Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[MercyPercy]

lulz...

Sorry to tell you but there isn't a near consensus. How could you possibly know this? To actually know this you would have to conduct a study with every scientist within the scientific community and find out where they stand. You have not done that. So the best you can say is there is a consensus that believes in evolution.

Evolution is very easy to understand. I guess the many problems associated with it are too difficult for you to understand. I have come to believe that evolution is false through my study of physics and molecular biology.

Lulz.

 

[rjd970]

Sorry to tell you but there isn't a near consensus. How could you possibly know this? To actually know this you would have to conduct a study with every scientist within the scientific community and find out where they stand. You have not done that. So the best you can say is there is a consensus that believes in evolution.

Evolution is very easy to understand. I guess the many problems associated with it are too difficult for you to understand. I have come to believe that evolution is false through my study of physics and molecular biology.

Wrong. A statistical sampling of a larger population is enough, mathematically correct, and absolutely valid.

 

[Roustabout]

So just out of curiosity, what percentage of scientists included in this survey in your opinion might fall into the category you outlined through anecdotal evidence?

No way to know. I did actually study opinion polling in college, and the devil is in how the questions are phrased. And from that I can say that the questioning is poor in this case.

Nonetheless, it doesn't matter to me if the results are 100%. I would agree that most if not the majority in the science world are postmodernist and hold naturalistic explanations for our origins.

As I stated, based just on the vagueness of the question, I would answer yes. And keep in mind that I also would not necessarily say that God is "guiding" the process. There are too many ways this can be miscontrued to answer, yes. When natural selection or gene mutation occurs I just don't see the basis to say that God 'guided' this or that. So, am I a Darwinist? No. Yet, my response would fit on that side of the column.

To interject my own position, I would say that the laws of nature are guiding this. But the word 'guiding' even infers too much. Nothing is actually guiding NS. There are forces in nature acting upon others, which results in what we call NS. And keep in mind that appealing to laws is also appealing to a presupposition. Science cannot actually account for the laws. We can only presume that they are there and part of the metaphysical fabric of the universe. Whatever that is. The laws of nature are really a philosophical matter. And you can't do science without it.

Others will tell you that there is a very real prejudice against those who promote any alternative theory to Darwinism. I can link you some current examples where degreed professors have come under relentess legal assault for this very thing. And keep in mind those alternatives still include ALL empirical, testable, repeatable evidence and facts.

I know you are unlikely to agree, but Darwinism is a philosophical ideology. Postmodernism is taught and reinforced subtly in nearly every facet of life. It is a lens, with loads of presuppositions, that one puts on to interpret their world. And historically we have called that type of thing, religion.

 

[MercyPercy]

Did you just call Darwinism a religion?

Facepalm.

 

[BartW]

You would be correct if the 30s were the late 90s and Johnson Bible College was the university of Tennessee.

I can't for sure speak for 100% of the physics faculty in the 90s but I attended in the 2000s and can assure you everyone in the department recognizes evolution. One of my degrees is in physics and my father is currently the department head. I've had many of those professors over for bbqs and such. Many of them are recently or will soon retire so I suspect most of the same faculty were here in the 90s.

I only took a couple of classes in biology (did date a biology major for a few years) but I never encountered or heard of a professor there that opposed evolution.

If you're not full of BS I am truly sorry for you. Please don't tell anyone UT taught you that.

 

[Roustabout]

Did you just call Darwinism a religion?

Facepalm.

Yessir, i did.

 

[Roustabout]

I can't for sure speak for 100% of the physics faculty in the 90s but I attended in the 2000s and can assure you everyone in the department recognizes evolution. One of my degrees is in physics and my father is currently the department head. I've had many of those professors over for bbqs and such. Many of them are recently or will soon retire so I suspect most of the same faculty were here in the 90s.

I only took a couple of classes in biology (did date a biology major for a few years) but I never encountered or heard of a professor there that opposed evolution.

If you're not full of BS I am truly sorry for you. Please don't tell anyone UT taught you that.

What do you mean "oppose evolution"? Please clarify how you are using the terms.

 

[BartW]

What do you mean "oppose evolution"? Please clarify how you are using the terms.

By evolution I'm referring to the fact that all life on this planet has evolved from single celled organisms over the past 3.5+ billion years. I'm not making any claims regarding abiogenesis or whether it was/is guided by some god. I'm also not implying that all of physics faculty are atheists (I know for a fact there are a few christians and other religions represented as well)

 

[Roustabout]

By evolution I'm referring to the fact that all life on this planet has evolved from single celled organisms over the past 3.5+ billion years. I'm not making any claims regarding abiogenesis or whether it was/is guided by some god. I'm also not implying that all of physics faculty are atheists (I know for a fact there are a few christians and other religions represented as well)

Thanks Bart.

 

[BartW]

I am curious what you mean by the word "Darwinism" -- I've seen you use it frequently. Darwin (and independently, Alfred Wallace) proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection in the mid-1800's. The science has evolved quite a bit since then

 

[Roustabout]

I am curious what you mean by the word "Darwinism" -- I've seen you use it frequently. Darwin (and independently, Alfred Wallace) proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection in the mid-1800's. The science has evolved quite a bit since then

Evoved quite a bit. I like that!

Basically, the way you defined evolution in the previous post. An encompassing worldview that observable small changes (micro) given enough time, will lead to the larger (macro), unobserved changes necessary to get from single cell life to the complexity we see today..

I use the term Darwinism, as many do, because the term evolution has several defintions, many of which are often equivocated. Example: We see evolution (changes such as natural selection, random mutation) happening all the time, therefore Evolution (Darwinism) is true.

In fact, as I pointed out, you gave an example in your question when you stated that the science has 'evolved' quite a bit.

Thanks for asking.

 

[MercyPercy]

Let's just give up guys. It's obvious the most logical explanation of human existence Adam and ribwife Eve.

Evolving over a period of time? Absurdity..

 

[BartW]

Evoved quite a bit. I like that!

Basically, the way you defined evolution in the previous post. An encompassing worldview that observable small changes (micro) given enough time, will lead to the larger (macro), unobserved changes necessary to get from single cell life to the complexity we see today..

I use the term Darwinism, as many do, because the term evolution has several defintions, many of which are often equivocated. Example: We see evolution (changes such as natural selection, random mutation) happening all the time, therefore Evolution (Darwinism) is true.

In fact, as I pointed out, you gave an example in your question when you stated that the science has 'evolved' quite a bit.

Thanks for asking.

I thought it was clever

I was just pointing out that while Darwin thought of natural selection, he didn't know about any of the other mechanisms that drive evolution such as genetic drift, sexual selection, or even mutations. We didn't understand squat about genetics (much less DNA) until Mendel's work was rediscovered in the 1900s. Darwin also didn't have the vast fossil record that we do today. These issues, and the fact that he was a very religious man from a religious family, are what kept him from publishing for over 20 years (until Wallace independently arrived at the same conclusion and Darwin didn't want to get scooped).

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I can't for sure speak for 100% of the physics faculty in the 90s but I attended in the 2000s and can assure you everyone in the department recognizes evolution. One of my degrees is in physics and my father is currently the department head. I've had many of those professors over for bbqs and such. Many of them are recently or will soon retire so I suspect most of the same faculty were here in the 90s.

I only took a couple of classes in biology (did date a biology major for a few years) but I never encountered or heard of a professor there that opposed evolution.

If you're not full of BS I am truly sorry for you. Please don't tell anyone UT taught you that.

So because you never encountered a professor who opposed evolution that means nobody does? Just because the physics professors you know recognize evolution means what? The fact is evolution is opposed and recognized by different members of the scientific community. That is an undisputed fact.

I am proud to say that my UT professors taught me that evolution is a farce. Of course my further scientific study throughout the years has only furthered my stance. I just find the whole evolution theory to be laughable. So when you look around at all of this complex forms of life on earth, you seriously think it all came from single celled organisms? Wow I feel sorry for you then.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Let's just give up guys. It's obvious the most logical explanation of human existence Adam and ribwife Eve.

Evolving over a period of time? Absurdity..

Yeah it makes much more sense that bacteria, sea life, animals, insects, plants and trees evolved from simple single celled organisms lol:

 

[MercyPercy]

Yeah it makes much more sense that bacteria, sea life, animals, insects, plants and trees evolved from simple single celled organisms lol:

Bless your heart.

 

[BartW]

So because you never encountered a professor who opposed evolution that means nobody does? Just because the physics professors you know recognize evolution means what? The fact is evolution is opposed and recognized by different members of the scientific community. That is an undisputed fact.

I am proud to say that my UT professors taught me that evolution is a farce. Of course my further scientific study throughout the years has only furthered my stance. I just find the whole evolution theory to be laughable. So when you look around at all of this complex forms of life on earth, you seriously think it all came from single celled organisms? Wow I feel sorry for you then.

It's not just the physics professors I know. It's all the earth scientists I know. I am a member of the scientific community and I have never met anyone in academia or the greater scientific community that opposes evolution. The vast vast majority of scientists acknowledge evolution.

Can you tell us about your "further scientific study throughout the years" that has led you to your conclusion? If you can disprove evolution with sound science you will win the Nobel Prize.

 

[BartW]

Let's just give up guys. It's obvious the most logical explanation of human existence Adam and ribwife Eve.

Evolving over a period of time? Absurdity..

BOT I have to ask, do you believe this? Do you believe all animals were created the same week, and that we are the descendents of Adam and ribwife Eve? Do you believe we are descended from Noah's inbred family? And that all animals are descended from that bottleneck? How long ago did these events happen?

 

[SergeantVol]

My question still remains unanswered from earlier. Where did the first self replicating molecule come from? If something cannot be created from nothing, where did matter come from? There has to be a beginning somewhere. Partial answers is all we have.

 

[Roustabout]

BOT I have to ask, do you believe this? Do you believe all animals were created the same week, and that we are the descendents of Adam and ribwife Eve? Do you believe we are descended from Nioah's inbred family? And that all animals are descended from that bottleneck? How long ago did these events happen?

Bart, Percy is antitheist who wholly embraces a naturalistic worldview.

FWIW, earlier in this thread I linked peer reviewed research that does challenge conventional descent with modification.
Keep in mind the other side of the coin when speaking of what Darwin didn't know. Take the fact that the entire fabric of biology is woven with a code that works much like a computer language.

 

[82_VOL_83]

So killing people was cool, but now it's not? Why? Your perfect god changes his own rules, why?

And what about raping virgin slaves, was that too only cool under the law?

Folks like you should be glad we don't live under the OT laws (in a way very similar to sharia). You wouldn't be around long.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don't think you read any replies. You just ask the same questions that you have already asked. Go read the OT for yourself & find the answers to your questions & stop playing the game of idiot. You're a smart little boy & you can find answers to your own questions in the OT just like anybody else.

Well, you got one part right. Care to guess which one?

 

[Septic]

My question still remains unanswered from earlier. Where did the first self replicating molecule come from? If something cannot be created from nothing, where did matter come from? There has to be a beginning somewhere. Partial answers is all we have.

DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Folks like you should be glad we don't live under the OT laws (in a way very similar to sharia). You wouldn't be around long.

Yep.

 

[VOLatile]

This thread has devolved.