Skip to comments.
How did we get here? (UK sees huge decrease in belief in 'evolution')
Guardian ^
| 15 Aug 06
| Harriet Swain
Posted on 08/15/2006 11:34:34 AM PDT by gobucks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
Evolution is now believed by less than half of all UK women, the land that gave birth to Darwin. A very good trend, indeed, but unsurprising as well, given that women are the ones who suffer most when men are reduced, and
trained to see themselves as competitive hairless apes that can sweet-talk.
He blames the influence of Christian fundamentalists in America....
Rather misleading when you read up on this foundation:
Christian Vardy Foundation
1
posted on
08/15/2006 11:34:37 AM PDT
by
gobucks
To: gobucks
You can't measure a rate of evolution. You can't predict what will evolve next. It loses believers as it fails to provide utility.
2
posted on
08/15/2006 11:40:17 AM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(Those who don't fight evil condemn those who do.)
To: .cnI redruM
It loses believers as it has not produced a new species of serious change to an existing one in human memory.
3
posted on
08/15/2006 11:42:22 AM PDT
by
Jim Verdolini
(We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
To: .cnI redruM
Life does not come from non-life.
It's that simple.
4
posted on
08/15/2006 11:54:57 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
To: gobucks
Science is not done via polls. Science is done by scientists.
Polling people regarding scientific questions is a waste of time.
5
posted on
08/15/2006 11:57:56 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(non-evangelical atheist)
To: gobucks
Liberals come from monkeys. Just ask one, they'll admit it! ;)
6
posted on
08/15/2006 11:57:58 AM PDT
by
avacado
To: xzins
"Life does not come from non-life.
"
The Theory of Evolution has never said that it did.
7
posted on
08/15/2006 11:58:48 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(non-evangelical atheist)
To: avacado
Liberals haven't made it terribly far.
8
posted on
08/15/2006 12:12:18 PM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(Those who don't fight evil condemn those who do.)
To: gobucks
The drop in "belief" in evolution is most likely due to the increase in islamomaniacs, who share with Christians a certain suspicion of science, particularly biological science.
As to whether the Theory of Evolution depends on popular "belief" to be considered the consensus theory in biology... well, we all know the answer to that one, even those of us who don't want to admit it.
9
posted on
08/15/2006 12:32:31 PM PDT
by
samtheman
To: xzins
Life does not come from non-life. It's that simple-minded.
Fixed it for you.
10
posted on
08/15/2006 12:36:34 PM PDT
by
mc6809e
To: gobucks
It's hard to imagine anyone calling Dr. Stephen Hawking a Christian fundamentalist. He is a pre-eminent theoretical physicist. (I am a less-than-eminent psychologist with a great deal of skepticism about religious and scientific dogma).
Hawking pointed out that the "big bang" theory central to evolutionary thought could only be true if we contradict all known laws of physics. He also pointed out that extremely minute changes in the weights of different atoms would have made the carbon molecule impossible. In other words, human life could not exist.
Other scientists have pointed out that the theory of evolution cannot explain the development of the human neuron. The point is that evolution/mutation likely plays a role in species development, but there are huge gaps that the theory cannot explain.
The other point is that it seems intellectually dishonest to discredit Intelligent Design as an alternative or even enhancement to the theory of evolution.
11
posted on
08/15/2006 12:37:16 PM PDT
by
neocon1984
(end the idiocy of post-modernism)
To: PatrickHenry
12
posted on
08/15/2006 1:11:01 PM PDT
by
StJacques
(Liberty is always unfinished business)
To: gobucks
I think the rise of Islam is going to convince a lot of people that evolution is crap
13
posted on
08/15/2006 1:11:12 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(http://www.mises.org/story/1975 <--no such thing as a fairtax)
To: neocon1984
Hawking pointed out that the "big bang" theory central to evolutionary thought
The validity of the Big Bang theory has no relevance whatsoever to the theory of evolution, whether or not your claim regarding Hawking's stance is accurete. The Big Bang is not "central" to the theory of evolution.
14
posted on
08/15/2006 1:20:43 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
"The Big Bang is not "central" to the theory of evolution".
Just peripheral...., but necessary.
15
posted on
08/15/2006 1:27:07 PM PDT
by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: gobucks
Sadly, I see dumbing down isn't limited to the US.
What gets me is this isn't malicious -- just misguided.
16
posted on
08/15/2006 1:28:36 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(The Democrat Party stands for open treason in a time of war.)
To: neocon1984
The other point is that it seems intellectually dishonest to discredit Intelligent Design as an alternative or even enhancement to the theory of evolution. ID isn't a scientific alternative and therefore needs no discrediting.
17
posted on
08/15/2006 1:30:12 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(The Democrat Party stands for open treason in a time of war.)
To: gobucks
nope, it's not even necessary. Nothing about how the universe came to be matters at all for evolution. Evolution is all about what happened AFTER the universe came to be and AFTER the first life showed up on Earth, from an evolutionary science perspective all that other stuff is back story.
18
posted on
08/15/2006 1:30:49 PM PDT
by
discostu
(you must be joking son, where did you get those shoes)
To: MineralMan
Science is not done via polls. Science is done by scientists.
Really? When was the scientific experiment done that proved that life sprang from non-life? Did I miss that one, somehow?
The ancient Greek rhetors believed that their "science" was far advanced, too. Of course, they believed in a geo-centric universe and that future events could be predicted by the movement of the stars.
19
posted on
08/15/2006 1:37:05 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Public schools are the madrassas of the American Left. --Ann Coulter, Godless)
To: freedumb2003
ID isn't a scientific alternative and therefore needs no discrediting.
Tell me, is ToE falsifiable? If so, how would we do it? If not, how can you claim that it's a science any more valid than ID?
20
posted on
08/15/2006 1:38:28 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Public schools are the madrassas of the American Left. --Ann Coulter, Godless)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson