Posted on 08/31/2006 7:42:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
More adults in the United States believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 51 per cent of respondents think that humans and other living things evolved over time, while 42 per cent say they existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Charles Darwin’s "The Origin of Species" was first published in 1859. The book details the British naturalist’s theory that all organisms gradually evolve through the process of natural selection. Darwin’s views were antagonistic to creationism, the belief that a more powerful being or a deity created life.
In the United States, the debate on the topic accelerated after the 1925 Scopes trial, which tested a law that banned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. In 2004, Georgia’s Cobb County was at the centre of a controversy on whether science textbooks that explain evolutionary theory should include disclaimer stickers.
The theory of intelligent design suggests certain biological mechanisms are too complex to have developed without the involvement of a powerful force or intelligent being.
Last month, Austrian cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said the two views are not necessarily incompatible, declaring, "There is no conflict between science and religion, but a debate between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation. (...) The possibility that the Creator used evolution as a tool is completely acceptable for the Catholic faith."
Polling Data
Some people think that humans and other living things evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?
|
|
||
|
Jul. 2006 |
Jul. 2005 |
|
|
Evolved over time |
51% |
48% |
|
Existed in their present form |
42% |
42% |
|
Don’t know / Refused |
7% |
10% |
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Methodology: Telephone interviews with 2,003 American adults, conducted from Jul. 6 to Jul. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
And so you think it shouldn't be discussed at all, even though whether or not there was a flood is a topic that exists in the world the kids will live in? That just doesn't make any sense!
You're making the same poor guess about my point of view as Coyote did. Not representing the scientific method well at all, you two. ;~)
If humans don't evolve then where did liberals come from?
Liberals are unwittingly tools of evil sinking in a mud pit. They are coopted by dark forces to wreck havoc on God's most beloved creation, man. This is a way for satan to get back at God before he goes down for the count. What better way than turn Abraham's arab son Ishmael against his jewish son Isaac. The sands of the deserts against the sands of the beaches.
All dating methods point to an Earth of apx 4.5 billion years. Similarly, fossils clearly point to homo sapens emergence of apx 160,000 years.
I am not sure how tribal migration plays, but if you want to quote Genesis, you might want to hesitate -- where did Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law come from?
From a christian point of view I really don't think God cares except that you believe what his Son put out.
100% agree.
And I'm completely comfortable with that. Even Jesus was irritated with the jewish leaders at the time for having him clarify supposedly contradiction of historical social guidelines. Most reports of God's show of power in the bible has been cataclysim of natural elements, a huge expense of energy that even He had to rest to have a gander at what He did. Could have taken 4 billion years to do the 'six days'. Who knows? Nobody was there, and this argument will be argued until the second coming. The first law of thermodynamics plays nicely into the whole discussion. God is the purity of energy and the purveyor of all unversal elements. He got lonely and made man and gave us free will and a lot of us screw it up. He decided to send an earthly represenation of himself to appeal directly. And we killed his physical form. Great show of appreciation. Oh well, some get, some won't.
So you are backing off your position? That is fine, but I just want some clarity. It sounds like you understand TToE but hesitate for emotional reasons.
We are so used to absolute non-scientific and anti-scientific drivel that we sometimes overreact.
Example: The second law of thermal documents disproves evolution (a true classic).
Just as bad: The second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.
I still don't want to see creationism and ID in high school science classes. To keep with the time frame, those subjects would have to be discussed and dismissed as science in only a few hours.
They came from flower pots? Hmmm, flowers are vegetables ... Ohhh, OK, I see the connection.
That explains the Arabs and Islamo fascism but it still doesn't account for liberals. Maybe the monkey genes are migrating and concentrating in specific individuals ie liberals. More for them less for us. But that would confirm evolution. Or, as freedumb2003 suggested, devolution. Which would admittedly be different than evolution.
Gee, I wonder why you'd feel this way.
Your mom has.
I'm not one of those... I want a discussion that represents the world these kids live in. and that includes all this! ~points at all the various responses on the thread~
At what point should kids be 'taught' to suspend rationality and engage 'faith'. This is a difficult question. When rational thought about the world/universe and faith collide, what should happen?
Rational thought concludes that evolution explains the diversity of life on our planet. The evidence also indicates humans evolved/descended from other animals. This conclusion is based on the same methodology that brought you the astoundingly complex computer system that we are now using to communicate. It has also brought you much of what you see when you look up and around. And it's brought you much of what you use in your everyday life.
There is no alternative scientific theory to evolution, regardless of what the ID proponents might claim. Ask yourself if ID thinking could have produced all that surrounds you. After all, if something is proclaimed to be a product of ID, why should any further inquiry about it be pursued? By definition it means it is beyond our comprehension. If the ID'er did it, we can never understand it. So ID is a dead end. If ID thinking had proclaimed that we can never understand disease before scientists attempted to do so, where would we be now?
One can ignore the evidence for evolution or try to nitpick it death in an attempt to discredit it, but there is no other scientific explanation. On the one hand there is evidence accumulated over 150+ years and the efforts and lifetimes' work of tens of thousands of scientists. On the other hand there is .... nothing.... other than a religious and faith based and motivated desire to discredit evolution because some think it is rude to their religious beliefs.
just to be scrupulous: the oft-stated fact "science is unmoved by popularity" applies here as much as it does on the other polls indicating the opposite popkult fad.
I am freeper, who is strongly pro-evolution; while questions about the theory still remain, its amazes me that some can be so critical of it, while blindly accepting creationism, which has many flaws.
Most importantly, evolution does not really undermine the teachings of Christ, nor does it prove the absence of god. It shows our insignificance, while also demonstrating that there's no limit to what we can become, thanks to god's gift of life.
Ironically enough it demonstrates some of god's greatest achievements are on a scale which we can not see, nor fully comprehend. In many ways it’s a test of faith.
I think yours is an arrogant judgment that cheats kids out of the same exploring process you went through to arrive at your decision. Far more interesting would be to let kids be exposed to the debate, instead of just limiting them to one side. THIS debate is part of the environment kids need to be exposed to to assess any of the proof or lack thereof in context. Teach the controversy, that's all.
It's a weak lack of confidence to fear kids hearing any views that are opposed to your POV. One that I disrespect no matter who does it.
In science there is no controversy! The "controversy" you want to teach is a product of religious believers attempting to force their beliefs into the field of science.
Your "controversy" is not appropriate in science classes; teach it in religious venues.
Indubitably - as it was, as it shall always be, and we can look to the ancients to see where to place the blame:
What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them? Plato, 4th Century BC
Further, it seems as if some folk's interest in the present subject is directed primarily towards gathering totemic post numbers and then bragging about it afterwards - hopelessly boorish behavior which is nothing if not a further indication of the collapse of civilised society.
Prime!
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.