We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Support for evolution (survey stats); Not evidence just survey stats
Topic Started: Aug 10 2007, 07:32 PM (397 Views)
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
This isn't a debate or anything and I really don't want a fight over whether creationism or evolution is right so please don't. I just wanted you to see some stats i found involving support for evolutionary theory and creation and what not:

I will summarize some main points but to read more here is the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

I realise that some of the material in the original article is biased so don't complain. I know that many of you are Christian and/or conservative and will find that it has some sort of liberal bias against you which I realise isn't fair which is the main reason for my summarizing.

Support by scientists:

1986: 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academics, and 7 other scientific societies signed a document askign the Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana requiring creationism to be taught in school.

1987: A survey of 500,000 American scientists found that over 99.8 percent of them supported evolution/

1991: A poll found that only 5% of all scientists would consider themselves creationists (all fields of science).

2005: 38 Nobel Laureates state that intelligent design is not a science and cannot be tested. 70,000 Australian teachers and scientists stated that intelligent design should not be taught as a science in school.

Support by religious groups and churches:

1950: Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution as a valid scientific enquirey. Also finds that Catholics can still follow creation. Catholic schools begin teaching evolution.

1996: Pope John Paul II stated that recent knowledge and discoveries has led to the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

2000-2002: The International Theological Commision finds that evidence from the physical and medical sciences furnishes mounting support for evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.

2004: 10,000 American Christian clergy publicly reject creationism.

Molleen Matsumura found that 77% of people in the twelve largest Christian denominations belong to churches that support evolution education.

Support by medicine and industry:

Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warns that if evolution is not taught in school that the US might fall behind in the biotechnology race with other countries.

Support by the public:

recently the magazine Science published attitudes about evolution comparing the US, Japan, and 32 European countries. Only Turkey had less support for evolution that the US with 25% of the country supporting it. Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden had 80%:
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/...edit%3A+Science

2006 UK Poll: 22% creationism, 17% intelligent design, 48% evolution (please note that the poll did not use modern methods and had only three choices)

1997 US Public: 44% creationism, 39% God-guided evolution, 10% evolution
1997 US Scientists: 5% creationism, 40% God-guided evolution, 55% evolution

Notice:

Please notice that these are the opinions of the actual public and actual scientists. I did not include support for creationism simply because of the title of the topic. There is info about that in the source. Thank you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Suedama
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think it's legal to use wikipedia as a source for anything... But ok...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
Suedama
Aug 11 2007, 01:02 AM
I don't think it's legal to use wikipedia as a source for anything... But ok...

Legal? Ok then. Its really not a source I just made a summary of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Suedama
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I didn't say legal in a literal sense. Wikipedia is often a mistrusted source of information so it is looked down upon compared to other examples of information.

Anyways I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that creationism and evolutionism are both "more than hypotheses."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well I sort of sorted out the more biased and probably less certain info out of it as well as the more complex things. Its okay to believe either since we have the right to believe what we want. All opinions are accepted so I don't think we should have any argument here about which is right/ But it is okay if you wish too ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Suedama
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not trying to argue I just stated my opinion in an attempt to stay on topic... which is hard to do since the topic seems as if it weren't meant for discussion anyways...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr.Wolff
Member
[ * ]
Let's just end this now by saying that Wikipedia is typically a half-assed information site. For the most part the site is pretty good with what it does and does not allow for most topics. Although they do carry some mistake, or so I have found the site is....lets face it only marginally flawed when it comes to a normal encyclopedia. The only problem, the entire internet is this way. These, statistics that you are getting not only should they be coming from more than two websites but you should really get the entire story. When you write a research paper which is essentially what you are doing it is always good to identify both sides of the story and than summarize or expand on whatever side you are covering. When you focus on only one side you might as well be the standard news media. "OMG I just Jesus's Eyes from sniffing this permanent marker!" "There you have it folks, drug addict turns to religious preecher after seeing Jesus Eyes" Of course forget about the fact t hat he was getting High. I'm sure you can see my point. Just for future reference.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
Mr.Wolff
Aug 11 2007, 01:48 PM
Let's just end this now by saying that Wikipedia is typically a half-assed information site. For the most part the site is pretty good with what it does and does not allow for most topics. Although they do carry some mistake, or so I have found the site is....lets face it only marginally flawed when it comes to a normal encyclopedia. The only problem, the entire internet is this way. These, statistics that you are getting not only should they be coming from more than two websites but you should really get the entire story. When you write a research paper which is essentially what you are doing it is always good to identify both sides of the story and than summarize or expand on whatever side you are covering. When you focus on only one side you might as well be the standard news media. "OMG I just Jesus's Eyes from sniffing this permanent marker!" "There you have it folks, drug addict turns to religious preecher after seeing Jesus Eyes" Of course forget about the fact t hat he was getting High. I'm sure you can see my point. Just for future reference.

I wasn't writing a paper most obviously and I wasn't being biased I was just trying to show what sort of support it has. And now we end up with a debate... ^o)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tennisplayer89
Member
[ * ]
There shouldn't even be a debate. Evolution is so well supported that every logical human being believes in it. Even if you're religious, just take Newton's stance. You are discovering and trying to understand the universe created by God.
Evolution really isn't even a theory. It's a law. You might ask what is the difference between a theory and a law. A theory is an attempt to explain a natural phenomena. It is only a model or an explanation. Theories can sometimes attempt to make predictions. They do not attempt to prove anything. A law is a set of observations that have occurred in the past. A law makes no effort to make a prediction. A law is simply an observation of what has happened in the past. For example the law of gravity. People have noticed that things fall when we drop them (at least on earth). The law of gravity does not predict that things will keep dropping or try to explain gravity(There is a theory of gravity that attempts to explain it). Therefore, a law is by nature infallible because it describes a set of observations that have already occurred. Therefore, the law of evolution cannot even be debated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Benjamin
Member Avatar

[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't see how people can say that creation and evolution are polar opposites. I believe in both. Proving evolution doesn't disprove God.

When I think of evolution, I think of species changing over time through natural selection and mutations. I don't necessarily think of evolution as a means by which we were created, but rather how we came to be how were are, now. I also don't like to include the Big Bang in evolution, since the Big Bang hasn't been proven. And, when I think of creation, I think of God creating the Universe. I don't think of it as happening only 6000 years ago. I just think of God creating the Universe.

Why is it so impossible that God created evolution? Why couldn't God have caused the Big Bang? Only God can create something from nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 07:14 PM
I don't see how people can say that creation and evolution are polar opposites. I believe in both. Proving evolution doesn't disprove God.

When I think of evolution, I think of species changing over time through natural selection and mutations. I don't necessarily think of evolution as a means by which we were created, but rather how we came to be how were are, now. I also don't like to include the Big Bang in evolution, since the Big Bang hasn't been proven. And, when I think of creation, I think of God creating the Universe. I don't think of it as happening only 6000 years ago. I just think of God creating the Universe.

Why is it so impossible that God created evolution? Why couldn't God have caused the Big Bang? Only God can create something from nothing.

I agree with you. I think tat god could have started the whole process off but not in the way that he guides it because that would just make evolution nonsense since the whole part of evolution is random selection of genes. Evolution doesn't go against god since it doesn't say how life started just how it became so diverse and beautiful.

God is in the heart and nothing can ever disprove God.

The only reason the bible says certain things about the origins of earth and life is because the people back then didn't have modern science, nothing like that. Every culture had that sort of original creation story and that is Genesis for Western Culture. Now I am not saying that there isn't anything even slightly correct in the Genesis I'm jsut saying they didn't have the resources we have. The writers of the bible were simply misguided by false info.

Anyway, underline I agree with what you say Benjamin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Benjamin
Member Avatar

[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
terracara
Aug 12 2007, 04:15 PM
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 07:14 PM
I don't see how people can say that creation and evolution are polar opposites. I believe in both. Proving evolution doesn't disprove God.

When I think of evolution, I think of species changing over time through natural selection and mutations. I don't necessarily think of evolution as a means by which we were created, but rather how we came to be how were are, now. I also don't like to include the Big Bang in evolution, since the Big Bang hasn't been proven. And, when I think of creation, I think of God creating the Universe. I don't think of it as happening only 6000 years ago. I just think of God creating the Universe.

Why is it so impossible that God created evolution? Why couldn't God have caused the Big Bang? Only God can create something from nothing.

I agree with you. I think tat god could have started the whole process off but not in the way that he guides it because that would just make evolution nonsense since the whole part of evolution is random selection of genes. Evolution doesn't go against god since it doesn't say how life started just how it became so diverse and beautiful.

God is in the heart and nothing can ever disprove God.

The only reason the bible says certain things about the origins of earth and life is because the people back then didn't have modern science, nothing like that. Every culture had that sort of original creation story and that is Genesis for Western Culture. Now I am not saying that there isn't anything even slightly correct in the Genesis I'm jsut saying they didn't have the resources we have. The writers of the bible were simply misguided by false info.

Anyway, underline I agree with what you say Benjamin.

The author of the Bible was God. I don't think He'd misguide anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OcelotJay-ZNR
Member Avatar
I am kitteh, hear me purr. =(^_^)=
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 08:14 PM
Only God can create something from nothing.

The Big Bang theory doesn't prescribe to the idea that it occurred out of nowhere. Indeed, empiricism is the backbone of scientific research which is what makes it so difficult to attain the truth to the origins of the universe. Because we're ill-equipped to probe deep enough into the very early universe (the split second prior to the explosion) it's impossible for us to know for sure and thus much of it is speculative, based on observational studies and mathematical theories, however it isn't all plucked out of thin air nor does the theory go down the route that it "just happened". Simply because we don't yet know why doesn't mean evolutionists blindly believe in chance. I for one support evolution but I don't believe in coincidence or chance, nor do I think there is required a grand schemer to put things into motion.
Quote:
 
Therefore, the law of evolution cannot even be debated.

Despite the fact evolution does fit in with much of what makes a scientific law, there is no such thing as the "law of evolution" and it remains a theory. Modern evolution is actually an amalgamation of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Gregor Mendel's tenets of genetic inheritance known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. It's a pillar of biology that brings together the threads of genetics, biology, botany, morphology, etc. that were previously absent and caused Darwin's theory to be heavily challenged, and while it is widely accepted it isn't without its problems. But that's the nature of science: continuous research to reinforce existing theories and laws or to generate new ones as necessary with evidence to the contrary.

It depends how you view evolution though. Not everyone is quite up to date on the theory and so many believe that evolution is held to be a constant and slow development, which is contrary to both fossil records and the synthesis.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 08:42 PM
terracara
Aug 12 2007, 04:15 PM
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 07:14 PM
I don't see how people can say that creation and evolution are polar opposites. I believe in both. Proving evolution doesn't disprove God.

When I think of evolution, I think of species changing over time through natural selection and mutations. I don't necessarily think of evolution as a means by which we were created, but rather how we came to be how were are, now. I also don't like to include the Big Bang in evolution, since the Big Bang hasn't been proven. And, when I think of creation, I think of God creating the Universe. I don't think of it as happening only 6000 years ago. I just think of God creating the Universe.

Why is it so impossible that God created evolution? Why couldn't God have caused the Big Bang? Only God can create something from nothing.

I agree with you. I think tat god could have started the whole process off but not in the way that he guides it because that would just make evolution nonsense since the whole part of evolution is random selection of genes. Evolution doesn't go against god since it doesn't say how life started just how it became so diverse and beautiful.

God is in the heart and nothing can ever disprove God.

The only reason the bible says certain things about the origins of earth and life is because the people back then didn't have modern science, nothing like that. Every culture had that sort of original creation story and that is Genesis for Western Culture. Now I am not saying that there isn't anything even slightly correct in the Genesis I'm jsut saying they didn't have the resources we have. The writers of the bible were simply misguided by false info.

Anyway, underline I agree with what you say Benjamin.

The author of the Bible was God. I don't think He'd misguide anyone.

What you don't realise is that the people who put the bible together into its holiness actually took their own views and mixed it into the actual word of God and made their own interpretations of his lordship. Once again I really don't want a debate. Damn,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paleognath
Napoleon '08
[ *  *  *  * ]
OcelotJay
Aug 12 2007, 09:39 PM
Benjamin
Aug 12 2007, 08:14 PM
Only God can create something from nothing.

The Big Bang theory doesn't prescribe to the idea that it occurred out of nowhere. Indeed, empiricism is the backbone of scientific research which is what makes it so difficult to attain the truth to the origins of the universe. Because we're ill-equipped to probe deep enough into the very early universe (the split second prior to the explosion) it's impossible for us to know for sure and thus much of it is speculative, based on observational studies and mathematical theories, however it isn't all plucked out of thin air nor does the theory go down the route that it "just happened". Simply because we don't yet know why doesn't mean evolutionists blindly believe in chance. I for one support evolution but I don't believe in coincidence or chance, nor do I think there is required a grand schemer to put things into motion.
Quote:
 
Therefore, the law of evolution cannot even be debated.

Despite the fact evolution does fit in with much of what makes a scientific law, there is no such thing as the "law of evolution" and it remains a theory. Modern evolution is actually an amalgamation of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Gregor Mendel's tenets of genetic inheritance known as the modern evolutionary synthesis. It's a pillar of biology that brings together the threads of genetics, biology, botany, morphology, etc. that were previously absent and caused Darwin's theory to be heavily challenged, and while it is widely accepted it isn't without its problems. But that's the nature of science: continuous research to reinforce existing theories and laws or to generate new ones as necessary with evidence to the contrary.

It depends how you view evolution though. Not everyone is quite up to date on the theory and so many believe that evolution is held to be a constant and slow development, which is contrary to both fossil records and the synthesis.

First of all one of the main points of evolutionary theory is that evolution happens through random occurences in the life of a species that cause an individual to survive or not. If it survives then the genes that it received from its parents pass on and if it doesn't the genes are out and that is all random occurence and sometimes chance.

Concerning the origin of the universe. Currently the most common and recent development is that the universe we are in may not be the first, as in there have been more than one "Big Bangs" thus meaning that the universe repeatedly collapses then recreates itself in some form whether scientific or in a God-guided way.

The only reason evolution is not law is because the general view of the scientific community is that it is too controversial to yet become a law plus there are still ongoing developments (which means I am agreeing with you on that part). You cannot actually debate with evolution since there is not a single piece of evidence against it. The Bible is the only thing holding it back and the Bible is all based on faith not science thus does not allow for said evidence against evolution.

Now for my finale: I am up date on everything possible that I can concerning evolutionary theory. I actually am in some form of contact with a paleontology professor on devart (http://avancna.deviantart.com/) who I have learned quite a bit concerning evolution from. I study evolutionary theory, paleontological studies, and zoology constantly so that I am up to date on these sort of things. I probably know more about this subject then people who are 5 times my age. I'm not bragging I am saying that I know what I am talking about.

(falls asleep after long rant)....

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1