On Darwin’s birthday, only 4 in 10 Americans believe in evolution

what do you mean we can't prove electricity exists? i have a double major in physics and mathematics and i can assure you, electricity (and magnetism, since you cannot separate the two) DO exist.

please educate yourself on what a scientific theory means

"i have a double major in physics and mathematics" Holy hell you must want to rip your hair out when you read some of the comments on Current!!!

Evolution is an act of nazi unicorns.

Oh, I'm wrong?

Prove it.

Oh, that's right, Jaecyntalameux.

You can't.

you should look into what scientific theory means

evolution is an act of nature.
its true, no one does know what created nature. If you try to label that x-factor you do so with your imagination.
I can prove that.

Christianity and evolution are not irreconcilable moron.

Most of the supporters of evolution ARE Christian and the majority of Christians BELIEVE in evolution.

i don't care what religion obama is. are you implying that education and religion are mutually exclusive?

Remarkable.

You are wrong. Why do so many people misunderstand what a scientific theory is? We have the evidence. All of the evidence backs up evolution. There is no question among people many magnitudes smarter than you that evolution is real. The questions come into the mechanisms that drive it (i.e. natural selection).

there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis, educate yourself what that is.

"Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations."

Creationism isn't a scientific theory. It's a mythical story from a book. There is nothing in biology, paleontology, genetics, or any other science to support Creationism.

Whereas, there are literally millions of examples in a variety of sciences to support evolution, from the bones of creatures that changed over the course of millions of years, to DNA comparisons of animals, to simple observation of how animals' diets or climate has shaped their adaptation.

When you say you believe in a combination of the two, it's sort of like saying "I believe that the acceleration in global warming is due to human activity AND dragons." One is based on a wide array of modern scientific studies; one is based on mythological stories passed down through generations.

All that fire dragons breathe is definitely increasing the carbon in the atmosphere. Forget going green...just kill the dragons!

[im kidding btw.]

Depends on the belief. The inquisition and crusades weren't too healthy for people. Understanding reality is the key to the survival of the human race. People who are religious fundamentalists believe in a lot of things that are being injected into the law have caused harm to many people. Think of gay rights, stem cell research which can save lives, women's rights. What about someone who believes that we should bring back slavery?

Beliefs can be very very dangerous.

Right, it depends on what you believe. Like nox said, the belief that homosexuality is sinful is harmful to people. The belief that men are superior to women is harmful. Certain religious beliefs can be harmful because of the psychological effects that last a lifetime. It all depends on what we are talking about.

Are you serious?

Some people believe that if they blow themselves and others up with explosives, they'll be sent to heaven and be greeted by 72 black-eyed virgins.

Some people believed that if they made their children drink the Kool-Aid laced with poison, God and Jim Jones would take care of them in the afterlife.

I think we can agree that it's entirely different believing in a scientific theory that's based on a wide array of visible, quantifiable evidence gathered over hundreds of years by scientists and believing that fanciful fictional stories are entirely real, or that you'll enter heaven by doing whatever a self-professed messiah or religious fanatic tells you to do.

One might be considered furthering the understanding of man and his universe, while the other would likely, and with good reason, be considered misleading, controlling and downright self-destructive.

If there's one thing that differentiates science and religion, it's that scientists don't attempt to hide the truth (in fact, they exist to uncover the truth), whereas the religious powers, from Copernicus to Darwin and beyond, are continually fighting the truth.

Why? Because their power lies in blind faith. Like the Wizard of Oz, they do not want you to succumb to the realisation that there is no wizard, simply a man.

THAT'S BEEN THE POINT SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN MAKING THE WHOLE DAMN TIME.

Your side can't seem to figure that out.

That means nothing to me man. What side are you talking about? This arguing on the internet over life's toughest questions shit is hilarious

**genius alert**

"What if evolution is how and not why?"

i don't even know what why would be referring to.

"This arguing on the internet over life's toughest questions shit is hilarious"

this trying to sound deep and insightful on the internet shit is hilarious

you might want to have your hearing checked

which god?

I'll admit I laughed, unimatrix. but a bit mean.

"and Evolution is THEORY. stiill."

and gravity is a theory, still.

"god sounds much more profound and right to me."

congratulations on having an opinion

god sounds much more like a scapegoat for not wanting to think.

How about you do that. Nobody here is forcing anyone else to believe anything. Everybody is merely expressing their own views.

BUT, we need to educate. If our people become too dumb we'll end up like that movie Idiocracy. If nobody else's stupidity affected our lives it wouldn't be so bad, but religious people are trying to teach their fantasy in science class, and that is just plain wrong.

The survival of the human race depends on learning reality. Also, It is VERY scary that so many people are looking forward to the end of the world. That's not cool given that humans have nukes.

Nah there is fossil evidence of human evolution, as well as DNA evidence. Neanderthals were not the same species as us, and we 'outcompeted' them -- likely we killed them all.

no i know evolution exists, i was just making a comment that it would be cool if it were true. it's from a miniseries I liked called "V the miniseries".

every 2,000 years on this earth there has been a massive shift in evolution. one current theory for the "jumps" in evolution is that it could be caused by gamma radiation bombardment from the sun. to this day, scientists are still arguing about different aspects of evolution. evolution is certainly correct, scientists just need to find out a clearer picture of where we came from and how we have and came to have evolved. evolution is visible in humans currently, people from thousands of years ago are very different from humans today.

there is no god

God sure does "let" a lot of things happen...Who let "God" happen?

Prove it :)

Haha my aunt thinks that too. The devil scattered dinosaur bones to make people lose their faith. :-) haha. She also thinks that president Bush has 'eyes like Jesus' and was a great president.

The south? Bible belt? That's my guess.

was that sarcasm? if so, well done. if not, i'm speechless

You seem awfully vindictive, I'm guessing you're trying to make another point subliminally here.

i would agree with what you are saying here! however as religoin is subjective and "thank god" ( pun intended) doesnt affect everyone, it requires you to believe because it doesnt have the scientific backing!!! although it may have some form of truth if you understand what im going on about?

Yeah I know what you're getting at. And I think the religious should have the right to hold their beliefs, I really don't like how it's effecting the government and social policies tho.

That being said, when you get down to it, a belief that is not based on anything except the faith in that idea can not be looked at as being more legitimate than any other belief that is also merely based on faith(to do so would require the use of the special pleading fallacy). One could believe in fairies and goblins based on faith, however since that belief is not grounded in reality I see no reason to give it credence. The fact that many people believe in religions(with the same amount of veracity in their claims) just doesn't give them any more credence in my opinion.

A creator and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive.

This is what most creationists don't understand and what their televangelist "leaders" (leeches) want them to believe because the big-wigs aren't just against evolution, they're against all critical thinking, empirical rationalism and science in general.

I agree. A religious person may accept any science and reconcile it by just saying that God did it. But they would have to live with the contradictions. For example, accepting that god didn't create the world 6000 years ago as indicated by the bible. When I believed in god, I also accepted evolution, but I didn't believe in the literal truth of the bible.

the bible especially the old testament which is the place people flock for contradictions was originally written in hebrew, a very symbolic language. It is all about symbolism and not about literalism, IMO.
Saladin I agree with you almost completely :). I just believe that that critical thinking is great, but faith needs to play a role in what people define as "truth." My favorite thing said in the book is East of Eden is, "The prrofs that God does not exist are very strong, but in lots of people they are not as strong as the feeling that He does." It is important to not let your feelings be the only reason you know something, and you need to still think critically, but it is important to realize that you should not only think critically and allow your feelings to play a role. Again IMO

I really cant understand people that take the entire bible literally. Its so contradictory that you have to think critically and analyze to completely understand it. Always ask questions.

SHOULD STEP INTO THE WORLD OF TROPICAL DISEASES AT WWW.TPIDA. YOU WILL BELIEVE

Exactly Giganticus, it's just that your point takes an awfully long time to say. =p

agreed

Creationist bunk.

Please go READ the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You're applying it in a way that has nothing to do with the law.

Plus, the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being really has nothing to do with evolution.

If you believe in a creator, I have no problem. But, a creator, even if it could be proved, doesn't refute evolution.

similarities in nature doesn't support creationism, you have that totally twisted.

i stated the law...go Google it if you don't believe me...and the existence of a supreme being does have something to with evolution...y else would some people not agree with evolution...Im not saying evolution is wrong because there is tons of evidence it occurs on micro level..but it is the macro level that has some issues and many questions..and eventually if you keep going with the questions you ask yourself is there a supreme power involved..
..and there are many patterns in nature that support a blue print..just use and look at arguments on why evolution exists..also look into the probability of everything occurring perfectly for life

You should try to read more balanced. Don't only read religious apologists defending intelligent design. Don't you realize that you are reading biased unscientific garbage? Scientists have explained why you are dead wrong with your application of thermodynamics. You should read up on that.

The law applies to the system as a whole. Subsystems may LOSE entropy. It is a fundamental axiom of thermodynamics that when heat flows from subsystem A to subsystem B, the entropy of A decreases and the entropy of B increases.

And of course there is fossil and DNA evidence of what you call macro-evolution, so saying that it is impossible makes you factually incorrect.

Patterns in nature do not require a designer.

Intelligent design is fraud.

Part 1

"i stated the law...go Google it if you don't believe me..."

"In a -CLOSED SYSTEM-, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe."

I capped the part you don't get. You should also just read more about it in general, because you don't understand what it is.

Its application has to do with gases, hence Thermodynamics. The idea is that in a completely closed system, where no extra energy is applied, gases will tend towards entropy, or in other words they will eventually calm down regardless of heat interaction.

It has nothing to do with all lifeforms in general, that is not at all what it is describing.

Again, read about it. Not from a creationist website this time. The Wiki page is pretty decent.

"and the existence of a supreme being does have something to with evolution...y else would some people not agree with evolution..."

Because they're liars or because they're stupid. I'll ask you a basic question that destroys this notion right now.

Why does the existence of a creator disprove evolution? If this creator created all the other natural laws of the universe, why couldn't evolution be a part of his plan?

"Creationism," as a debate in America, is not AT ALL about whether or not there is a creator.

It's about whether the book of GENESIS should be taken LITERALLY.

As in, the earth was made 6,000 years ago and two human beings incestuously populated the entire planet.

It's not about evolution, it's about ANY science that contradicts this myth. This includes plate tectonics, genetics, astronomy and astrophysics, paleontology, all of modern biology, all nuclear dating methods and therefore by extension most of physics, etc. etc. etc.

They call all of that "evolution" too, even though it's not.

"Im not saying evolution is wrong because there is tons of evidence it occurs on micro level..but it is the macro level that has some issues and many questions.."

Again, more creationist bunk. Stop reading their websites.

If you believe in microevolution, YOU BELIEVE IN MACROEVOLUTION. You have to, "macroevolution" is just a LOT of "microevolution," by definition.

BTW, scientists generally don't use those terms for that exact reason. They're misleading and really they are the same thing.

Plus, if you believe in the evidence for micro there is no way you can denounce the evidence for macro. The evidence for macro is actually stronger.

But I'm guessing the reason you don't understand that is because you really don't understand how evolution works. Probably because you read about it from a creationist website.

Part 2

"and eventually if you keep going with the questions you ask yourself is there a supreme power involved.."

Sure, that makes sense. What does that have to do with science? Science cannot determine in any way whether or not there is a creator at this point. And, like I said, the existence of a creator would not disprove evolution.

"..and there are many patterns in nature that support a blue print.."

Really? Like what?

"just use and look at arguments on why evolution exists.."

That's vague, clarify please.

"also look into the probability of everything occurring perfectly for life"

The probability of life arising naturally IS very slim, but realize this.

If the chances of life occurring naturally in our universe are say one in a trillion.

Well there are -billions- of galaxies and there are -billions- of stars in each galaxy and plenty of planets orbiting around each star!

So do the math. Let's assume there are ONLY 1 billion galaxies and 1 billion stars in each galaxy and only ten planets orbiting each star.

1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 x 10\1,000,000,000,000

That is a fairly high number of planets that have life, even at 100 times our 1 in a trillion odds.

Plus the notion is also a fallacy. Regardless of how unlikely it is for life to develop the way it did, the evidence all POINTS in that direction. So even if it was way more unlikely than I already described it to be, it doesn't mean it's impossible. If the evidence suggests it happened, it doesn't matter how improbable or ridiculous the explanation sounds, especially when no evidence suggests any other alternative.

You just sound like someone who is misinformed on this subject by creationist propaganda dude.

Here, in my next post I'll list out some users on youtube that explain evolution fairly well in a short amount of time.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa

This guy is the best, by far, at refuting creationist nonsense, but he's pretty intense and he might offend your religious sensibilities. But he's really intelligent and he will make you think about a lot of things. Although he is occasionally overbearing and unfair.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

This guy is really good at explaining how things work simply and concisely. He's not perfect, he makes some mistake and he can occasionally be boring, but he has good stuff and you should check him out.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks

This is the same guy but his channel is committed to debunking creationist propaganda. He's an atheist so both this channel and the one above it might offend you, but it's usually pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t

Another decent user although a lot of his recent videos aren't very good. But his "why do people laugh at creationist series is decent."

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2

This guy is a Catholic so he's more receptive to your religious viewpoints and he makes pretty good videos. But he's also often convoluted, verbose and boring as hell. Still worth checking out though.

to say evolution is 100% correct is more of fraud...and it is your perspective on it and how you view the laws and the patterns in nature