32 thoughts on “Supermajority of Republicans are creationists.”

  1. Wow. Double wow.

    I don’t see a necessary contradiction between an evolutionary and creationist view. On the one side there is the data and evidence demonstrating a LONG time frame. On the other there is still the question of what started the ball rolling several billion years ago.

    It’s impossible though to reconcile the million year evolution of our species and the 10,000 year time frame. Gallup did a fine job of narrowly defining the question to remove ambiguity in the responses. Hello, flat earth.

  2. Further to your comments, JPTERP, I wish there’d been some sort of follow-up with people whose responses are conflicting. I believe that a sizable percentage of people may “believe” in creation the same way that they “believe” in Santa Claus. It’s a thing that they were raised with that makes them feel warm and fuzzy. (The same effect can be observed in the people who claim, in polls, that they attend church every week. Were they all telling the truth, churches would be overflowing, rather than declining in attendance year after year.) These people will also report that they believe in evolution. They’re holding two opposing thoughts at the same time. Or are they?

    Seems to me that they’re simply held in different parts of the psyche. There’s the fuzzy part of the mind where it’s OK to believe in the supernatural, and there’s the rational part that recognizes that, really, there’s no such thing as the supernatural, or else we’d just call it “natural.” It’s with this in mind that I suspect that we can safely chalk up that 24% as supporters of evolution.

  3. Polls of this sort DO need to be careful not to lump in theistic evolutionists with creationists. On some continuous scale of creationism they might qualify as being on the far end of it, but as far as evolution goes, theists can ascribe to its findings fully without actually rejecting any science. However, when a huge number of people just flat out think the world isn’t very old, it’s hard to find much space to fit a significant number of those folks into the picture…

  4. Nobody can prove how life came to be as we know it. And as a practical matter, that inability does not make a great deal of difference.

    With respect to science, what matters in our daily lives is how we apply science. The theories of Creationism and Evolution remain largely in the realm of pure science. When a doctor operates on you, for example, the success of the surgery does not depend on whether God made you from soil or you evolved from a monkey.

    With respect to ethics, our religious beliefs do make a difference. Most people in this nation are Christians, and some of them take the Bible more literally than others. People have the right to believe what they want about the Bible. In a nation that believes in the freedom of religious belief, we all have the right to believe things that others think irrational. In fact, the freedom to hold and practice our own beliefs provided the core motivation of our forebears in forming a democracy.

    The debate over Creationism and Evolution primarily has significance because the advocates of each particular theory want their theory taught in the public schools. In fact, the proponents of the Theory of Evolution demand that their pet theory be taught exclusively. Thus we have the government teaching our children and deciding what is science and what is religion. As a result we expect our leaders to be experts in Law, education, science, and religion. Most of all, we expect our leaders to be impartially just. That is I wonder at the mental acuity of those who believe government should be in the business of education.

  5. With respect to science, what matters in our daily lives is how we apply science. The theories of Creationism and Evolution remain largely in the realm of pure science. When a doctor operates on you, for example, the success of the surgery does not depend on whether God made you from soil or you evolved from a monkey.

    That’s not at all true. Do you want a doctor who will give you antibiotics, or one who decries them as a violation of Christianist doctrine?

  6. “Nobody can prove how life came to be as we know it.”

    I don’t know what this statement means really. What we CAN do is look at the evidence, and reason out what happened in the past. We do this all the time without complaint. It’s only when it comes to evolution or anything else that that suddenly folks cry foul and start talking about how we can’t know anything.

    “With respect to ethics, our religious beliefs do make a difference. Most people in this nation are Christians, and some of them take the Bible more literally than others. People have the right to believe what they want about the Bible. In a nation that believes in the freedom of religious belief, we all have the right to believe things that others think irrational.”

    Sure, and I don’t think you’ll find anyone here that disagrees with that right. However, that right is NOT a right against facing criticism, or a right to have anyone else or the government accept that your beliefs are well demonstrated or supported by the evidence.

    “The debate over Creationism and Evolution primarily has significance because the advocates of each particular theory want their theory taught in the public schools.”

    No, we want science taught in science class, rather than religious beliefs.

    “In fact, the proponents of the Theory of Evolution demand that their pet theory be taught exclusively.”

    We want science class to deal with science, yes: conclusions and arguments supported by evidence.

    “Thus we have the government teaching our children and deciding what is science and what is religion.”

    Not at all. All they have to understand is what science is. Religious beliefs do not require government support, and since they are non-empirical, there is no way to resolve whose beliefs are the “correct” ones in any case. That’s why we stick to science: evidence-based study is the best guide to staying objective.

  7. Nobody can prove how life came to be as we know it.

    I don’t know what this statement means really. What we CAN do is look at the evidence, and reason out what happened in the past. We do this all the time without complaint. It’s only when it comes to evolution or anything else that that suddenly folks cry foul and start talking about how we can’t know anything.

    Indeed, this is the sort of logic that I hope would prevent somebody from serving on a jury:

    “Well, we have 100 witnesses who saw the victim and the accused enter the tiny room together. And the same 100 witnesses testify that the accused then exited the room, covered in blood and carrying a knife. And we know that the victim was stabbed to death, and was found dead just a minute after the accused left the room. But, hey, nobody can prove that the accused did it.”

  8. Nobody can prove the shape of the Earth. And as a practical matter, that inability does not make a great deal of difference.

    With respect to science, what matters in our daily lives is how we apply science. The theories of Round and Flat earthism remain largely in the realm of pure science. When an ambulance drives you to the hospital, for example, the success of the trip does not depend on whether the Earth sits on the back of giant turtles, or why people in Australia would somehow fall upwards.

    With respect to ethics, our religious beliefs do make a difference. Most people in this nation are Christians, and some of them take the Bible more literally than others. People have the right to believe what they want about the Bible. In a nation that believes in the freedom of religious belief, we all have the right to believe things that others think irrational. In fact, the freedom to hold and practice our own beliefs provided the core motivation of our forebears in forming a democracy.

    The debate over Flat and Round earthism primarily has significance because the advocates of each particular theory want their theory taught in the public schools. In fact, the proponents of the Theory of a Round Earth demand that their pet theory be taught exclusively. Thus we have the government teaching our children and deciding what is science and what is religion. As a result we expect our leaders to be experts in Law, education, science, and religion. Most of all, we expect our leaders to be impartially just. That is I wonder at the mental acuity of those who believe government should be in the business of education.

  9. Nobody can prove that midgets are small because of a genetic problem, rather than because the Flying Spaghetti Monster has touched them with His Noodly Appendage. And as a practical matter, that inability does not make a great deal of difference.

    With respect to science, what matters in our daily lives is how we apply science. These theories of height remain largely in the realm of pure science. When an ambulance drives you to the hospital, for example, the success of the trip does not depend on whether His Noodly Appendage is urging you on, or it’s an internal combustion engine.

    With respect to ethics, our religious beliefs do make a difference. Many people in this nation are Pastafarians, and some of them take The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more literally than others. People have the right to believe what they want about The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In a nation that believes in the freedom of religious belief, we all have the right to believe things that others think irrational. In fact, the freedom to hold and practice our own beliefs provided the core motivation of our forebears in forming a democracy.

    The debate over the cause of dwarfism primarily has significance because the advocates of each particular theory want their theory taught in the public schools. In fact, the proponents of the genetic explanation demand that their pet theory be taught exclusively. Thus we have the government teaching our children and deciding what is science and what is religion. As a result we expect our leaders to be experts in Law, education, science, and religion. Most of all, we expect our leaders to be impartially just. That is I wonder at the mental acuity of those who believe government should be in the business of education.

  10. While a common layman can freely point out how dumb those who believe in creation are, I know enough people who hold creation to be true in one form or another that can make those same laymen look rather unintelligent themselves. As JPTERP pointed out, there are varying views of creationism; if one (i.e., a “church going Christian”) adds theism to the evolutionary theory, does that make him as big of a boob as one who believes that God created the earth in six literal days? I’d like to ask Antony Flew.

  11. tom, of course not: there’s nothing boobish at all about adding theism to rational knowledge (as long as you don’t confuse things).

  12. Rather than fully consider the issues involved, it strikes me that some of you are too busy trying to ridicule others. So please pardon me, but I think it would helpful you stopped laughing long enough to think.

    When we put the government in the business of deciding what is religion and what is science, we vastly complicate interpretation of the first amendment. What is science? I suspect each of you has his own definition. What separates science from religion? Is one is based upon evidence and the other is based upon belief? What constitutes evidence? When does evidence become conjecture? When does evidence become hope? When does your faith in a belief become part of your religious belief?

    There many ideas floated about that we call science. We gather data, add details, formed a hypothesis, and then we develop tests that allow us to either verify or refute this hypothesis. If we can test this hypothesis and verify it reproducibly, then we have something we show our colleagues.

    No one has yet developed a technique to test the Theory of Evolution. This theory can neither be proven or refuted. Instead, we have forensic data that some people BELIEVE strongly suggests that it might true. We have data, but we have no observational data. No one has seen molecules in the “primordial soup” slowly evolve over millions of years into a complex multi-celled creature. Nonetheless, many accept the Theory of Evolution as a proven fact. Why? If some of you choose to believe the Theory of Evolution, I accept that you have the right to believe the theory. I understand that that is what you have been taught since you were children. However, such an unshakable faith I consider religion.

  13. “Rather than fully consider the issues involved”

    Oh but we have. That’s precisely why we think your arguments are so poor.

    Science and evidence are just not as hard to define as you allege. It consists of taking TESTIBLE claims and subjecting them to tests done with the sort of physical evidence we can all agree exists without having to have certain religious beliefs.

    Your belief that “observational” data, by which you seem to litterally mean “seeing something with eyeballs” is the be all and end all of science is simply wrong. EVIDENCE is the be all and end all of science: a sort of put up or shut up approach to proving things.

    And the evidence for evolution is not such suppositional as you imply: it is extremely strong, convergent, and compelling. You can of course _allege_ that it is not and that we just think this on faith, but your bare allegation means nothing more than sour grapes. Either actually grapple and argue with the evidence or give it up.

    Simply whining that it’s all belief gets you nowhere. Anyone could whine like that whether legitimately or no. The proof is in the pudding.

  14. No one has yet developed a technique to test the Theory of Evolution. This theory can neither be proven or refuted. Instead, we have forensic data that some people BELIEVE strongly suggests that it might true. We have data, but we have no observational data.

    You’re absolutely wrong about that, Tom. Evolution has been observed time and time and time again in bacteria, fruit flies, and birds, among many other creatures. It has been tested. It has been observed. As Scientific American writes:

    The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not–and does not–find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

    There is no measure by which your assertion is correct, Tom.

  15. No, Tom, sorry. You’re really not worth a complete pause for a thorough thinking. You deserve the ridicule you get. Dress it up however you like – but your brand of Know Nothingness is worth little more than ridicule. In fact, the sooner that you and those like you are dismissed as irrelevant to intelligent conversation, the better off we all are.

  16. We have fossils, and we think we can date them. We also have DNA which provides the basis for the theory of how we pass on our genetic traits. However, the discovery of DNA does not somehow prove the Theory of Evolution. Instead, this discovery suggested a possible mechanism; it also poses a stumbling block.

    The vast majority of mutations are harmful. Only a few prove useful. Without the hand of God, even with millions of years, how did, for example, the flagellum evolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)? Then consider more complex structures. How do you overcome all tiny intermediate steps where mutations would have proven either useless or harmful?

    Consider a mouse trap, a simple device. Without all of its parts, a mouse trap is useless. Take one piece from a mousetrap, and you cannot catch a mouse? How would a mouse trap evolve? How would the pieces evolve separately to become such an intricate little trap? Do you know? Yet nature provides many examples of mouse traps.

  17. Citizen Tom, your comments reveal a lack of knowledge of genetics and evolutionary theory.

    However, the discovery of DNA does not somehow prove the Theory of Evolution.

    Straw-man argument. No one made this claim.

    The vast majority of mutations are harmful. Only a few prove useful. [...] How do you overcome all tiny intermediate steps where mutations would have proven either useless or harmful?

    Incorrect. The vast majority of mutations have no effect on the individual, either because they occur on the third base pair of a codon (which is a site of redundancy) or in the long stretches of non-protein-coding DNA.

    The vast majority of mutations not being useful is balanced by the vast number of individuals within a population of a species. Consider the exponential growth of a bacterial colony.

    Take one piece from a mousetrap, and you cannot catch a mouse? How would a mouse trap evolve? How would the pieces evolve separately to become such an intricate little trap?

    You are in the unenviable position of trying to prove that “mousetraps” cannot evolve. Good luck with that — it presupposes infinite knowledge.

    Science is in the position of observing many different biological forms that naturally form a progression. To take a common example, our eyes are complex structures, but we can observe light-sensing structures in other creatures that are at various stages of the evolutionary history of the eye. Starfish have mere light-sensitive patches. Some creatures have the patch recessed in a bowl shape, giving the individual a sense of directionality of the light. Some have a clear covering over the bowl, and fluid inside — another small step. And some creatures have a crystalline membrane inside the bowl, serving to focus the light slightly better. Voila!

    This is not some wild fantasy of imaginative biology — this is a series of observations, with a smattering of the same sense of continuity that allows you to infer from a series of photographs that a man was once a child.

  18. Tim McCormack,

    “Incorrect. The vast majority of mutations have no effect on the individual, either because they occur on the third base pair of a codon (which is a site of redundancy) or in the long stretches of non-protein-coding DNA.”

    No argument, however, I was referring to observable mutations.

    “You are in the unenviable position of trying to prove that “mousetraps” cannot evolve. Good luck with that — it presupposes infinite knowledge.”

    Why would I want to prove a mousetrap cannot evolve? That was not the point. If you believe mouse traps do evolve, the burden of proof belongs to you.

    What evidence we have for evolution is highly suggestive. For example, as you noted, the diversity of life offers us a wide selection of organs in various stages of development. Even the growth of a human being from conception to maturity seems an evolution. Yet even when put altogether, the clues we have do not constitute definitive proof. That is because we do not know what we do not know. That is why I make the distinction between the Theory of Evolution as an untested hypothesis and a religiously held belief.

  19. I think it is short-sighted of people to ridicule those who apply theological teachings to science, and make sense out of it all. There are so many “what if’s” about the origin of the universe that to rule out the possibility of a higher power/deity in some way, shape, or form would be wrong.

    I personally believe in what I call “creationist evolution”, that God created the universe, but that it wasn’t done in 6 “24 hour days”.

    The “six days, rest on the seventh” story of creation is taught as a lesson in The Bible so people, in their inability to fully understand the universe and it’s origins, can comprehend it. In fact, much of The Bible is exactly that…lessons that are told through stories so that humans can understand.

    The problem is that some people have misinterpreted the Bible, or taken it’s words literally from beginning to end.

    I could very well be wrong, though. Maybe it was six literal days. Or maybe there is no God at all. However, I’ve seen enough things in my lifetime to believe that there is a God.

    However, to disrespect the beliefs of others by comparing one’s belief in God to believing Santa Claus is awful foolish, prejudiced, and secular-elitist, in my opinion.

    However, this is not one of those issues where there is a “right” and a “wrong”…just beliefs. So everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

  20. Ah tom, you know this isn’t going to end well…

    “We have fossils, and we think we can date them.”

    We have checked virtually every aspect of how we might date them: have multiple independent methods that all confirm the same details, timeline, and so forth. At this point, the burden lies HEAVILY on skeptics like you to explain away all that evidence, not singly, but all at once, explaining also how if all these different methods are in error, that they could all still converge on the same conclusions. Error is uncorrelated: cannot coordinate.

    “However, the discovery of DNA does not somehow prove the Theory of Evolution.”

    Well actually, it provided a second major independent check on the basic element of evolution common descent, and confirmed the record we were seeing from fossils and morphology almost perfectly. In addition, the way DNA works provides an amazing record of HOW things evolved that has lead to countless new discoveries and insights into the evolution of various features and traits.

    “The vast majority of mutations are harmful. Only a few prove useful.”

    All mutation needs to do is create variation in traits. Mutations are not useful or harmful in the abstract: it is natural selection that selects what works best from this pool of variation. It’s been clearly established both molecularly and in populations that genetic mutation provides far MORE than enough variation to explain even the fastest transitions in life’s history. You point is, I’m afraid, already well conceded.

    “Without the hand of God”

    Hands of God are not explanations. They are simply saying “it got done, but I have no idea how.” In other words, explaining nothing at all.

    “even with millions of years”

    Bzzzt, no. Flagellum are some of the oldest structures around. Every modern one has had up to or over a billion years of development behind it, as have most nearly ubiquitous cell structures.

    “how did, for example, the flagellum evolve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)?”

    This might come as a shock to someone like you who seems to believe that flagellum are some sort of discrete singular object, but in fact there are many different types of flagella, all with different components and structures, some missing parts that others have, some with double parts, and so on.

    “Then consider more complex structures. How do you overcome all tiny intermediate steps where mutations would have proven either useless or harmful?”

    Which ones? It’s not enough to claim that there were steps that could not have evolved gradually. You have to prove that it is so. At this point, there is no reason to think it is so.

    “Consider a mouse trap, a simple device. Without all of its parts, a mouse trap is useless.”

    This analogy, in addition to being silly and not a very good match to biological structures, isn’t even very honest. REALLY: a spring is “useless”? Even a block of wood is “useless”? Totally? Come on: clearly that is not so.

    “Take one piece from a mousetrap, and you cannot catch a mouse?”

    Actually, there is a very ingenious little essay on precisely this:
    http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

    Illustrating how, in fact, you COULD evolve a mousetrap by changing just one feature at a time. Certainly, the first version is not very good at catching mice compared to a mousetrap, but that’s sort of the point: evolution improves things. It’s also worth remembering that predator and prey evolve together: the simple designs that might not be very effective against modern problems were once, in fact, effective against what were at the time simpler problems. Problems and solutions got more complex together, over time.

    “Yet nature provides many examples of mouse traps.”

    None that anyone has shown to be IC though, which is the whole rub.

    So, in short, your claim that evolution is just an untested hypothesis again falls flat on its face.

    Every which way that we CAN test to see whether evolution is correct, we’ve tried, and evolution has passed with flying colors. We’ll keep testing, because that’s what science does. And you’ll keep making excuses and trying to ignore all the evidence and misrepresent the issues, because that’s all you can do.

  21. Phil, it’s not that we rule out the idea of God period: we rule instead rule out unexplained and untestable explanations in the PROCESS of doing science. And quite legitimately so I think.

  22. Plunge – Actually this is going quite well. When you take the other side of the discussion seriously, an exchange of information can actually occur.

    All, what some people tend to gloss over is the fact that Charles Darwin got a fair hearing from a predominantly Christian audience that believed in Creationism. In another time and place, it might have been different. Darwin might have been silenced. That is not to say that everyone believed or liked what Darwin said. Of course, some people got mad at him. Nonetheless, Darwin had the opportunity to have his say.

    Plunge – Without Michael Behe’s mouse trap challenge, there is no ingenious refutation (Thanks for that. I had not seen that one.). To learn, to truly understand, we have to respect those who disagree with and challenge us. We also have to accept the limitations of our own knowledge gracefully.

    With respect to scientific theory, the burden of proof is always on theory. Even the mouse trap challenge was a fair test. A theory has to withstand every test, and a theory will be tested repeatedly. Thus Newton’s Laws have been revised to accommodate the challenges posed by new data.

    All – That is why since Darwin’s time so many have so much time filling in the details on the Theory of Evolution. Yet while the basic theory appears sound, we still have no way of fundamentally testing the theory. What we have is a pattern of evidence and a model that fits that evidence. Some people will always challenge such, and in the market place of ideas, what is wrong with that?

    Does science advance because we ridicule the beliefs of others? No, science advances some people insist upon knowing the truth. When we allow lawyers to classify some beliefs as scientific and others as religious, what are we doing? It seems to me we are silencing the opposition, forcing it underground. How can that truly be a good thing?

    Consider what it means when we say: “the Hand of God must have been involved.” All it means it that we do not understand how He did it. Yet modern science started because Christians also believe God created an orderly universe. What Christian scientists do is try to understand God’s rules.

  23. “Yet while the basic theory appears sound, we still have no way of fundamentally testing the theory.”

    But this is simply wrong Tom: in science, there IS no more fundamental test than comparing something up against the evidence.

    The problem with the challenges, particularly from creationists, is that they are not honest challenges. Behe’s portrayal of flagellum is filled with falsehood. His mousetrap analogy is flawed, and appeals to things in laypeople that are highly misleading (it misled you, for instance, and it is especially misleading in the implication that we should look at the issue as one of taking a part away from a complex system, or in assuming that all parts all exist for only a certain function instead of potentially being exapted). Most of the claims about how things are dated in science are misrepresentative of exactly how robust that evidence is. And so on. Tactics like that DO deserve ridicule. And they DON’T deserve to be presented as “the other side” because they refuse to play by the same rules of honest evidence and testibility that science requires.

    If the opposition does have something to contribute, then it must play by the rules: vet their work against peer review, defend it and actually respond to criticism as opposed to dodging it. Once it is well established THEN perhaps we can discuss whether it belongs in science class.

  24. Without Michael Behe’s mouse trap challenge, there is no ingenious refutation

    Science is perfectly capable of challenging itself. That is what the peer-review process is all about. This is why new evidence can overturn old theories.

    Yet while the basic theory appears sound, we still have no way of fundamentally testing the theory.

    No, in science there is no final proof, there is no fundamental test. Our senses can always be deceived, this could all be the Matrix — there is no way to make a proof on the basis of observation, which is all science has.

    Then why do scientists act as if common descent and evolution by natural selection have been proven? I will tell you why: Occam’s Razor.

    “Evolution”, the basic change in form over time, is a fact. It is an observation. “Evolution by natural selection” is a theory, but also a law. It is a law because it is a process that will always occur in systems that support reproduction and heritable mutation. It is a theory because we’re saying it is specifically the cause of the biological and paleontological evidence.

    The reason we say that the theory is correct is that it matches the evidence, and there are no other theories of sufficient explanatory power. (Remember, a theory is a collection of well-tested hypotheses that together have explanatory and predictive power.)

    This is 6th grade stuff. Get with the program.

  25. Plunge – I do not believe people on either side of this debate is being dishonest. What I believe is that the problem is quite complex. I also believe people want to believe what their parents and teachers taught them, that we each have become emotionally invested in certain ideas, and we get angry when someone challenges those ideas. Fortunately, I no longer see how I benefit by attacking someone for disagreeing me on this issue.

    Let me illustrate. When I was in graduate school, we had a speaker, an engineer, give us a lecture on Creationism. He tried to show that because of entropy evolution is impossible. Just before this guy arrived, we had just finished a class in thermodynamics. So we were primed. To my regret, I took the lead in ridiculing our guest lecturer.

    I don’t read minds. I had no reason to believe this creationist was a bad fellow. What I did know is that he overestimated his knowledge of a complex subject. Thus he thought himself competent to teach us what he believed to be true.

    I did not think to put myself in that man’s shoes. Instead, I reveled in my supposed superiority over a creationist. Yet from God’s perspective, I have little doubt which of us behaved more like the Good Samaritan.

    The Theory of Evolution proposes that the life on this planet evolved from complex molecules. Forensic evidence suggests that might be the case. However, the theory which the evidence supposedly supports is merely a very reasonable supposition. We do not have actual experience with evolution. We have no way to perform the fundamental test, replicating an evolution. We can observe what appears to be something similar to evolution in the breeding of plants and animals, but the changes we can produce are arguably small relative the scale of change required to support the theory.

    Consider Waldo’s courtroom drama:

    “Indeed, this is the sort of logic that I hope would prevent somebody from serving on a jury:

    “Well, we have 100 witnesses who saw the victim and the accused enter the tiny room together. And the same 100 witnesses testify that the accused then exited the room, covered in blood and carrying a knife. And we know that the victim was stabbed to death, and was found dead just a minute after the accused left the room. But, hey, nobody can prove that the accused did it.””

    Because we can reproduce a stabbing (Any volunteers?), because we have people who know from experience what happens when someone is stabbed, the forensic evidence is far more meaningful. That is why there is no reasonable doubt the accused did it.

  26. We do not have actual experience with evolution…. We can observe what appears to be something similar to evolution in the breeding of plants and animals, but the changes we can produce are arguably small relative the scale of change required to support the theory.

    You can keep saying these two things, but that will never make either of them true.

    However, this whole thread really misses the point, and that is that evolution has predictive power. Intelligent Design doesn’t. If a scientific theory does not have any predictive power, it’s not a scientific theory. ID cannot be replicated, and predicts nothing about the past.

    Science isn’t in the business of discovering the truth. Science is in the business of making predictions which fit the data and allow us to make new predictions. Intelligent design is religion, and religion is about truth and all that, but it also has no place in the science classroom.

  27. The Theory of Evolution proposes that the life on this planet evolved from complex molecules.

    Actually, that’s a different theory, not evolution by natural selection. You’re talking about something called abiogenesis which is a far weaker theory. It is a much better example of competing and incomplete scientific theories.

  28. When Michael Behe claims that flagellum are IC structures that cannot do without a single piece and still provide some adaptive function, he’s being dishonest. And so on. I’ve encountered many many creationist arguments, and I’ve found the vast majority to be dishonest: many are clearly not even simple mistakes. Even those that have been refuted over and over never seem to go away.

    Again, reproducing a historical event is not what is required to very strongly confirm it. All that ultimately matters is the strength the evidence, and in the case of evolution, the evidence is pretty much the strongest you can get: far stronger than any single eye-witness to anything could ever be, even.

Comments are closed.