Do You Believe In Evolution?
A Transcript of: The Republican Presidential Candidates Debate (May 3, 2007) from nytimes.com gives the recall of the debate if you missed it (which I did).
The question: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?”
Three of the ten hands went up:
Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo
Senator McCain added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."
Mr. Huckabee said: “he is not opposed to teaching Darwin's theory” later, here.
Me, personally, I was amazed that only three hands were raised, but hey, I really don’t know these guys.
What about America?
From pollingreport.com:
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 28-29, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. OR, Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
God Guided, 30%
God, No Part, 13%
Created, Present Form, 48%
Other/Unsure, 9%
"Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?"
Yes, 48%
"Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?"
Yes, 48%
No, 39%
Unsure, 13%
My questions are for the “God Guided” above with the question, “Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”.
If God is the Creator, why would it take Him over millions of years to guide a process from less advanced forms of life? How can you trust in a God that you believe cannot even create what we see today but can only produce less forms of life and guide them as they grow themselves? Would that not mean that the creature is equal or greater than the Creator that could not create it in the state by which it has come now on its own? What purpose would (did) it serve?
Is this coming from Christians? From Christians that believe the Word of God?
Sorry, but am I the only one that finds this strange?
17 comments:
When it comes to Evolution, much of what people talk about does not make sense! This is a very emotionally charged area of discussion. Since no one will ever be able to "prove" what happened, no matter what we believe is in faith! Regardless of the academic snobbery, this ultimately is a faith issue.
I agree, but the athesit will fight you tooth and nail for saying, "this ultimately is a faith issue".
Thanks for the visit Mark.
Deciding on a politician based on their view of evolution is a poor one. Anyone who would do so just reiterates that most people aren't capable of making a decision at the voting booth.
It would be better to base it on their stance regarding economic freedom because economic freedom is individual freedom. Individual freedom gives us a greater ability to not be affected by those who believe differently than we do.
I agree, Sean, that "Deciding on a politician based on their view of evolution is a poor one."
My main focus was the % of people that believe God started evolution millions of years ago with tadpoles are something.
Apparently our dear writer here is not very well versed in the area of evolution.
Maybe Mr Silver slept through his class,and if this is the case, I wouldn't mind giving him some knowledge with regards to evolution being both a fact and a scientific theory.
I find it strange that evolution is so vehemently opposed and rejected by evangelicals in America, when it is already a well established fact in almost every modernized nation. I don't see, for example, christians in european countries making such a big hoo ha over it.
Maybe America will suffer because Religious lunatics choose to smuggle religion into science classrooms. Stuff like Intelligent Design is so stupid that it doesn't even deserved to be mentioned in science classrooms, let alone be taught.
Beast,
Thank you for proving that the decrease in intelligence in our schools have proved that we as humans continue to evolve into a greater species.
I realize it may be hard for some to believe in Intelligent Design and easier to believe that we evolved from tadpoles or something less. Who really wants to be accoutable to a God that is smarter than they are?
If you cannot admit that the idea of evolution in fact does contain holes then so be it. That is your right to do so.
Mr Splinter
I for one will tell you that scientists don't exactly know everything there is about Evolution, which is perfectly understandable. Five billion years of Natural history just don't fall onto your laps like some biblical nonsense.
Scientists work painstakingly to dig every fossil they can lay their hands on, do hard-assed researches, collecting samples, doing carbon dating, and other scientific stuff that those stupid Creationists cannot duplicate. Sure, they make mistakes along the way, but surely we ought to give them credit for that?
Three hundred years ago, the first steam engine was built, and it triggered the Earth shattering Industrial Revolution. Now, are you going to mock at the inventers of the steam engine for inventing such bulky, unwieldy and low tech machineries?
Mr Splinter, I suggest you think first before you write. I feel that everytime I argue with you, I am having the upper hand. Just make me lose for once, or at least write something rational.
Oh, by the way, we didn't exactly evolve from tapoles.
Tapoles belong to the class of animals we call amphibians. We are mammals, and have different gene structures.
Oh ok, I am being long winded here, but here goes:
I think Science, as a whole, is a far more meaningful endeavor than mere Religion, because it is an honest pursuit through empirical, testable and potentially falsifiable means.
Along the way, Science does make mistakes, but it would be foolish to focus merely on these mistakes, and avoid the fact that three hundred years of scientific advancement is far superior in every way than two millennia of religious violence and decadence.
Beast,
First my questions were for the God Guided evolutionist.
You have not answered any of the questions, which you cannot since you do not believe in God.
True I do not believe in evolution, but the purpose was to get insight to one that does believe in evolution and also that God started it.
And surely you knew I was joking by my liking to use tadpoles as our starting point.
Also I am not saying that all science or that everything about science is wrong - I just don't see any evidence that proves to me that one species can evolve into another species.
Ok, dorkie, my rebuttal:
It does matter whom you are addressing to, I merely rebutt point for point in your arguments about evolution, since you did not state in your post that atheists cannot post comments.
Secondly, you claim that not "all science" is wrong, by which I think you imply that you believe in only some branches of legitimate science?
With regards to evidence regarding evolution, you are right on at least one thing: You don't see the proof because you refuse to see it.
The truth is out there. All it takes is for you to look into it.
Beast,
Its not the point that you are atheist that you "cannot reply". Just I was looking for someone that believes God started evolution to give me some insight as to why they believe that.
I just reread my post and don't really see where I present a case of whether evolution is real or isn't real. I basically present website info then ask questions.
I only state that I find it odd that a Chrisitan that believes in God and believes the Bible can also state that they believe in evolution.
Maybe if you present the best case you have for human evolution. Please don't posts everything you have. Just one case that I can research myself.
Thanks.
Best case for human evolution?
Well, I don't know which parts you wish you to give you a case on. DNA? Fossils? What?
Please specify.
Similarity in DNA does not prove evolution from one species to another - it only proves similarity.
Give me firm evidence of a species evolving into man. Give me the "link" ("mid-evolution" between the two) that I can take a look at the research.
Well, the Cro-magnon man was the closest fossil to date related to humans.
Gene wise, apes, such as chimps, share more than 99.9% similarities with our genes. A startling similarity in genes does indeed indicate that two species are remarkably similar, and may either share a common ancestor, or that one is the descendent of the other. A good example will be the existence of ligers and tigons.
If we were to take all these humanoid fossils, from Lucy to Tatana boy right up to the human skeleton, you would find startling evidence pertaining to the chain of human evolution.
As for your demands for "mid evolution", I seriously have not come across such a term. If you are talking about missing links, I believe i have posted my explanation that the missing link claim is as much a misnomer as the fact that it is virtually impossible to find every living skeleton of every species on this planet. Even today, we don't have a full understanding of every creature on this planet, and every year new species are being discovered.
Offhand, I do not have any scientific websites, but a good start would be national geographic.
Gene wise, apes, such as chimps, share more than 99.9% similarities with our genes.
Interesting I sat down for lunch today and Discovery Kids was on talking about chimps, etc. They said the similarity was 96.8.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744
Post a Comment