The misinterpretation of evolution

[ShadowsofHope]

The thing people don't seem to factor into this is how stubborn people can be. Yelling quotes and evidence into their faces just makes them dig further into their own beliefs until the whole thing becomes a shouting match of petty insults. I'm sure everyone has some belief that most other people find quite stupid, and being told their beliefs are stupid more often than not just forces them into a state of denial which doesn't help anyone. What everyone needs is understanding and patience; it's not the end of the world just because some people prefer to think different than you. It doesn't make them stupid, or childish, or whatever.

Life is not about "I'm right, you're wrong" but rather about compromise.

And yes, I did specifically avoid mentioning which belief I'm for, because this statement applies to everyone.

This is the crux of the entire debate on evolution vs ID. The believers in ID are just not willing to listen and consider the arguments of the scientists.

/facepalm

Did you even read all of my post? IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE. Yes, the creationists and whatnot refuse to listen to the evolutionists, but that's because the evolutions treat them like they're idiots and don't try to respect or understand their point of view. BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT HERE.

What is this term "evolutionists" you like to throw around here? Evolutionary theory is not it's own category of scientists in a lab, it is the broader term for an entire facet of biological and biochemical divisions of scientific research and discovery. The term "Evolutionists" (opposite of "Creationists") was first coined by a Creationist in order make Evolution vs. Creationism seem as though both were on equal grounds of a debate, no less.

Also, I cannot exactly respect a proponent of ID or Creationism when their entire "theory" relies on the premises that either "It's too complex for me to understand, so henceforth God/Design!" (Argument from Personal Incredulity, Argument from Ignorance) or "I believe God exists, henceforth Intelligent Design/Creationism is the only viable answer." (Arguably Argument from Authority). So, yes. I completely understand were ID/Creationism proponents are coming from in their arguments. However, understanding their arguments does not mean that their arguments are actually worth any legitimate intellect in an actual scientific debate, no less. If you claim your idea's and belief's can withstand scientific rigor and inquiry, and they prove to be nothing less than a purely religious driven ideology, then scientists completely reserve the right to call them "idiots" for attempting to pass that ideology off as science.

 

[Magnethead]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

Teaching creationism as an alternate theory to evolution is like teaching the idea that a sprinkling of pixie dust and a happy thought are a valid alternative to a plane.

 

[KoalaKid]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument. Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading. It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well. People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

No, they should not be taught simultaneously. Evolution is a scientific theory with evidence to back it up, whereas Intelligent Design is just a theory based upon faith. ID does NOT belong in Science lessons. (Or even in schools at all)

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

Really, an actual theoretical physicist doesn't believe in gravity? So what does he think causes what we perceive as gravity? Please give me a link to this Erik Verlinde's theory of "no gravity." I would be very interested to read about it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b7D1IaRcyRgJ:www.theblaze.com/stories/brilliant-physicist-guess-what-gravity-doesnt-exist/+gravity+doesn%27t+exist&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

You know, stupid physicists do exist.

You obviously know more about physics than he does right?

I didn't say that. I'm just saying that when someone earns the title 'physicist', it does not mean that their ideas suddenly become 100% true and accurate, and must be accepted as fact by everyone.

I mean, probability-wise a physicist should be near this mark, but what I'm saying is there's always an exception.

Anyway, as others have said, the argument isn't really about whether gravity exists or not, and it's not really relevant to this argument.

I think it's absolutely relevant to this argument, and if you were to read my post before throwing in your two cents you would see how.

Your argument is 'you can't prove anything!', right? It's a stupid argument. You can't prove anything to 100% infallibility, but that's not what science is trying to do. You look at a theory, weigh up the evidence, and if all goes well you say 'I think that this theory is almost certainly true'. When a new theory comes along with better evidence, you act accordingly.

To say 'you can't prove anything' is a black and white view of a gloriously colourful world and it doesn't belong in this thread.

I hope you realize that in your statement you first said my argument was stupid, and then went on to say that it's also true.

your stupid statement:
"Your argument is 'you can't prove anything!', right? It's a stupid argument. You can't prove anything to 100% infallibility"

 

[Iron Mal]

First of all, your run on sentences make an extremely incoherent argument.

Go easy on others if what they say seems to get incoherant sometimes, the discussion between Evolution and Creationism is a somewhat difficult subject and as such can be draining (especially for those who try to be understanding and diplomatic towards the wants and needs of both sides).

Second of all, you seem to have some of your facts bass-ackwards. You seem to believe that evolution was the lead idea the whole time, and that these filthy newcomers of Intelligetn Design are invading.

So are you saying that if Athiesm and Agnosticism were now required to be taught in Religious Studies classes alongside more traditional theologies that you'd have no issue with this? After all, they are equally valid approaches to viewing religion and morality.

It is actually quite the opposite. Evolution is an idea that is barely even a hundred years old, while Creationism has had free reign for thousands of years.

Other ideas that we've had for thousands of years:

-The idea that the Earth was flat.
-The idea that various illnesses and disorders are caused by demonic possession rather than harmful microbes and neurological disorders.
-The idea that in order for our crops and harvests to be successful we must give offerings and sacrifices to our chosen deity.
-Children who were born weak or deformed are not worthy of life and should be disposed of.
-Leeches are the cure for a wide variety of diseases and conditions (also Bloodletting for those problems caused by having 'too much blood').
-Killing a man and eating his heart will give you his courage.
-The way boys grow into men is by performing oral sex on and swallowing the semen of the village elders (yes, this is a real thing).
-If you masturbate then you'll go blind.

Okay, that last one I think is actually more recent (I forget when it was established) but it holds just about as much factual validity as all of these other 'ancient claims'. Just because a claim has been held onto for a long time doesn't automatically make it true.

I think that it is fair to say that you seem to need to brush up on some things first before you go crying wolf on other people. Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well.

That would be fair if both were issues of religious belief, however, they aren't. Intelligent Design is grounded in faith and religious doctrine where the Theory of Evolution is grounded in observation, evidence and the scientific method.

This isn't up for debate because, quite simply, Science isn't a democratic subject. What we find to be the correct answer is determined by the evidence and how it holds up to scientific analysis. There are still a significant portion of people in the Western world who believe in medical and psychological conditions being caused by the presence of malicious spirits and demonic entities but we don't teach exorcisms in Biology classes or Medical School because it quite simply isn't science, the same applies to your rewording of Creationist Theory, calling it 'Intelligent Design' and changing a few of the details around doesn't spontaniously make it a science and we are not obliged to be fair if the evidence and research doesn't support you.

People need to see all of the choices, and then decide for themselves what they want to believe is true. There is no reasone why Creationism nor evolution can be taught simulataneously.

If this was a Religious Studies class then that would be a perfectly fair statement to make and I would agree with you one hundred percent, in matters of faith and belief (or lack theoreof in some people's cases) everyone should be able to see all of the options avaliable and decide for themselves what they believe in terms of spirituality (for the reccord I am an Athiest but I do have a respect and understanding of various Religions that has come from also being given free choice in choosing for myself what to believe).

However, as I stated above, this doesn't work in science. We didn't come across many of the breakthroughs and advancements we have today by people choosing what they want to believe is true, many of the benefits of science you're enjoying as we speak (like the computer you're reading this on for example) were the work of people who understood the outlines and limitations of what was 'cutting edge' science at their time and tried to expand upon it and widen our knowledge to things we never would have thought of before.

It should also be noted that science isn't a subject grounded in what you believe. I could believe all I want that it would be possible to enhance my intelligence by exposing myself to radiation, I could try to create a very rational and advanced theory on how this works and even possibly get some people to agree with me if I put it across well enough but this wouldn't change the fact that what I'd be saying would be provably wrong.

How much you believe in something doesn't make the world change to make it true.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

The main bad here is that people think it's the other side of the religion coin.It's not.It's science whether you want to accept it or not it's there.

 

[Kolby Jack]

The thing people don't seem to factor into this is how stubborn people can be. Yelling quotes and evidence into their faces just makes them dig further into their own beliefs until the whole thing becomes a shouting match of petty insults. I'm sure everyone has some belief that most other people find quite stupid, and being told their beliefs are stupid more often than not just forces them into a state of denial which doesn't help anyone. What everyone needs is understanding and patience; it's not the end of the world just because some people prefer to think different than you. It doesn't make them stupid, or childish, or whatever.

Life is not about "I'm right, you're wrong" but rather about compromise.

And yes, I did specifically avoid mentioning which belief I'm for, because this statement applies to everyone.

This is the crux of the entire debate on evolution vs ID. The believers in ID are just not willing to listen and consider the arguments of the scientists.

/facepalm

Did you even read all of my post? IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE. Yes, the creationists and whatnot refuse to listen to the evolutionists, but that's because the evolutions treat them like they're idiots and don't try to respect or understand their point of view. BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT HERE.

What is this term "evolutionists" you like to throw around here? Evolutionary theory is not it's own category of scientists in a lab, it is the broader term for an entire facet of biological and biochemical divisions of scientific research and discovery. The term "Evolutionists" (opposite of "Creationists") was first coined by a Creationist in order make Evolution vs. Creationism seem as though both were on equal grounds of a debate, no less.

Also, I cannot exactly respect a proponent of ID or Creationism when their entire "theory" relies on the premises that either "It's too complex for me to understand, so henceforth God/Design!" (Argument from Personal Incredulity, Argument from Ignorance) or "I believe God exists, henceforth Intelligent Design/Creationism is the only viable answer." (Arguably Argument from Authority). So, yes. I completely understand were ID/Creationism proponents are coming from in their arguments. However, understanding their arguments does not mean that their arguments are actually worth any legitimate intellect in an actual scientific debate, no less. If you claim your idea's and belief's can withstand scientific rigor and inquiry, and they prove to be nothing less than a purely religious driven ideology, then scientists completely reserve the right to call them "idiots" for attempting to pass that ideology off as science.

I used that term as a substitute for the much longer "people who support evolutionary theory." Had I known it would cause you to throw a fit, I would have avoided it. I apologize.

You claim understanding, but you don't really understand. You continue to use insults despite the fact that dumb people who support evolutionary theory (better?) exist, as do smart creationists. Creationists can't just pull a 180 in their beliefs without consequences. Sure, some can and do make the transition just fine, but for others it would cause such a crisis of faith that I don't even know how they could manage. To some, faith is all that keeps them going. Scoff at that if you must, but know that doing so only emphasizes just how little you understand them. The right thing to do here is to present your case and let people make their own decisions, and then respect those decisions as their own. What many people who support evolutionary theory seem to think is that shouting at and insulting creationists is the only way to get them to accept your views when in fact it just does more harm than good. THAT is what I mean when I say UNDERSTANDING AND PATIENCE. If you still choose to mock and berate them, then I pity you far more than I do any creationist.

Now don't get me wrong, creationists pull the same crap I described above as much as people who support evolutionary theory do, but they are sorely underrepresented on The Escapist, so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here.

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago or that we evolved from monkeys doesn't really matter much in life. And it certainly isn't worth fighting over. I think we can all agree on that, yes? Fighting bad?

 

[Abengoshis]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

We feel a force near a mass. We have no idea what it is, but we know we can feel something, so there should be a reason. We call that reason 'gravity', but we don't know what the reason is yet, we can only apply it.

 

[Abengoshis]

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago or that we evolved from monkeys doesn't really matter much in life.

Just to be annoying, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We're apes, we evolved from previous apes, not previous monkeys.

Also it matters a lot to medicine if you're that kind of scientist.

 

[Iron Lightning]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record (Read: If we found that most fossils appeared in most if not all of the strata in no particular order). Finding true chimeras such as found in mythology (mermaids, griffons, hyppocampus, chimera (mythological creature rather than vague synonym for amalgamation)) would do much the same. And if a mechanism was found in organisms that outright stopped mutations from accumulating (read: Literally acting as a wall saying 'here you shall go and no further') that would similarly cast doubt on evolutionary theory. There are plenty of scenarios that could potentially falsify evolution.

That said, at this point we can say with a great deal of certainty that the fossil record is not static, we have no evidence for any true chimeras, and all indications point to there not being any magical genetic barrier preventing a population from changing past a certain point. These remain falsifiable points though we can say with ever greater certainty such things will not be found in much the same way that we can say with ever greater confidence that one day gravity won't turn off and we'll all fall into the sky.

I'm pretty sure that I can shoot my mouth off about any subject I like researched or not so your first sentiment is null and void. Now if you actually knew anything about science you would see how funny your first statement I commented on was because you would know that science cannot prove or disprove anything.

oh by the way gravity doesn't exist.

And the entire solar system orbits a small mouldy grape, don't forget that.

"With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple": "gravity doesn?t exist."

Really, an actual theoretical physicist doesn't believe in gravity? So what does he think causes what we perceive as gravity? Please give me a link to this Erik Verlinde's theory of "no gravity." I would be very interested to read about it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b7D1IaRcyRgJ:www.theblaze.com/stories/brilliant-physicist-guess-what-gravity-doesnt-exist/+gravity+doesn%27t+exist&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Fascinating, this man believes that because gravity is negligible on a very small scale that it must be caused by an "average" of unknown atomic effects which are not gravity but make up gravity when taken in large amounts (like how temperature is caused by the individual motions of atoms.) He could be right even though his theory doesn't seem very likely to be true as individual particles do have mass and we're pretty sure that mass causes gravity.

More on Topic: I'd say that the common misinterpretations of evolution mostly come from misinformation told by creationists to further their agendas.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

If they want to teach creationism as an "alternative" in my science class, then I demand the right to go to their church and teach the appaling implications that the beleif of a all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god carries, and the fact that any all-powerful creater is, in this universe, evil.
We have to teach the controversy!

<spoiler=I'm just going to put this right here>http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20091016.gif

Until it starts making testable predictions, and has a strong body of evidence behind it that support the predictions Creation should stay away from the scientific discussion.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Teaching creationism as an alternate theory to evolution is like teaching the idea that a sprinkling of pixie dust and a happy thought are a valid alternative to a plane.

Does that work, because holy shit plane tickets are getting expensive.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I used that term as a substitute for the much longer "people who support evolutionary theory." Had I known it would cause you to throw a fit, I would have avoided it. I apologize.

It's not an accurate substitute, so stay with the proper (even if longer to type) terminology if you will.

You claim understanding, but you don't really understand. You continue to use insults despite the fact that dumb people who support evolutionary theory (better?) exist, as do smart creationists.

If even the dumbest person in existence can understand and support Evolutionary theory, then what does that say about smart Creationists? I don't care how dumb the person is. If they can even minimally understand Evolutionary theory and support it, then they have realized the realistic theory either way.

Creationists can't just pull a 180 in their beliefs without consequences. Sure, some can and do make the transition just fine, but for others it would cause such a crisis of faith that I don't even know how they could manage. To some, faith is all that keeps them going.

That's not my problem if they are that deep in an ideology based upon faith that they cannot accept reality around them that has been proven by science without having some sort of brain aneurism in the process. They learn to accept reality, or they don't and continue to be proven wrong when they spout off incorrect "scientific" assertions.

Scoff at that if you must, but know that doing so only emphasizes just how little you understand them. The right thing to do here is to present your case and let people make their own decisions, and then respect those decisions as their own.

I respect their right to make a decision, but I do not have to respect the subject of that decision. I do not respect Creationism on scientific grounds, and never will. They can believe in whatever religious aspect of their lives they wish, as long as they do not attempt to pass it off as something it very obviously is not.

What many people who support evolutionary theory seem to think is that shouting at and insulting creationists is the only way to get them to accept your views when in fact it just does more harm than good. THAT is what I mean when I say UNDERSTANDING AND PATIENCE. If you still choose to mock and berate them, then I pity you far more than I do any creationist.

I am nor shouting or insulting Creationists. Making a factual statement about scientific discovery and research concerning the reality of the natural world is neither, it simply is what it is. If they choose to get offended over it, that is not my problem, but their own.

Also, I don't particularly care about your pity. It does not affect my life or my arguments on this forum, so please save it for someone whom might actually care more.

Now don't get me wrong, creationists pull the same crap I described above as much as people who support evolutionary theory do, but they are sorely underrepresented on The Escapist, so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here.

Simply playing Devil's Advocate does not make your arguments for Creationists any more valid than if you really were a Creationist. The majority of the scientific community accepts Evolution as the valid theory on the natural world around us, and that is what most importantly matters.

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago or that we evolved from monkeys doesn't really matter much in life. And it certainly isn't worth fighting over. I think we can all agree on that, yes? Fighting bad?

Evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys, not from them. Minor correction there.

Also, I have no issue with Creationists believing as they do, as long as they do not attempt to pass Creationism off as science. Once they accept that, I go back to not caring (though still finding their belief's rather absurd, but that is an entirely different discussion). Fortunately, the majority of them seem to realize that. The loud minority of them that attempt to place Creationism into science labs and public classrooms not religious studies, are the one's that I pick my battles with.

 

[Kolby Jack]

The fact of the matter is, whether or not you believe that the Earth was made 6000 years ago or that we evolved from monkeys doesn't really matter much in life.

Just to be annoying, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We're apes, we evolved from previous apes, not previous monkeys.

Aha, but I believe apes evolved from monkeys! After all, we still have tailbones!

Also it matters a lot to medicine if you're that kind of scientist.

Does it? A stomach is still a stomach, whether or not you believe it is the process of millions of years of mutations and adaptations or something created in a day by God. Where you believe it came from does not change what you know it is. I've never seen a creationist deny the existence of genetic conditions or diseases, though if there are any I'm pretty sure they are the tiniest minority.

 

[Penguin_Factory]

So, this is fun.

I'm a biotechnology student and know quite a bit about evolution. I'm not an expert, but I've done a lot of reading on the subject and I think it's fair to say I have a deeper understanding of the mechanics involved than your average person on the street.

And a lot of people in this thread are getting stuff wrong, even people defending evolution. I'm not going to quote any examples to avoid embarrassing anyone, but a lot of you who are sticking up for the theory (thanks by the way) don't understand it. My advice: buy this book [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314525441&sr=8-1] and read it cover to cover.

As for the other side of the coin, I'm seeing a lot of very misguided arguments against evolution. Let's dive in:

Also, it is fair that if one idea is taught in the classroom, then another idea must be taught as well

No it isn't, because one of those ideas is wrong. This is not a matter of opinion- the theory of evolution has been proven true to the highest extent that it's possible for a scientific theory to be, while intelligent design has yet to put forward a single piece of verifiable evidence that's stood up to scrutiny.

Intelligent Design advocates are not scientists because they aren't interested in doing science. Take a look at how organizations like the Discovery Institute spend their money and you'll see they're more interested in public outreach and lobbying than confirming their hypothesis. That's because this is a political movement, not a scientific debate. They're trying to force their ideas into the classroom for ideological reasons without going through the same process of confirmation and testing that any other hypothesis would have to pass before gaining such a degree of acceptance.

Just a nitpick: It is the Hypothesis of Intelligent design. It is not yet accepted as a theory and honestly probably never will be, its just that it is impossible to test it using the scientific method.

It's not yet accepted as a theory? If you asked a biologist- any biologist, anywhere- do you think they'd agree with that statement?

I would also invite you to give your definition of the scientific method, because I can assure you evolution has been tested using it, continuously for the past 150 years.

It's not even that. It doesn't provide a mechanism and makes no testable predictions

It provides several mechanisms- mutation, genetic drift, epigenetics, natural selection, sexual selection.

As for testable predictions, if you want to see some of those you should check out this book that came out awhile back [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Selection-Preservation-Favoured-Struggle-ebook/dp/B000JML90Y/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314526172&sr=1-3].

Personally i don't experience much trouble with people not understanding evolution. I've yet to encounter anyone who wholeheartedly believes that god created us as we are and that nothing else has played a part since the dawn of time.

I'd say it's just a religious issue and leave it at that. Plain and simple.

Polls have consistently shown that something like 40% of Americans believe that God created us as we are and that nothing else has played a part since the dawn of time.

It's also not a religious issue. Many of the people who don't believe in evolution are going on to try to stifle the teaching of the theory in schools, or (as we've seen) to promote nonsense alongside it. We can't afford to say "it's a personal matter, we'll leave it to the individual" because the creationists and ID advocates are running well-funded and popular campaigns to force their religious beliefs on children in the guise of science.

Some religious people I've seen act like science will put an end to religion, but they shouldn't even be in competition!

I understand where you're coming from here, and the sentiment of wanting the two to co-exist is noble, but science and religion can't help but be in competition because many religions hold as absolute, immutable truth ideas that science has proven wrong. There's no way to reconcile that without one or either side compromising themselves.

Outside of that... when you can find the missing mitochondria eve then we will chat about EVOLUTION, but until then I'm not giving it a thought.

The mitochondrial eve (I really wish they'd come up with a better name for that) isn't "missing". Biologists have already traced back our mitochondrial DNA to our last common ancestor.

And finally, because this is getting way longer than I intended:

Interesting, though I know numerous intelligent Christians that are far more capable than either of us and they wholeheartedly explain, and defend Creationism.

I would welcome a debate with any of them.

That's not hyperbole, I'd seriously like to have a discussion with someone who can intelligently defend creationism. Link them to the thread so they can join in, or have one of them PM me.

 

[elbowlick]

[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve[/link]

I'll just leave this here. Why? Because I think it's funny.

 

[weker]

HA, you can't scientifically prove or disprove evolution!

To be perfectly blunt: Try researching the subject before shooting your mouth off like that. Evolution is a falsifiable model by virtue of the predictions it makes. One way to potentially disprove the theory would be if we found a static fossil record

I doubt the discovery of these things would effect the theory of evolution at all, as it has been tried and tested so many many times to actually allow it to be described as a scientific theory (one of the highest awards in science) Evolution is proven in the same way that we know water boils and we need oxygen to breath (with a few less constant reminders )
The only reason Evolution is questioned in such severity today is due to it contradicting the Bible but don't get me started on the amount of contradictions and hypocrisy that comes from there.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Also, I have no issue with Creationists believing as they do, as long as they do not attempt to pass Creationism off as science. Once they accept that, I go back to not caring (though still finding their belief's rather absurd, but that is an entirely different discussion). Fortunately, the majority of them seem to realize that. The loud minority of them that attempt to place Creationism into science labs and public classrooms not religious studies, are the one's that I pick my battles with.

I can support this stance. I'm as against creationists shoving their viewpoints in our faces as much as you. I would like to point out, however, that while you said you weren't insulting creationists, you repeatedly inferred that they were dumb or inferior throughout your post. Just saying.

 

[Dreaming Dan]

For a start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Read it before you start posting opinions rather than facts!

Evolution as far a science goes it pretty cut and dry. We have a genetic trait that is advantageous (in some cases not)it makes us fitter and more likely to survive (or be able to find a mate) traits are then passed on to your offspring....

Repeat this over a long time and some of these traits that began as one off mutations in one individual cold then make there way into more of the population, this mutation could be something as simple as a resistance to a disease. however if most of the population are struck down by said disease then the mutation has a selective advantage and become more common in the population. The survivors of said horrible disease could be said to have "evolved" in order to survive the threat.

This is a really crude example thrown together while I am writing an essay on co-evolution in bacteria.. pick holes in it if you want there will probably be room to if you look hard enough. People are allowed their own opinions they just aren't always right. educate yourself on both sides if you are going to make statements about one over the other or you just come of as argumentative.

 

[Haratu]

I am a Christian (Protestant) and a Science teacher, here are some common misinterpretations concerning society and evolution i come up against from friends and in the class.

Evolution denies the existence of God
-False, it only denies the 'literal' translation of 2 chapters in Genesis. Some people treat Genesis as a different type of narrative, and others who believe in a God may not be Jewish/Christian/Islam.

Evolved species are better than unevolved species
-Not true, many of the 'unevolved species' are actually able to survive better than others. Sharks and crocodiles are perfect examples.

Fundamentalist religious groups are against evolution on the basis of Genesis
-False, the Roman Catholic Church officially recognises teaching evolution in Catholic schools. Islam also encourages the teaching of evolution.

Evolution is about survival of the fittest
-False, Sometimes the fittest can be the ones most vulnerable. Epidemics with new viruses reveal that usually the fittest people die fastest. 'Fitness' relies on an unchanging world.

Evolution and geology disprove creation
- false, for two reasons, firstly these processes can be started by a God. Secondly a god would be powerful enough to create these processes in mid swing.

Evolution can not be proven as we have not experience enough of it.
-False, there is enough evidence in nature over the past hundred years that proves evolution repeatedly, to ignore this would be naive. DNA analysis of dead organisms have shown many modern species also have evolved over the last hundred years or so.

The theory announced by Darwin and Mendel was perfect
-False, as a science evolutionary theory always can be developed to be more accurate. in fact Evolutionary theory has changed to a large degree in just the last 20 years.

Finally here is one that is true:

It is not possible to change from one species to another suddenly
-True, in fact changes occur in small, very small jumps. this is similar to how racial groups have different features (although the difference hasn't been enough to make new species)

 

[Haratu]

i