Skip to comments.Canadians Choose Evolution Over Creationism
Posted on 08/07/2008 11:33:35 AM PDT by Soliton
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Roughly three-in-five adults in Canada side with the theory of evolution, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 58 per cent of respondents believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.
Conversely, 22 per cent of respondents think God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while 20 per cent are not sure.
Charles Darwins "The Origin of Species" was first published in 1859. The book details the British naturalists theory that all organisms gradually evolve through the process of natural selection. Darwins views were antagonistic to creationism, the belief that a more powerful being or a deity created life.
(Excerpt) Read more at angus-reid.com ...
Okay Darwin, explain Life from Lifelessness.
That's not part of the Theory of Evolution. The TOE requires the existence of life. What created that life is not relevant to the TOE.
Why does a nation have to “choose”?
Can’t Canadians think for themselves anymore?
Don't ask me. I'm from Louisiana. We have some of the worst schools in the country, but we can teach alternatives to science.
Hold on here. Evolution doesn't deal with origins, so "conversely" is completely wrong. The two aren't even mutually exclusive. Ridiculous poll.
You think that 22% of Canadians isn't a significant market?
And that's based on a poll that asks if they believe evolution more likely that a strict interpretation of creationism in which the earth was created only 10,000 years ago.
Most people I know believe something between strict creationism and atheistic evolution. They believe in a world that was created, but that evolution is a part of that creation.
The advocates of evolution only don't just seem to want to allow any discussion of any form of intelligent design being any part of the process at any point along the way.
The problem with that, it that their strict form of evolution being completely made up of random events and natural selection is every bit unprovable as is intelligent design. You can give ample evidence of natural selection, and even scientific evidence that would appear to clearly indicate that the earth and life on it is far older than 10,000 years, and that evidence should be taught in schools.
However, how the world was created and if it's progression has only been shaped by random events or by an intelligent design is beyond our current capabilities to prove, and is very likely unprovable.
The assertion that because the existence of God has not been proved through the scientific method, God does not exist is a logical fallacy.
An important part of science is understanding what you do know, and what you don't know. What you can prove, and what you cannot prove.
For younger students an appropriate way to address that part of the topic is to simply say science hasn't answered that question for us.
For older students, a discussion of various theories and how scientists have tried to prove or disprove them might be more appropriate.
Canada is a more socialist country, like Europe, and these figures reflect that. If you enjoy godless socialism that is too decadent to survive the Blythian (not Darwinian) competition for survival with competing worldviews, go ahead and enjoy it while it lasts. Because Darwinian culture is on the ropes in Europe courtesy of resurgent Islam, and there's no evidence it can survive in the long run anywhere else except where it is protected, ironically, by creationist cultures and institutions.
” They will trumpet as loudly as possible that a ‘majority’ of people think it’s OK to teach evolution...”
I don’t think they need to “trumpet” it. The majority of people DO believe it’s OK to teach evolution. And virtually every school I know of, even many Christian schools, does teach it.
“Conversely, 22 per cent of respondents think God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while 20 per cent are not sure.”
We need to get our strict interpretations of the Bible straight. I thought the Earth was just 6,000 years old.
SOME evolutionists think evolution is the answer to the origin of life. Some Freepers have posted that exact thing, matter of fact.
“Roughly three-in-five adults in Canada side with the theory of evolution, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 58 per cent of respondents believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.”
Case Closed!!! LOL!!!
So you disagree with the first amendment?
Anyone with an actual understanding of the TOE knows that it it independent of abiogenesis. Life could have arisen from any cause, including divine intervention, without effecting the TOE in any way.
I think those who are NOW saying that the TOE has nothing to do with the origins of life are fudging their side of the arguement. The TOE is a direct challenge to the existence of God and His having created life as we know it.
That’s ALWAYS been the arguement.
So now... it doesn’t matter HOW life began as long as we believe that we’ve evolved from amoebas and tadpoles?
I STILL don’t get it. Any genetic mutation is NOT the dominant specimen. It just don’t work no matter how you wanna slice it.
Darwin's book never dealt with where life came from, only how it changes over time. Abiogenesis is an interesting area, but it is independent of the TOE.
The TOE is a direct challenge to the existence of God and His having created life as we know it. Thats ALWAYS been the arguement.
Some people want to score political or religious points using scientific theories, but the rest of us should ignore them. In any event, theistic evolution (the idea that evolution can be part of a creator's plan) is accepted by many religious sects, including the Catholic Church.
So now... it doesnt matter HOW life began as long as we believe that weve evolved from amoebas and tadpoles?
That's correct, essentially. There is nothing in the TOE precluding a divine actor from poofing life into existence.
I STILL dont get it. Any genetic mutation is NOT the dominant specimen. It just dont work no matter how you wanna slice it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this- can you explain?
Not origin of the species, but origin of life.
They very patronizingly put it that Darwinists say Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of life, but to them it's either God or evolution...and it ain't God.
Now if I understand you right, you're saying that anyone who believes that evolution is the mechanism by which life on Earth originated really doesn't have an "actual understanding of the TOE"...
Is that correct?
They may or may not have an actual understanding of the TOE. However, when they start talking about abiogenesis, they've moved to an area that is outside what is covered by the TOE. And if they say that origins of life are part of the TOE, then, yes, they do not have actual understanding of the theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.