Thoughts on evolution - evolution & Republican Party

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Thoughts on evolution

Displaying 1 - 15 out of 18 Forum Posts

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

06-15-2011, 03:44 PM

sbfriedman
Denton, TX
Posts: 931

I was surprised to see that many politicians do not believe in evolution. It didn't occur to me that it was even up for debate. Seems to be blatantly obvious. However, it's yet another issue that polarizes the masses and political groups.

Besides the opposing idea of creationism, I am aware that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been somewhat debunked, or at least been made to appear extremely incomplete. What are your thoughts on evolution? Anyone have any information on the debate or Darwin's partial debunking?

07-08-2011, 12:57 AM

indianacarnie
Jeffersonville, IN
Posts: 77

Far from being "debunked", The theory of evolution is alive and well. As for Darwin and his theory , it HAS been tweaked and refined as new data is uncovered (as with any new theory or hypothesis)

Support for the theory itself is widespread if not quite universal among scientists:"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." From wikpedia.

07-11-2011, 03:31 PM

sbfriedman
Denton, TX
Posts: 931

To be clear, I'm not talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution being debunked in favor of intelligent design or creationism. Not at all.

Here is one example of what I'm talking about.

"What Darwin Got Wrong": Taking down the father of evolution

12-01-2011, 09:45 PM

Cracam
Not Selected
Posts: 63

I'm a creationist because i don't have enough faith to be an evoloutionist. The miracle of a creator God is much easier to fathom than the thousand upon thousand of miracles it would take to bang together and evolve something so complex and perfect as what we see every day around us. And if I'm wrong and God and his plan of salvation thru Jesus isn't true then what have I lost...NOTHING..but if I'm right what has Richard Dawkins and his followers got to lose...EVERYTHING

12-01-2011, 10:58 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

My opinion has shifted to the point that I think that evolution and creative design are BOTH valid. I find it impossible to believe that all the millions of exotic life forms that we have on our planet came about stricly by evolution, BUT I'll also acknowledge the fact that there IS evidence that various species have evolved in order to best deal with their environment.

12-02-2011, 03:58 AM

Veronica
Not Selected
Posts: 205

It is a fascinating question, which can take a lifetime to work out. (Evolution or Creation?) But I do basically agree with Arizona, that it is probably a little bit of BOTH.

My first yrs in college I set out to prove that maybe God did not really exist. Nobody had ever come back from the dead to say there really was a God or a Heaven. At least it was a fair question.

But day after day, I saw more & more proof that the Bible (written centuries ago) was TRUE about so many things it could not just be coincidence. The sequence in the Bible of the "creation" was just the same as our science claims for the sequence of "evolution." And many things that seemed impossible in the Bible turned out to be right. Lots of little details that did not seem significant began to add up. Day after day, there began to be more proof of subtle little miracles.

Nobody can explain it, but the caterpillar spins a cocoon & goes into it for a while, & later comes out as a flying butterfly. (It evolved). A small egg in a nest cracks open & contains a tiny living creature, all eyeballs & feathers. (It evolved). A tadpole swims around in a pond, & gradually grows legs & loses its tail, & becomes a frog. (It evolved). A seed is planted into the ground & gradually grows upward to become a flower, or tree or bush. (It evolved). It also happens microscopically, in things we seldom ever see. There are things that cannot be classified as alive or dead, or as animal or plant. It is all so complex and beautiful. Under the microscope is a whole unseen world of living plasma, in so many shapes and forms, it takes your breath away.

Suddenly I began to imagine a God so fantastic, that he can create a whole world (& a whole universe) thru EVOLUTION. It is not a quick process, & it can take many centuries for a little adaptation to occur. A little butterfly that used to be white, cannot live in the valley where coal was discovered. To be invisible to predators, the butterfly must become black to blend in. And it did. There are millions of similar examples, of real time Evolution. God is not in a hurry. He has FOREVER to finish his creation. And he must enjoy watching it, as things gradually ebb and flow, swirling in space, like a cosmic ballet. -- Maybe even God is evolving too.

12-05-2011, 12:24 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 942

The idea of a Creator deity who started everything is absurd and goes against everything we know about the world and universe. Everything started out simple and gets more complex as time goes on. After the big bang there were only hydrogen atoms. Those atoms came together and formed stars. Stars made heavier elements through fusion. The stars exploded and distributed these elements throughout the universe which in turn made asteroids and planets and then solar systems. Life start out much the same way. Amino acids to single cell organisms to multi-cell organisms to even more complex life. It didn't need thousands of little miracles, it didn't even need one.

The whole thought that this simple -> complex trend started with the most complex all-powerful being that one could imagine is just ridiculous.

There are some historical accounts in the Bible, such as the book of Kings, but that doesn't make the whole Bible true. There are historical facts in Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" but the book is still a work of fiction. For example, Jesus, as described in The Bible, more than likely did not exist. The Romans recorded everything, and the chances of there being zero surviving independent sources of a man who could heal the sick, feed the hunger and perform other miracles across the Roman Empire is next to nil. We're talking about a society that would jot down when someone became a leper or broke their arm.

If you wish to disprove evolution, it's really quite simple, and I'll even tell you how to do it. Find a fossilized animal in a period that it doesn't belong in. Such as a rabbit (or any mammal) in the Pre-Cambrian Period and everything we know about evolution is thrown into disarray. Saying you don't think it's true because of a book that was written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night just doesn't cut it.

12-07-2011, 09:47 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

I will add my opinion to these arguments. As a person of science, I am absolutely certain that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, give or take a billion or so. And I believe the widely accepted view of scientists that it started as a Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I am also absolutely certain that the earth is 4.5 billion years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

And I scoff at the notion of Biblical theologians that the earth is 6,000 years old: http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm

And I don't subscribe to any of the formalized religions that rely on scrolls or texts written thousands of years ago. They did not have the science knowledge that we have today.

Having said all that, however, I still have unresolved questions in my mind that will never be resolved...not in my lifetime...not ever. As I child sleeping outside on camping trips, I often gazed up into the stars and asked the age old question, "how far is up?" and the parallel question, "when did time begin?" It was discomforting to me then as a child struggling with the faith my mother taught me. It captures my imagination, even today.

Scientists can theorize about how the universe begin and how it might end, but what happened before then, and what will happen afterward they cannot address with any kind of certainty. There is no evidence that they can cite. Are there perhaps other universes zillions of light years beyond our comprehension? Did our own universe collapse and explode again in multiple big bangs over hundreds and hundreds of billion years instead of just 13.7 billion years. Is time and space and infinite loop?

One can ponder and apply a religious and spiritual attribution to these things unexplained. And settling that in one's mind provides some comfort that perhaps one's own life has significance...that it has meaning. I will not criticize any of those beliefs because I don't have any thing to offer in return.

I also believe that over the course of the past 4.5 billion years that life evolved from tiny one cell organisms to the complex creatures that we have today. But what made it happen? I don't have that answer.

12-09-2011, 08:42 AM

Veronica
Not Selected
Posts: 205

These subjects are too complex to be addressed on most forums. But I like to find people who are inquisitive & open-minded to toss ideas around with. I had religious training since the age of 4, (mostly Protestant), & have studied numerous other religions in the meantime. Also, have studied most science courses, including Physics. I've heard all the most common theories like the Big Bang. But it just does not explain "how" the big bang could occur. If something existed out there, (billions of atoms) & there was a spark of some kind that ignited them to make the Big Bang, then WHERE did all the atoms come from, and what created the spark? Everything has to have a beginning, unless you believe in totally spontaneous combustion. In Catholicism, they call it the Prime Force (the first thing, or being that makes something happen. Whether that force or thing is called God, or a Spirit, or whatever, it has to exist. According to Einstein, Time does not Exist, it is simply a measure of relativity. Our brain orders things in consecutive sequences, & that makes us experience things in perspective of Time. But in some ways that is only illusion, & if you could travel the speed of light, time would appear to stand still. It is way too late at night (or too early in AM) for me to get into this, so I will quit. But no matter if you believe in the Big Bang theory, (which is just as elusive & unproveable as the creation is), or if you believe in the Bible, most humans prefer to believe our lives have some purpose & meaning. If there is no Creator who cares what we do, & no judgment day, life suddenly loses all reason for existence. And there is obviously no need for morality or human decency to give us goals to reach. So if God did not exist, we would have to invent Him. (what a concept).

12-09-2011, 04:22 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Yes, Veronica, I agree...these discussions can be sensitive, and often when I broach the subject I'll get immediate push back from someone defending their faith. I deliberately used the words "absolutely certain" to be provocative. In my experience in discussing faith with individuals, I am sometimes amazed about the absolute certitude of their convictions. According to Wikipedia, there are some 38,000 different denominations of Christianity, much of it driven by the differing interpretations of the Bible. And if you talk with many of the believers, you'll find the absolute certitude of their convictions.

For example, when a Jehovah Witness calls at my door distributing their Watchtower magazine, I sometimes engage them about why they feel it is necessary to convert me to their faith, where upon I hear an almost rehearsed message of their "Jehovah God." I try not be critical, but when I question the basis for their certitude, I end up getting nowhere. The same can be said for people of other faiths including Sunni versus Shite Muslims. Most of them have 100 percent certitude of their convictions, and all are based on scriptures that are over a thousand years old.

My own dear mother admonished me when I questioned her certainty that all the dinosaurs died in the great flood. I learned early on that questioning the basis for one's faith can be divisive.

However, with so many of our politicians wearing their faith on the sleeves, it is difficult not to push back on them. And the word "hypocrisy" often enters into the discussion as those that claim to be true to their faith, do not live up to their own stated beliefs. Repentance and confessions are so convenient mechanisms to wipe the past clean...like a Monopoly game "get out of jail free card." And for me to push back on someone that has repented is, in effect, "questioning their faith...questioning their God." That's good politics.

I don't want to disparage repentance as a necessary aspect of any religion. It is essential if the religion is to survive. But there are those that are sincere and then there are those that are hypocrites.

Okay I'm digressing from the original discussion. As many theologians have stated, one can believe in God and evolution at the same time. The two are not incompatible, unless you are one that subscribes to "the earth is 6,000 years old" crowd. And for many like me, we are in awe of the universe and our planet. I have often used the term "Mother Nature" in putting a stamp on natural events unexplained, or the absolute magnificence of our planet...the wilderness areas, national parks, etc. In my quest to find a belief or label other than atheism, it would be World Pantheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Pantheist_Movement
I do fit all the Beliefs and Practices as specified.

On your final point, "if God did not exist, we would have to invent Him." Well yes I agree in principle...we have thousands of years of evolution to prove that. But as mankind evolved, we developed innate traits like empathy...stronger in some individuals...less so in others (Republicans, ha!). Is empathy one of "God's traits" instilled in humans? Or is it just another part of our evolvement needed for the survival of our species? Without empathy, are we not all "lizard brains" to borrow a term used before in this website?

Okay I'll quit writing now...I'm getting carried away, but I invite criticism of my views.

12-09-2011, 10:05 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

Schmidt:

I can't remember if I've posted the video below on this site before or not, but
Paul Harvey's "letter from God" is a reminder that it actually DOESN'T MATTER what religion a person follows:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYEFkYtANVg

When I was on my quest to visit ALL of the churches in Evanston, I wound up attending a few meetings of the pagans in downtown Chicago. Interestingly enough, the group met at DePaul University, which is the largest CATHOLIC University in the country.

Like the pantheists, the "neo-pagans" draw their spritituality from nature, much as the Native Americans did. Towards the front of the story below, there is a clip of Stonehenge, which reminds us that the "old time religion" was actually paganism:

tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2009/04/give-me-that-old-time-religion.html

12-10-2011, 05:51 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Thanks Arizona for again sharing your links and thoughts. The Paul Harvey "Letter from God" should be replayed again and again on Christian talk radio. Those religious talk radio stations need to heed "God's words" and get back to their original charge before they became way too political.

And ditto for the Republican Party. How nice would it be if the Republicans opened their convention with the video of Paul Harvey's "voice of God" for eight minutes. But that will never happen.

Your analysis of the neo-pagans is also appropriate, but of course neo-paganism has as much diversity in actual practice as Christianity. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Neo-Pagans-Believe.aspx

So one cannot stereotype neo-pagans or for that matter pagans very easily. It is unfortunate that the term "pagan" has been demagogued by some on the Christian right. But that also applies to Muslims.

Native American cultures of course respect nature both spiritually and environmentally. It has served them well, from the ancient past right up to modern times. We are always respectful of their beliefs when we travel in their lands.

In any case, I wish religion and politics could be completely separated. I would rather we just discuss politics, but it seems that is impossible to do because the Republicans have made religion such a major part of their platform. And that puts us in the disadvantageous position of arguing issues that are faith based...a no win.

01-10-2012, 12:57 AM

GoodScience
Sanibel, FL
Posts: 8

The distinction is that evolution is only taught as being blatantly obvious. It is not blatantly obvious. In truth the fossil record does not show what Darwin had supposed it would, which is the gradual change of lower species into "higher" species. The Cambrian Explosion debunked that as many phyla are seen to exist here all of a sudden (geologically speaking) in 80 million years. So science had moved along to population genetics as an explanation of how we got here.   But this still doesn't explain how so much happened so fast.

What we need to question, and let student learn and debate, is how the first cell evolved. How did the first cell organelles evolve? How did these organelles combine into one cell?   How did these organelles learn to function with each other by acccident? How did this one cell evolve to reproduce itself before it died? How did plants and animals evolve, one having cell walls and one having only a cell membrane? How did wings evolve? How did two sexes evolve? How could two different sexes develop separately and slowly and yet still be able to interbreed sucessfully every generation? How is it possible that a female and a male evolved in the same generation and could some how interbreed to produce the same thing in either male or female form? These are legitimate questions that evolution has not answered. There is not even any siginificant research or even speculation that I have found on these topics in the scientific journals.

How could a bombadier beetle evolve with out blowing itself up? How could its two chemicals be contained so that evolution could even occur? How did a hummingbird evolve since it is neither an insect or a bird?   Is it sensible that students are prohibited from studying all aspects of evolution, intelligent design (which IS a theory), and creation?   What are the schools afraid of if creation is a myth? Why not teach it as something which some people believe? What are the evolutionists afraid of? Let I.D. have a voice! That is what studying is all about - let the kids learn about what is out there. Only cowards sensor topics like Intelligent Design.

Let's trot out the real evidence that no missing links have been found anywhere in the fossil record. Yes, Dr. Leakey prior to his death indicated that his find, originally named Zinjanthropus in 1959, found in Olduvia, Tanzania was that of an ape, Australopithecus. His find was sensationalized by National Geographic which had paid for the expedition. Another find by Johann C. Fuhlrott called Neanderthal man, found in 1859 in Germany has been reclassified as fully human, Homo sapiens. Java man found by Eugene Dubois in 1891 in Trinil, Java was later reclassified by him to be a large gibbon.   Peking Man found in China in 1912 by David Bolack disappeared in 1941 when moved from Peking by a U. S. Marine detachment.   Nebraska Man found in 1922 by Harold Cook in Western Nebraska consisted of only one tooth. In 1927 the tooth was reclassified as belonging to an extinct pig, much to the embarrassment of many. Even worse, the Piltdown man skull fragment and teeth found in 1912by Charles Dawson in England were examined carefully with fluoride tests in 1950 and found to be a fraud stained with iron salts. The bones are recent and not 500,000 years old. All we can really conclude from the above evidence is that mankind selfishly and egotistically strives for fame.    If evolution is true there should be millions of missing links. After all there are 5 million to 10 million separate species on earth. All of this supossedly occurred in the 3.5 billion years of life on earth (as the oldest fossil is 3.5 billion years old).   Evolution is not a foregone conclusion.

01-11-2012, 11:30 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Yes there are some gaps in the science of evolution. Those gaps are slowly being filled as new discoveries are being made and new scientific DNA techniques are being applied to old discoveries. The wonderful thing about science and scientists is that when they conduct extensive analyses and publish their results, they are vetted again and again by other scientists...their peers. And with each step the science of evolution is advanced.

But yes, definitely there is much that is not yet known. However, scientists continue to analyze, debate and advance the discussion. And they have come a long way since the 1500's when Copernicus put forth his work on heliocentrism, a work that was later championed by Galileo in 1610 with considerable opposition from the church. See Galileo Affair, Trial, Wikipedia:

Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned".[36] A panel of theologians, consisting of Melchior Inchofer, Agostino Oreggi and Zaccaria Pasqualigo, reported on the Dialogue. Their opinions were strongly argued in favour of the view that the Dialogue taught the Copernican theory. Galileo was found guilty.

Of course this example has nothing to do with evolution, but I mention it because then as now, theologians believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. And they have used the Bible as their main infallible source of facts to push many aspects of creationism and intelligent design. I don't know who the "authorities" are that speak for intelligent design, but I did find a website by Robert L. Laing on Intelligent Design Theory - - Creationism vs. Evolution. In browsing his website I found this:

This book presents the true structure of the atom, gravity, a slowing of the speed of light and the unique properties of water as proofs of Intelligent Design Theory. With all our scientific advancements, scientists still do not understand what causes gravity, antigravity or the nature of light energy. Evolution science vs. creation science prevents Godless scientists from knowing if light is photons or electromagnetic waves. Intelligent Design Theory explains the historical decay of the speed of light, the rapid nuclear decay of radioisotopes at the time of the flood and the time of creation and other phenomena as proofs of the time of creation of the earth at about 4008 BC. It also introduces an ancient Chinese stone carving of Noah's Ark and gives examples of creation of the earth phenomena and history and geology that date Noah's Ark of Mt. Ararat back to about 2300 BC.

I don't want to argue a case against someone that quotes scriptures as factual evidence. It is a no win argument for me. I'll let it go. Those that want to believe will believe and no amount of scientific analysis will change that.

01-12-2012, 02:09 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Hmmmmm? And just where else do we see this kind of behavior, this rejection of reasoned-debate and science for the myths?
Frankly, everywhere. In every corner of human knowledge and society there are preposterous be(lie)fs that substitute for clear headed thinking. These intelligent design supporters are the same people who will tell you that Obama is a Communist, poor people and the CRA caused the economic crisis, the government is bankrupt and we are borrowing all of our money from China, and that free-market/hidden hand/laissez-faire capitalism will solve all of our problems. They say they don't believe in Big Government, but they certainly believe in the the Big Stupid. What the average "hardcore" conservative voter is possessed by is a colage of "noble lies" used to manipulate people for malicious elite gains. What distinguishes them is who is on the giving and recieiving end of the intellectual fraud that subscribes to the Hitler line, "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe in it."
These are dangerous days for our Republic. The same people who are the first to declare themselves as pious God-fearing Christians are now the same people who believe that Corporations are people too. If they win this fight, Big Darkness Forever.
..........
Oh, and I am still working on that MMT thing by the way. It's not going to be mathematical and it's not going to be a work of genuis or anything, but hopefully I can say some things that are intelligent.

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES