Poll: Do you support evolution?

[IceForce]

EDIT 2: Just shut up about the grammar, please. You either support evolution or you don't. The wording doesn't matter.

The word "support" is just as nonsensical in this context as the word "believe".

The word you're looking for is "accept". - "Do you accept evolution?"

 

[IceForce]

if you don't believe that God created everything, at least come up with something almost plausible, like aliens or something put us here or something.

lolwut?

Is this a poe-post? I honestly cannot tell.

Evolution is more than "almost plausible". It's demonstrable fact.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

What I see is properly researched scientific papers popping up on both sides, and whilst I might not have the qualifications to determine the validity of each, those that do have a vested interest on both sides to only promote those articles that fit their world view and disparage those that do not.

See I know you lack the resources to see what I've seen but this simply isnt true.

The BEST most creationists can do is cite academic papers that suggest links are DIFFERENT than we expected and try to explain this makes them non existent. These academic papers are almost always performed by people who accept evolution. As you saw one of them was pretty angry. He also links to other blogs of researchers whose work has been stolen and lied about. Its quite a common tactic. And its extremely dishonest.

Do you have ANY idea how few creationist papers make it into reputable journals? Its because they literally cannot do the scientific method correctly. Do you see why the belief in creation gets WAY smaller the higher up the academic ladder you look? Let me expand:

In science you NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER start with a conclusion and seek to prove it EVER. Every academic paper should begin with a question or a null hypothesis that sounds like "Is there a causal link between X and Y" or "We assume X and Y have NO relationship" or perhaps "What happens when X and Y interact in setting Z". You then run tests about X and Y. AFTER you finish you look at the results and decide afterwards what the conclusion is. Before hand you make NO attempt to guess.

In creation science you always have the bible at the back of it. So instead of drawing evidence to answer a question what you have is a question that is already "answered" and they are just looking for proof of it. This is a trap that is kinda unique to creationists. Scientists never "look" for proof of anything specifically. They FIND evidence. Then decide if that evidence concludes the same things they previously held. The second you reverse that order the cart is before the horse and youre doing it pretty badly wrong.

Why would biologists have a vested interest? Their desire is to study the world as it is. That doesnt anywhere include the existance of evolution. Creation scientists have their vested interest in the name. Their desire is to find proof for creation. Not to study creation as a whole and draw conclusion, what you have is a personal goal, an agenda is already laid out. Do you know why absolutely NO ONE other than creationists use the term "Darwinists?" We are not attached to our theories. They are tools. Do you love your pencil? If it broke would you keep it? A theory is a tool for understanding. We discard them like trash the moment they become obsolete. Creationists are naturally attached to creation. They have an emotional interest in it being correct. I, and I think i speak for other biologists, appreciate the beauty of evolution but I dont let myself become enamoured with it. Im ready, at the drop of a hat, to discard most concepts to replace them with more accurate ones. Since the fact animals change over time is an extremely well understood fact i dont expect to. But im willing to if i want to further my understanding.

To further give you an idea of this, i have NEVER EVER EVER read a paper on evolution that mentioned creation ONCE. Its not about that so it just isnt mentioned at all. On the flipside every single creation paper ive read is attempting to "attack" evolution and mentions it a lot, often disparagingly. This is a fairly big no no in science. A paper is for presenting evidence not slipping in an agenda.

 

[Bruce]

This will get ranty but I feel I need to point out the thing as to why this position in particular is just such an annoying example of what is wrong this whole thing. Apologies for quite possibly offending you, but here's the thing:

Might as well say that there is "propaganda" from both sides and stuff "obfusciating" science when trying to ascertain whether or not evil lizard people control the world or we live in a democratic state. One of those positions is not like the other to the point where everyone who has somehow researched the matter properly says one of those positions is very much bogus. So why on earth would anyone argue differently? I tell you why: because they have a vested emotional interest in getting people to adopt their viewpoint - no matter the cost.

This is not what I observe though.

Evolution is supported by active evidence for it. It has been observed in the wild (just think of why you need to vary your bug spray). Bugs which have mutations that allow them to survive the spray end up with an advantage over those that don't, so they reproduce and eventually you end up with bugs which are largely immune.

I am currently on anti-biotics because I'm home sick. My doctor's instructions say finish the course - why? Because bacteria evolve and I don't want to be host to a new bacteria that's resistant to treatment.

With species we fish or hunt for example, certain kinds of salmon are maturing later, and coming in smaller because people fish for the larger ones. Elephants, poaching has meant that their tusks aren't growing quite as big as they used to because hunters wanted those large tusks.

So in real terms if you look around you can see evolution and the consequences of it, and with the massive time scales involved for it you see how the reasoning works. Throw in evidence from genetics, from the fossil record such as it is, from ring species, and it gets just better and better evidence for it.

None of this was aimed against creationism, evolutionary science does not have to disprove creationism. It just has to put across the evidence for evolution. If it doesn't stand on its own, it doesn't stand, if creationism were shown to be complete BS, it would not prove evolution.

Creationists don't have any evidence for creationism. We have seen species evolve, we have never seen one created by a God. So what do creationists do?

They give us bullshit. "Evolution would be terrible if it was true" you don't have to read that article to say its dishonest, because its an appeal to consequences, it it just there to deceive you. I am pretty sure most soldiers would rather not have people shooting at them, their preferences in that matter have no bearing on whether they're in that situation or not.

The attempts to tie Darwin in with history's monsters, are more of the same. Aside from the fact that the monsters in question were closer to Lamarckian views on evolution, and actually banned the teaching of Darwin, it doesn't tell you anything about the truth of whether evolution is real or not.

You get attempts to dismiss evidence for evolution, you get claims of scientific fraud and all of that (and yes, fraud does happen, it tends to get discovered later on and corrected for, but it happens) but never one instance of evidence for creationism. It all just comes down to "We believe it, because our preacher or holy book tells us to."

The nearest they can come to it is the idea of irreducible complexity, which is just an appeal to incredulity. Just because you don't know how how this could have come about naturally doesn't mean it didn't, and it falls very much victim to somebody figuring it out one day. There just isn't anything there for creationism.

 

[xdiesp]

Fact: only a small fraction of christian fundamentalists in the US oppose the evolution theory on a "religion vs science" basis. This is not a big deal worldwide, and christians at large accept science normally. Heck, some people even oppose it for other reasons but they are not part of the crassest R vs S argument. Get out of the US more.

 

[BrassButtons]

What I see is properly researched scientific papers popping up on both sides, and whilst I might not have the qualifications to determine the validity of each, those that do have a vested interest on both sides to only promote those articles that fit their world view and disparage those that do not. So either I've got to dig through all the literature before I can accurately weigh up all the options, or I'm going to have to rely on reading both types of literature surveys or what have you and hope they give me a balanced look on things which they obviously will not do.

So no, it's not like your example. There is sensible scientific discussion going on on both sides, but the communication breaks down completely in the middle.

The bold statement is an accusation of fraud. Any scientist who only promotes papers which agree with his conclusions, and disparages those that disagree, should be fired. Careers can be and have been ruined over such actions.

So who exactly are you accusing, and where is your evidence?

 

[paveway]

I really want to know about these so called 'properly researched' papers from the side of non-evolution theory......

 

[Eiv]

I really want to know about these so called 'properly researched' papers from the side of non-evolution theory......

How do you research something that you have to rely on faith to believe in? I'm a big fan of Terry Pratchett's discworld novels, but I don't think researching the wizards magic from the books would be fruitful.

Anyways, other than the proceeding statement, I'm staying out of this. This is one of those conversations where everyone is right, no matter what.

 

[themind]

You cannot choose to believe or disbelieve in a fact... well I suppose you can, but it doesn't alter the fact if you don't believe it.

Evolution is a fact in the same way that gravity or the earth revolving around the sun is a fact. It's immuteble and unalterable.

 

[HardkorSB]

I was searching the other day for a recent poll on how many people believe evolution vs. creationism, but the only ones I could find were over a year old. So I decided to bring the question to you, the Escapist viewers. I probably won't get many people in the 54+ age group, but all polls have some element of bias. So, which do you believe? Feel free to tear each other apart in the comments.

EDIT: All right, maybe believe was the wrong word. How does 'support' sound?

EDIT 2: Just shut up about the grammar, please. You either support evolution or you don't. The wording doesn't matter.

I don't support evolution, there are tons of evidence that support it already.
I also don't believe in evolution.
It just exists, it's a part of life, it doesn't matter whether I believe it or not.
I can say "I don't believe in gravity" but that won't change the fact that it exists.
Evolution is a slow process though and many people don't realize just how slow (and they don't feel like getting to know more about it) so they don't believe it but that's nothing but ignorance on their part.

 

[Quaxar]

What I see is properly researched scientific papers popping up on both sides

Wo-ho-ho, properly researched scientific Creationist papers or just a paper that attempts to rectify a very specific thing according to new data? Because if there is any proper Creationist research out there I'd love to see it, because the stuff you can generally find is pretty amusing but not science.
Like how they again and again attempt to disprove carbon dating (just the carbon one, not radiometric in general, mind) by completely misusing the technique and dating their own asses as 10 billion years old. There's a German doctor of organic chemistry who's published a paper on this that looked fine at first glance (apart from being published in a very dubious journal), but I have to say after reading the conclusions and methods I couldn't help thinking he had to be either offensively fradulent or the worst chemist alive.

So what you see really isn't "properly researched scientific papers popping up on both sides", it's one side scientific papers and the other side the Creationist equivalent of a Lorem Ipsum generator.
That isn't to say certain unclear aspects of standing theories can't be disproven or changed but by now it's hardly going to be in a way that invalidates a whole theory. These "landmark papers" disproving carbon dating or even presenting evidence for a global flood are always, and I say always with the utmost confidence, incredibly incompetent, unsupported and unscientific.

Any scientist who only promotes papers which agree with his conclusions, and disparages those that disagree, should be fired. Careers can be and have been ruined over such actions.

Damn right, this isn't pharmacology!

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Hey, look, 11 people are wrong! Don't let anyone fool you, there is NO argument against evolution. You are just wrong.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity.

11 people are not wrong. 11 people simply have beliefs counter to your own.

-

This as why threads like this go to R&P.

Lol, yeah, might as well go up to the professor after you get an answer wrong on an exam and declare "I'm not wrong, I just have beliefs counter to your own!" It'd make as much sense.

One day you will be out of school, and what a teacher or professor thinks will seem less important. People can be wrong about things and get through life just fine. Look at you, you are wrong about needing to be right all of the time.

Did I just cause your world to crumble before you? Sorry about that...

Wrong. A professor or teacher will educate the generation that follows, which will take whatever you make with your life and then attempt to fix it for the betterment of mankind. Which one of these kids from the next generation are gonna make a huge impact? Those who believe in science, who spent their lives studying biology, anatomy, chemistry, etc etc. Those fields require that they reject church doctrine and accept what has been treated as a fact for the last 100 years.


Sorry mate, but the teachers and professors of this world will always be important, I'm just sorry that you have so little interaction with the people who educate your kids and future leaders.

 

[BrassButtons]

I really want to know about these so called 'properly researched' papers from the side of non-evolution theory......

There are some excellent Creationist papers, but you have to go back a hundred years or so to find them. Early Creationists were perfectly respectable scientists. Of course, being respectable scientists, they stopped supporting Creationism once the data showed they were wrong...

 

[SinisterDeath]

Theistic Evolutionism: because there are practical issues with atheism (you can either delude yourself into thinking life has meaning and thus there's a point to scientific inquiry, or be a nihilist and spend the rest of your life contemplating suicide), time is relative, and why would God have removed any doubt of His existence by spoiling hundreds of years of research anyway? Giving Moses a simplified version of events makes a great test of faith, too.

Before I get replies from butthurt, "hail science" militant atheist types, think about why Nietzsche and Sartre were opposed to German anti-semitism, or why Richard Dawkins wrote his own Ten Commandments, all while preaching that morality, good and evil, don't exist and that people shouldn't act like they do.

Short version: it's impossible to live happily and consistently as an atheist, but evolution is fact. Therefore, theistic evolutionism is the best way to reconcile fact with truth.

So...
Me, being an Atheist, who believes in Humanism, and follows the "Golden Rule", as well as 6 of the 10 commandments. (Pretty easy to figure out which ones those are)
Is somehow worse, Than someone who needs to fear god, in order to not be a mindless savage killing and raping machine?

 

[Phrostbit3n]

I'm a bit saddened that this is really a contest. The evidence is clearly in favour of evolution. I say this as a Christian.

So yes, Chalk me up as one for team science I guess.

It's sad there's not more people like us. Intelligent Evolution is what I like to call it, because it sounds badass. The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible. But the same goes for thinking that Satan made fossils just to fuck with it.

I'm sorry. It's too hard not to rage while a picket-fence is in my ass. (Insinuating I'm "On the fence". Get it? No? Sorry.).

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It's sad there's not more people like us.

The majority of people are like you. In the UK we are 50% religious and 50% atheist but a very tiny minority deny evolution. Half the damn people in our country are like you XD At least in europe. Also its called "Theistic evolution" but i think thats a stupid name since its exactly the same as atheistic evolution (also a stupid name) but a god is present while it happens. You dont have theistic gravity. Or theistic rain. Or theistic eating. Its not a more intelligent idea than regular evolution its just the same thing with a god watching it happen. Its not intelligent evolution anymore than if youre religious youre intelligently pouring a glass of milk or intelligently watching tv just because a god is watching it happen. I might as well call it "Grandma gravity" when something falls in front of my gran.

Sorry im gonna keep listing examples because i find this idea REALLY funny "Damn when the theistic sphere fell due to theistic gravity we didnt account for the theistic friction!"

Its just regular evolution mate, its regular gravity and regular friction Youre just religious at the same time. It doesnt need a name XD

Anyway my point is in my nation there are 29 million people who hold the same view you do. Youre hardly a minority.

Im guessing you're American because outside your country the majority of the western world holds your view.

EDIT 1: Also someone is totally gonna call you out about being a tad snooty toward atheists. I know it rustled my jimmies but i CBA to start a silly argument.

EDIT 2: Called it XD

 

[Kathinka]

The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

that statement is extremely pretentious and scientifically rather unsustainable, no?

 

[Bruce]

The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no yeti, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no Loch Ness monster, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no unicorn, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

When you can point out why any of those statements is ridiculous and not sensible, then you can maybe talk about what is ridiculous and not sensible.

This concept of a 'higher power' is so ill defined that even religious apologists like Karen Armstrong argue that it cannot be said to even exist. The thought that it doesn't exist isn't in fact ridiculous and not sensible, it is a pretty logical response to the fact that throughout human history people have been looking for one and yet nobody seems to have found any evidence for one.

 

[ISearchForTraps]

I say this without malice or bigotry in my heart, but purely as a Scientist. Anyone who denies that Evolution is real is either ignorant, or willingly in serious denial. Those who got its teaching banned in schools should be ashamed.

 

[Phrostbit3n]

The thought that there's no higher power, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no yeti, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no Loch Ness monster, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

The thought that there is no unicorn, frankly, is ridiculous and not sensible.

When you can point out why any of those statements is ridiculous and not sensible, then you can maybe talk about what is ridiculous and not sensible.

This concept of a 'higher power' is so ill defined that even religious apologists like Karen Armstrong argue that it cannot be said to even exist. The thought that it doesn't exist isn't in fact ridiculous and not sensible, it is a pretty logical response to the fact that throughout human history people have been looking for one and yet nobody seems to have found any evidence for one.

This is why I try to keep my science away from my religion. I had a long paragraph arguing with you, but honestly, my reasons are wrong. So...

Cthulu.