The Orlando Sentinel has a “Friday Back Talk” section on the opinion page. The paper poses a question online, offers some multiple choice answers and then on Friday announces the results along with a handful of readers’ comments.
This week the main question was: Should FL schools teach evolution?
Surprisingly, the results were positive: 74% yes versus 26% no.
Here are some comments from those in the 26%:
Evolution, and the study it encompasses, is a theory, by definition. Some will even go so far as to say it is pure speculation.
Pictures: Orange County Jail mug shotsThat said, it would not be prudent to present such heavy information as fact to young minds. However, this might be a topic for college-level students.
And this one:
There are good reasons not to teach evolution as fact. One is that you would really be teaching atheism under the title of science.
The theory of evolution proposes that life began in the water (never observed and not proved) and that life has evolved upward in many different species by random chance (not proved and cannot be demonstrated). This is, in effect, telling children that God has no part in it.
The complexity of DNA itself should cause someone to think twice before teaching mega-evolution as fact. Scientists have no explanation of the origin and complex design of the encoded instructions in living cells. To believe that all this just happened by chance is blind faith, not science.
Fair educational systems promote thinking by allowing questioning and other points of view.
The above answers highlight why science education is so badly lacking in the US. ” life has evolved upward in many different species by random chance? and mega-evolution” (that’s a Pokemon Game).”I almost choked on my coffee.
The sad thing is, these people make statements with the kind of ignorant authority that can only come from religious indoctrination.
76% wow. But that percentage could be a little misleading as the question is posed. With adaptation, speciation and natural selection falling under the umbrella of evolution, I would have to say yes also. However, if the question dealt with the unscientific idea that nothing made everything, perhaps a larger percentage of people would have been branded as religious kooks. No one can deny that the secularist are doing a good job dumbing down the educational system with fallacious facts masquerading as science.
Chris – Please describe one or two or three of those “fallacious facts”, with citations to establish their error (answersingenesis.com et al. don’t count).
Pierce,
So if Answers in Genesis has a factual explanation you can’t use it or is it you can’t take it?
Here is a fun one, the regurgitated description of evolution, by the Why Evolution is True guy, Jerry Coyne. “In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”
Evolution is very easy to grasp and if it were true the word ‘perhaps’ wouldn’t be part of it’s description. He has no idea what this supposed self replicating molecule was or where it came from. Avoiding evolution’s unscientific foundation, the apparent ludicrous spontaneous generation event, he rambles on to claim there was only one primitive species. This 3.5 billion year old molecule had the ability to do want nothing on the planet can do today, through off diverse species like cats and dogs, given enough time. And now natural selection which kills off a portion of diversity is the main mechanism to produce diversity.
Knowing Coyne’s intended molecule to man conclusion, which one of his facts could not be fallacious?
1. Life on earth evolved gradually
2. beginning with one primitive species
3. perhaps a self-replicating molecule
4. that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago
5. it then branched out over time
6. throwing off many new and diverse species
7. and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection
Chris spewed, “Evolution is very easy to grasp†If that’s true what does it say about you when anyone can see by your inane rantings that you don’t have the slightest clue on how TOE works. Answers in Genesis has factual explanations?really, then show me one.
I’m sure you are much more highly qualified than Dr Coyne when it comes to evolutionary biology.Where did you get your PhD again?
Ivorygirl, I’m glad you chimed in. So you say Coyne is right and his suppositional description of evolution may not be just faith based psychobabble. Perhaps you can show us how the TOE does work.
Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, so it begins with life present from nowhere. So from that point we start, right?
1. Life on earth evolved gradually
How does he know the first life evolved gradually? Where was this observed?
How can he show life didn’t evolve rapidly? How was this tested?
Chris,
I see you got into the stupid pills again didn’t you.
Why in Zeus’s name do I need to answer any of your inept questions when you have consistently refused to answer any of mine? Don’t play creationists word games with Dr Coyne’s statements, it’s stupid and disingenuous. I have no intensions of trying to explain TOE to you (us) who ever us may be? I hope to Jebus there is not more than one of you.
I will give you two choices; either go and get a education (like Dr Coyne and others have)and learn some biology so you can actually make a informed contribution to a discussion about what science really says, or shut the F**k up. If you can’t do either, then I’m going to start telling you that the obscene, cannibalistic death cult you love so should be outlawed and I’ll sound just as ignorant as you.
Ivorygirl,
So we can take it from your answer that the gradual evolution of life was not tested or observed. And Coyne’s ramblings are psychobabble, not science. Nor does number one even have the qualification to become a theory.
Should we do number two?
Chris – AiG does not deal in facts; nor does ICR.
Assuming you quoted Coyne accurately (if from an online source, pls provide a link; if from a book, pls give title and page), you still haven’t shown any of his points to be in error.
1 – Life does evolve gradually, as conceded by even creationists who recognize the idea of “microevolution”.
2 – In this context, “species” becomes harder than ever to define. Fuzzy, but not “wrong”.
3 – Self-replicating molecule – see John Conway’s “Game of Life” (or show us a better idea).
4 – >3.5 gigayears – as shown by biological traces in geological formations.
5 – branching over time – how could living organisms not do this, given so much time?
6 – essentially repeats # 5.
7 – you haven’t disproved natural selection (or genetic drift, etc) either.
Asking “which one could not be fallacious?” doesn’t disprove any of them. Even with a weak target like Coyne’s oversimplified “for dummies” summary, you haven’t scored a single point.
Pierce,
“AiG does not deal in facts; nor does ICR.” Why don’t you explain that.
Here is where the quote came from.
http://jetpress.org/v20/blackford.pdf
Coyne’s comment is a simplistic frame work for his belief of origins, and not the result of observation or testing, by himself or anyone else. There were no whiteness to his claims. The interpretation of the facts are the only facts available to him. Not only do his facts change they are not all the facts or the only facts. His belief in evolution is based on faith, not truth.
Chris – thanks for providing a solid citation. Did you read the next page after that quotation, where the reviewer notes that –
?
A pity you follow up with a flatly false declaration: evolutionary processes have been both observed and tested, by thousands of well-trained scientists.
And I really hope you meant “witnesses” in that next sentence!
The interpretation of the facts are the only facts … his facts change… What does that mean?
… they are not all the facts … What relevant facts did he omit, and how do those latter affect his case?
… belief in evolution is based on faith, not truth. Again, you seem to think that denying evidence is a valid form of interpreting it. Coyne’s book, as reviewer Blackford notes, includes
Faith, whether you use St. Paul’s or Mark Twain’s definition (or any other I’ve seen), functions without any such support.
Oops, I neglected to answer Chris’s first question in his previous comment. Fortunately, that answer segues into my closing line.
Creationists rely primarily on their faith – that is to say, their emotional commitments to particular worldviews – and bend whatever material they cherry-pick from the real (physical) world to fit those worldviews. The results do not match up with observed and measured reality, and so far have failed to generate the sorts of verifiable predictions by which we measure scientific progress.
Pierce, your attempt to evaluate creationism as little more than uninformed hoopla doesn’t cut the mustard. I have difficulty believing someone such as yourself can be as ignorant as you pretend to be.
“Creationists rely primarily on their faith – that is to say, their emotional commitments to particular worldviews ” Where do you get this garbage? If there was no evidence for creationism there would be no creationist. The evidence for an intelligent creator is overwhelming. Similarities in design, in function, in composition, in purpose, just to name a few all point to intelligence far beyond ours. There is nothing emotional about it, these are observable, testable facts.
“and bend whatever material they cherry-pick from the real (physical) world to fit those worldviews.” Do you have a example? Are you saying evolutionist don’t select data to confirm there predictions.
“The results do not match up with observed and measured reality, and so far have failed to generate the sorts of verifiable predictions by which we measure scientific progress.” This claim is simply false. To cite just one example, the non-functionality of “junk DNA†was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions. In contrast, on teleological grounds, Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004) predicted that “junk DNA†would be found to be functional.
The Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed and the Darwinist predictions are being falsified. For instance, ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk DNA†regions, including pseudogenes.
Thus, it is a matter of simple fact that scientists working in the ID paradigm carry out and publish research, and they have made significant and successful ID-based predictions. (Info from Uncommon Decent.)
One thing You’re failing to recognize is that you’re in a small minority. According to Gallup in 2012 only 15% believed humans evolved, and God had no part in it. The other 85% aren’t all basing their view on faith. Wake up!
Chris – If there was no evidence for creationism there would be no creationist.
The Bible is the only “evidence” creationism has. An independent look at that shows it to be collected lore of an otherwise undistinguished tribe.
Similarities in design, in function, in composition, in purpose, just to name a few all point to intelligence …
Said similarities point to common descent in a shared environment, with the bonus that such process can be observed in action today around the world, whereas no “creator” shows up anywhere. (Also – “purpose”?)
Do you have a example? [of cherrypicking] Sure: just about any creationist screed, such as Ken Ham’s self-inflicted embarrassment yammering at Bill Nye. “No transitional fossils”, for crysake!
Are you saying evolutionist don’t select data to confirm there predictions. They seem to do their best to discard any ideas which don’t fit the data (rather than vice-versa amongst the creos). What facts do you think get left out in modern biological theory?
… ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk DNA†regions, including pseudogenes.
The ENCODE report has generated lots of well-deserved criticism, not least for stretching the definition of “functionality” well beyond reason. By way of analogy: along the road to my house you would see a long-abandoned convenience store with its roof fallen in; I and my neighbors regularly describe it to visitors as a landmark along the route. Much of the genome’s “use” of junk DNA is similar (“skip _X_ steps and resume process Q”) – but neither that store nor the genome’s SINEs and LINEs do anything.
(Info from Uncommon Decent.) UD, as you may already know, is a wholly-sponsored project of the Discovery Institute, the one and only center of “intelligent design” advocacy in the world. The Flat Earth Society also has a website touting its own claims; the rest of the world treats them about the same, and for about the same reasons.
According to Gallup in 2012 only 15% believed humans evolved, and God had no part in it.
Polls show varying results depending on the wording of the questions asked. The most recent (December 2013) survey of US attitudes from the Pew Research Center reports:
So, that’s at least 31% of the public backing the idea of naturalistic evolution, and another 24% supporting theistic evolution, with only 1/3 accepting creationism (the bulk of those identifying themselves as Republicans, for what that’s worth). But science does not work by popularity contests: the more people know about biology, the more they get behind evolution. The number of life-science professionals who endorse creationism is miniscule, and apparently a much lower percentage than those in mental hospitals.
Chris – my reply apparently had too many links and triggered a spam filter. Keep an eye on this thread: you’ll see a substantive answer soon!
Right, good luck with that.
Chris – Had you noticed my “2/25/2014 1:05 am” post when you emitted your 2/25/2014 10:25 pm comment?
Pierce-Nope
Chris – So, whaddya say?
Pierce – I don’t know what to say, I haven’t seen a “2/25/2014 1:05 am†post. Missing link?
Pierce – Here are a few more things you can debunk. http://kgov.com/2013-list-of-not-so-old-things
Chris –
Indeed, I was mistaken – my comment got tangled up in the spam-trap. So, I will re-upload in pieces:
Chris – If there was no evidence for creationism there would be no creationist.
The Bible is the only “evidence” creationism has. An independent look at that shows it to be collected lore of an otherwise undistinguished tribe.
Similarities in design, in function, in composition, in purpose, just to name a few all point to intelligence …
Said similarities point to common descent in a shared environment, with the bonus that such process can be observed in action today around the world, whereas no “creator” shows up anywhere. (Also – “purpose”?)
Do you have a example? [of cherrypicking] Sure: just about any creationist screed, such as Ken Ham’s self-inflicted embarrassment yammering at Bill Nye. “No transitional fossils”, for crysake!
Re-upload pt 2: Are you saying evolutionist don’t select data to confirm there predictions. They seem to do their best to discard any ideas which don’t fit the data (rather than vice-versa amongst the creos). What facts do you think get left out in modern biological theory?
… ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk DNA†regions, including pseudogenes.
The ENCODE report has generated lots of well-deserved criticism, not least for stretching the definition of “functionality” well beyond reason. By way of analogy: along the road to my house you would see a long-abandoned convenience store with its roof fallen in; I and my neighbors regularly describe it to visitors as a landmark along the route. Much of the genome’s “use” of junk DNA is similar (“skip _X_ steps and resume process Q”) – but neither that store nor the genome’s SINEs and LINEs do anything.
(Info from Uncommon Decent.) UD, as you may already know, is a wholly-sponsored project of the Discovery Institute, the one and only center of “intelligent design” advocacy in the world. The Flat Earth Society also has a website touting its own claims; the rest of the world treats them about the same, and for about the same reasons.
Re-upload pt 3: According to Gallup in 2012 only 15% believed humans evolved, and God had no part in it.
Polls show varying results depending on the wording of the questions asked. The most recent (December 2013) survey of US attitudes from the Pew Research Center reports:
So, that’s at least 31% of the public backing the idea of naturalistic evolution, and another 24% supporting theistic evolution, with only 1/3 accepting creationism (the bulk of those identifying themselves as Republicans, for what that’s worth). But science does not work by popularity contests: the more people know about biology, the more they get behind evolution. The number of life-science professionals who endorse creationism is miniscule, and apparently a much lower percentage than those in mental hospitals.
Chris – As for your link: Bob Enyart, pfui! The guy’s a walking Gish gallop (except that Gish never ran up that sort of arrest record).
Go to this League of Reason page, in which AronRa pointed out (many of) the flaws in the exact same claims that – as shown in your link – Enyart continued to use in 2013, just to fool naïve souls such as yourself.
Pierce you say, “The Bible is the only “evidence†creationism has. An independent look at that shows it to be collected lore of an otherwise undistinguished tribe.” You amaze me with these ignorant statements, I can’t believe you know so little about this subject, you must live in a bubble.
The bulk of your response is a crock, which is only supported by your world view. I don’t see where you have provided much to support your belief. “Said similarities point to common descent in a shared environment, with the bonus that such process can be observed in action today around the world, whereas no “creator†shows up anywhere. ” Suggesting similarities can only point to common descent and not common design is just belief. And I feel quite confident a ‘creator’ will not ‘show up’ in your religious humanist idea of biology.
Naturally we don’t see Darwinist or atheist recognizing and publishing evidence which supports creationism. So the Discovery Institute would be one place where such evidence would be considered. The claim that evolutionist only use unbiased interpretations of discovery is ridiculous.
I wasn’t familiar with Bob Enyart. The examples his shows of short age are fairly common and not just his, I would suspect. The rebuttal by evolutionist for things like petrified trees spanning through millions of years of strata is usually to just ridicule the messenger, as you’ve done here.
I would admit as you’ve shown, different polls will have different results.
Chris – Your name-calling is slapdash and off-target, but it’s much better than your attempts at (apparently) rebuttal.
The only fact you mentioned is that you were unaware the source you cited has a record of fanaticism, illegality, and abusive behavior, and that you knew and still know nothing about his (lame) claims.
C’mon, shape up! If you wanna represent the creationists of Florida (at least until Kent Hoving gets out of the slammer), you gotta deliver a much better song-&-dance than this.
Pierce, that original comment was sitting in the “awaiting approval” folder and I had not idea it was there. Posts hardly ever wind up there. I’ve now approved it … which might add to the confusion … sorry.