Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#102
#102
lawgator1 said:
If that is true, and the people answering that they are Republican are the less ideological and/or Evangelical than the ones who have left. So the result should be the opposite since the people identifying as Republican would skew to more moderate.

And if that's the case and your theory is true, then the GOP's descent into full blown 19th century mores is even more dramatic and out of touch with fact, science, and reality, than this report suggests.
Click to expand...

Comprehend much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#103
#103
It's because science is realizing that evolution is one of the biggest lies ever created. Another 20 years and evolution will be an afterthought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#104
#104
BigOrangeTrain said:
It's because science is realizing that evolution is one of the biggest lies ever created. Another 20 years and evolution will be an afterthought.
Click to expand...

Give evolution another 100 years when those that think that way will finally die off. Then someone else comes along & starts the theory that we all came from the common dirt worm but for some reason some didn't all evolve & science is trying to figure out why. For those that are really serious about the subject here, there was sarcasm applied in the above statement. And no common dirt worms were injured in the process.
 
Last edited:
#107
#107
FLVOL_79 said:
.00067% of the population is not much of a sampling size. I'd give the poll more legitimacy if it had a larger sample size. That is my real beef. The numbers would be skewed even further for Republicans if blacks weren't enslaved by the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

Assuming they followed correct sampling processes (randomized) then this is a sufficient number.

Put another way, if this poll is skewed due to sample size than ALL polls are skewed due to sample size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic and Danl
#108
#108
OldandStillaVol said:
The statistical issue with the poll is not the sample size but rather the non-random way in which the sample is being drawn via telephone. Survey sampling experts refer to this as a "convenience sample". The percentages observed from a convenience sample may or may not be representative of the entire population hence trying to generalize the findings to the political party population are not valid.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the methodology but assumed it was a random sampling procedure.

The use of telephone doesn't mean it can't be random or that it is by definition a convenience sample. I guess it can be argued that some in the population were omitted from the random selection due to not having a working phone number but telephone surveys have long been considered okay for random sampling - it's still the majority method for polling.

Given they've calculated a margin of error suggests they believe they used random sampling technique.

Put another way - if this doesn't count as random than no polling done can count as random and therefore no polling is ever representative of the larger population from which the sample was drawn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#109
#109
BigOrangeTrain said:
It's because science is realizing that evolution is one of the biggest lies ever created. Another 20 years and evolution will be an afterthought.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, Darwinian evolution has withstood 155 years of scientific scrutiny - would you elaborate on what's going to happen in the next 20 years to change that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#110
#110
Septic said:
Just out of curiosity, Darwinian evolution has withstood 155 years of scientific scrutiny - would you elaborate on what's going to happen in the next 20 years to change that?
Click to expand...

Darwinian evolution has survived 155 years of scientific "scrutiny" within this process:

It's the only natural explanation for the variety of life. Interpret the evidence within the paradigm that a only a natural explanation may be true. The evidence points to Darwinian evolution as the best explanation for the evidence we have.

Edit: Addendum to last sentence...

The evidence proves evolution as the answer, as true scientifically as the existence of gravity, thus it must never be questioned. (Is that what you meant by "scrutiny"? Working hard to prove it, as opposed to question it?)
 
Last edited:
#111
#111
A few Richard Dawkins quotes that show this "scrutiny" in action (all emphasis mine):

"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity.
Click to expand...

Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.
Click to expand...
 
#113
#113
Septic said:
Just out of curiosity, Darwinian evolution has withstood 155 years of scientific scrutiny - would you elaborate on what's going to happen in the next 20 years to change that?
Click to expand...


I sincerely doubt you are going to get much of a response to that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#115
#115
Orange_Crush said:
Darwinian evolution has survived 155 years of scientific "scrutiny" within this process:

It's the only natural explanation for the variety of life. Interpret the evidence within the paradigm that a only a natural explanation may be true. The evidence points to Darwinian evolution as the best explanation for the evidence we have.

Edit: Addendum to last sentence...

The evidence proves evolution as the answer, as true scientifically as the existence of gravity, thus it must never be questioned. (Is that what you meant by "scrutiny"? Working hard to prove it, as opposed to question it?)
Click to expand...

This is true, but let's not pretend they are accepting this as the only possible natural explanation.

If another natural explanation comes forth, it will receive the same "scrutiny" as you have put it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#117
#117
Orange_Crush said:
A few Richard Dawkins quotes that show this "scrutiny" in action (all emphasis mine):
Click to expand...

I don't see how quoting Dawkins on evolution gives clout to your argument that there isn't enough scientific scrutiny to separate evolution from fact and theory.

I don't think it provides sufficient explanation for our origins, but there's certainly substantial evidence to prove that progression of life on Earth was evolutionary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#118
#118
DinkinFlicka said:
I don't see how quoting Dawkins on evolution gives clout to your argument that there isn't enough scientific scrutiny to separate evolution from fact and theory.

I don't think it provides sufficient explanation for our origins, but there's certainly substantial evidence to prove that progression of life on Earth was evolutionary.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, species evolve and adapt but I do not believe one species evolves into another. Say Ape to Human.
 
#119
#119
DinkinFlicka said:
I don't see how quoting Dawkins on evolution gives clout to your argument that there isn't enough scientific scrutiny to separate evolution from fact and theory.

I don't think it provides sufficient explanation for our origins, but there's certainly substantial evidence to prove that progression of life on Earth was evolutionary.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, until further notice evolution is fact. The debate centers on the details and specific mechanisms involved. That it did happen in some form is undisputed in the scientific community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#120
#120
DinkinFlicka said:
I don't see how quoting Dawkins on evolution gives clout to your argument that there isn't enough scientific scrutiny to separate evolution from fact and theory.
Click to expand...

When science equates the truth of Darwinian evolution with the truth of observed orbit, it undermines both the objectivity of those performing the scientific discipline, and also undermines the idea that these scientists will ever try to falsify the theory.

DinkinFlicka said:
I don't think it provides sufficient explanation for our origins, but there's certainly substantial evidence to prove that progression of life on Earth was evolutionary.
Click to expand...

Let's not equivocate. Evolution, defined as change over time, has been observed and is a scientific fact. Darwinian Evolution, as a grand theory that all life has evolved from a single life form, is not established. It is the best guess a naturalistic scientific community has come up with, thus the evidence is interpreted accordingly. Furthermore, the statement that it has been "unguided" is untestable and unscientific.

Tell me what "proves" that all evolution was unguided. Tell me what "proves" that all like has evolved from a single form-- thus raising it from theory to unquestionable "fact", on par with the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Tell me how Darwinian, "goo-to-you" evolution is "proven" as scientific "fact". Or... Are they equivocating?

My greater point was that, elevated to unquestionable scientific "fact", evolution will not be questioned in the mainstream scientific community. There may be questions of "how", but never of "if". The supposed "scrutiny" seems a bit lax to me.
 
#121
#121
Orange_Crush said:
When science equates the truth of Darwinian evolution with the truth of observed orbit, it undermines both the objectivity of those performing the scientific discipline, and also undermines the idea that these scientists will ever try to falsify the theory.



Let's not equivocate. Evolution, defined as change over time, has been observed and is a scientific fact. Darwinian Evolution, as a grand theory that all life has evolved from a single life form, is not established. It is the best guess a naturalistic scientific community has come up with, thus the evidence is interpreted accordingly. Furthermore, the statement that it has been "unguided" is untestable and unscientific.

Tell me what "proves" that all evolution was unguided. Tell me what "proves" that all like has evolved from a single form-- thus raising it from theory to unquestionable "fact", on par with the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Tell me how Darwinian, "goo-to-you" evolution is "proven" as scientific "fact". Or... Are they equivocating?

My greater point was that, elevated to unquestionable scientific "fact", evolution will not be questioned in the mainstream scientific community. There may be questions of "how", but never of "if". The supposed "scrutiny" seems a bit lax to me.
Click to expand...

False. Go find that rabbit fossil in Pre-Cambrian rocks and the "if" questions will flow in abundance. Come up with another theory that shows clear reproducible results of speciation and the "if" questions will flow.

After 155 years of independent testing and investigation, I fail to see how the "if" scrutiny has been lax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#122
#122
Orange_Crush said:
My greater point was that, elevated to unquestionable scientific "fact", evolution will not be questioned in the mainstream scientific community. There may be questions of "how", but never of "if". The supposed "scrutiny" seems a bit lax to me.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
False. Go find that rabbit fossil in Pre-Cambrian rocks and the "if" questions will flow in abundance. Come up with another theory that shows clear reproducible results of speciation and the "if" questions will flow.

After 155 years of independent testing and investigation, I fail to see how the "if" scrutiny has been lax.
Click to expand...

Notice what I said. I see more "if" than "how".

This was shown pretty clearly by the great debates between neo-Darwinists and the punctuated equilibrium school. The PE folks did a great job of listing all of the reasons that neoDarwinians can't be right. The neo-Darwinians did a great job pointing out why PE can't be right.

No one questioned whether goo-to-you evolution actually happened.

There has been great liberty in discussing the "how" questions.

But it's all good. I'll agree to disagree.
 
#123
#123
hog88 said:
I agree with this, species evolve and adapt but I do not believe one species evolves into another. Say Ape to Human.
Click to expand...

We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved with them. We both share a common ancestor, we're cousins - not brothers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#124
#124
rjd970 said:
False. Go find that rabbit fossil in Pre-Cambrian rocks and the "if" questions will flow in abundance. Come up with another theory that shows clear reproducible results of speciation and the "if" questions will flow.

After 155 years of independent testing and investigation, I fail to see how the "if" scrutiny has been lax.
Click to expand...

I agree in general but science often is dogmatic and the general inclination is to dismiss "anomalies" until there are simply too many to ignore.

Scientific research funding and publication reinforces the status quo and tinkering around the edges rather than radical discovery and new theory development.

As an anecdotal case in point, a scientist here made an interesting discovery and subsequent hypothesis about the cause/control of arrhythmia but it goes against the "consensus" and the operating theory of his colleagues in his department. He is an outcast for it (well for that and other things) and grants are difficult because reviewers by into the status quo theory.
 
#125
#125
Orange_Crush said:
Furthermore, the statement that it has been "unguided" is untestable and unscientific.
Click to expand...

Explain...."guided" by whom or what?

Completely random gene mutation ordered by natural selection to provide advantageous reproduction explains how the theory could work without being "guided" by anything.

And one can test mathematically how completely unguided sampling can produce ordered results.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top