If I was permitted to add my vote, the count thus far indicates that slightly over a third of forum members believe in special creation rather than the theory of evolution. Statistically, according to a new Pew Center analysis, roughly a third of Americans reject microbe to man evolution as well.
Evolution or Creation Poll
Pew analysis makes sense because America is still into god/religion although atheism is on the rise.
I think it may be good at this point to make a brief mention of the attitudes and actions of believers in divine creation and those who accept evolution: centuries ago before Darwin, most people believed in divine creation. If anyone dared to speak against this, there would be a good chance that they'd be killed for blasphemy.
In the West today, most people accept evolution, with a minority still believing in divine creation. But the evolutionists haven't burnt anyone at the stake.
Vander is this just a poll or an invitation for debate? I assumed the former but then you posted a video of the worse kind of creationist stupidity.
Do I rebutt it or not?
I would vote for evolution. (If I could: my buttons don’t work) I would say evolution is a better account of how we got here than creationism. It explains how living things are related, and how species come and go better than creationism does, for example. On the other hand, it may be that evolution needs to be modified in unexpected ways, or even replaced by a different theory, as human knowledge progresses, since that is the pattern of the history of scientific knowledge in general.
roughly a third of Americans reject microbe to man evolution as well.
No doubt. This is one of the reasons we know that a good chunk of Americans are morons.
Once you establish that the United States is probably the most religious of all the developed countries, it then follows that a good portion of the population is bound to believe in the fairy tales that religion teaches.
I try not to CARE what others think or believe.
It has taken me years and years to keep my mouth shut when a pointy-head says something absurd.
It's tough. We all know it is tough.
Tough subjects to avoid:
Climate Change, Evolution, Bigfoot, UFO's - why do I need to care what you think about them?
It's human nature to want to set "others" straight, eh? Ha!
But when has anybody EVER been persuaded against a cherished (false) belief?
Not often. What happens is an argument and social blocking and banning.
Is it worth that?
A good discussion is achievable - but it takes intellectual honesty.
What is INTELLECTUAL HONESTY?
To be willing to change your most cherished belief when faced with facts and reasons which falsify them and the willingness to be open to admitting you are WRONG.
In my opinion, no debate or argument should begin without asking: "Are you willing to be wrong if facts go against you?"
If not -- why do it?
Evolution has seldom been argued within a boundary of COMMON belief as a starting point in debate. Magesterium VS Magesterium doesn't work.
You can't argue chalk with a piece of cheese.
All ancient mythological expressions are a fact that they were born and inspired from out of human ignorance of the world in which we live.
The evidence to date of what has been examined here on earth and in outer space shows that evolution carries a high probability.
The idea of supernatural beings creating us and everything on this planet is a simple answer to a very complicated and complex question.
But when has anybody EVER been persuaded against a cherished (false) belief? - Terry
I don't know but thousands of exJWs suggest it is not uncommon.
The ability to change your cherished beliefs with the discovery of new information is a sign of intelligence. I am deeply grateful to people who care when other people, including me, believe things that are just plain wrong.
<<Do I rebutt it or not?>>
Most on this forum appreciate your input on evolution. Please feel free to critique either of the two videos posted on this thread or the short comments I made introducing them.
<<...it may be that evolution needs to be modified in unexpected ways, or even replaced by a different theory, as human knowledge progresses, since that is the pattern of the history of scientific knowledge in general.>>
Agreed, scientific knowledge can and has changed over the years. I like your openness to that possibility applied to evolutionary theory.