocturnal feeders’, such as bats and a number of birds, hunt on the wing and they all react to the ‘flutter’ of wings (motion) like any other active predator (as opposed to passive, e.g. Trapdoor spider). When we did a breeding experiment back in the 70s, we were befuddled by the ‘return to the norm’ phenomena, producing one of our lightest generations out of one of our darkest matings. Its still summer, go find a bat cave and learn by actual observation.
    On the personal level, I have faith that there IS a creator, and we cannot perceive His work (OK, Hawking might have seen the brush strokes, I’m doing good to marvel over a color.) Think of the story of the blind men and the elephant.
    As for BobC, “Ichiro, God is just another word for magic” is a simple rebuttal with no backing, akin to grade school name calling. Please elevate you level of argument (I particularly admired Corax #105). My stating: “BobC, Evolution is just another word for magic” would be as sophomoric and silly. As for wanting to “invoke magic for what you don’t understand”, would any male here use that argument about the mysteries of women? Continuing to quote you: “Invoking magic is idiotic and magic doesn’t solve any problems”. I fully agree and I’m sure Ichiro would too.
    In closing to go to dinner and discuss this evening’s God Particle experiment, all should remember that Einstein corrected Newton’s errors, Hawking corrected the big E’s, …who will correct Hawking? The deification of Darwin will blind the true research if ya’ll aren’t careful.

  226. Sphere Coupler says

    Time is a perception anomaly relative to mass.Of course this does not significantly change the facts derived from evolution.However it does change the scale in which evolution is derived.It is only the perception of the outside observer that can see that the changes in evolution can be faster or slower depending upon mass.This in no way accounts for a god but it does require updating for evolutionary theories,tho I do not know that it would be of any significant change other than giving genetic reproduction and sequencing differing scales to work within.

    On the whole it does not change the results other than a statement of continually changing time scales of differing masses.The correction between geology and particle physics will be conducted in time…Pardon the pun.

    The most significant result of the LHC will be to prove that gravity does not exist as a separate entity,that all matter is affected solely on the particle attraction and repulsion principle of the internal workings of the atom and its fields.The graviton does not exist, although mathematically it appears to exist.The math can be changed to adapt to a non-gravity theory.Perhaps the time has arrived to thank newton and others and be on our way.

    The particle model must now change to allow further advancement,and boy will this be tuf for academia,bandages will no longer work.Science is constantly evolving and no science of yesterday will be totally correct for today. Although science can be correct for it’s time.Each discovery is a move forward and we cannot deny discovery for that will cause stagnation.

    To me the gravity entity is no more viable than a god entity. It will take a lot of work to correct what has been done.And it is agreed what was done was necessary to arrive at this point.