Regretably, there are a great many elected people in the US that publicly are against the teaching of science. I have not come across any such actions in the UK, which is the reason I am a little sceptical of the 50% number, and will be shocked it the number is true.
Richard Dawkins on why science is better than myth
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Well Dawkins doesn't seem to have a problem with the 50% number. He is well aware of British opinion on the matter:Regretably, there are a great many elected people in the US that publicly are against the teaching of science. I have not come across any such actions in the UK, which is the reason I am a little sceptical of the 50% number, and will be shocked it the number is true.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...over-Charles-Darwins-theory-of-evolution.html
In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages"
If you look at a bunch of articles you will find a lot of them chime in at about 50% or so for the UK.Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, said the findings revealed a worrying level of scientific ignorance among Britons.
As I posted above, that is shocking news. However, I have seen no statement by elected officials in the UK questioning the teaching of evolution.Well Dawkins doesn't seem to have a problem with the 50% number. He is well aware of British opinion on the matter:
If you look at a bunch of articles you will find a lot of them chime in at about 50% or so for the UK.
I don't know, nor do I care.As I posted above, that is shocking news. However, I have seen no statement by elected officials in the UK questioning the teaching of evolution.
His point was 40% of the US accepts creationism, he is talking about the general state of the idea in the public mind.
It is just another piece of evidence of his anti-American sentiment, which has followed him in his career.
If your question is, which culture tends to be more religiously fundamentalist, or literalist? There is no doubt the US comes out ahead on that issue.
For me yes, if they consistently pointed out things in China which were as much or almost as much the case in Canada or the U.S. but implied that the issue was very much more a Chinese issue.rld, if someone was say, anti-Chinese would that matter?
I'm just curious...
Sure. If someone was trying to make a point about a particular cultural feature being a negative, and it was known they had a bias against things Chinese...absolutely. Same goes for any ethnic group or well known bias.rld, if someone was say, anti-Chinese would that matter?
I'm just curious...
Shit, if Dawkins posted things about spandrels or gene driven evolution, I would be suspicious because of his well known biases in these areas. America gets no special treatment in my books. We just tend (for good reason) to talk about it a great deal.
Fuck your peer reviewed links. Evolution is the theory which says life evolved by chance according to natural selection of variations, without the help of intelligent design, God or highly advanced aliens. It is a theory because it has not been completely proven to be true. If it was, it would be classified as a scientific fact. "Missing links" was used by me to represent the further proof needed to move from theory to fact. If it is a fact to you, then you are a religious person.First of all, give me the definition of evolution. If you understand it properly, you should be able to do it in one simple sentence. If you're able to do that correctly, then, please, enlighten me about the "missing links." I want evidence from primary sources - peer reviewed articles. Show me.
Actually evolution is both a fact and a theory. In what is my favourite piece of science writing, Stephen Jay Gould expressed it this way:Fuck your peer reviewed links. Evolution is the theory which says life evolved by chance according to natural selection of variations, without the help of intelligent design, God or highly advanced aliens. It is a theory because it has not been completely proven to be true. If it was, it would be classified as a scientific fact. "Missing links" was used by me to represent the further proof needed to move from theory to fact. If it is a fact to you, then you are a religious person.
And even if we step onto your ground (and accept that evolution has not yet been proven to near certainty), if I believe evolution is a "fact" (and I will confess I do). That does not make me religious. It makes me someone who believes something which has not yet been properly proven, but something that can be proven or disproven. Religion is a very different animal indeed.Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
It doesn't sound to me like what you are posting about at all.If it is a fact to you, then you are a religious person.
But just in case many religions and most major Christian denominations: Orthodox, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans etc. . . all find evolution to be compatible with faith.
When Dmitri Mendeleev published the periodic table (~1872) a good number of chemical
elements were still missing. It is not until some years later when the gaps in the
original table were filled. But even before the period table was updated to completion
the periodicity of chemical elements was already established as a fact. By analogy
biological evolution of life is a fact even if many missing details remain to be discovered.
elements were still missing. It is not until some years later when the gaps in the
original table were filled. But even before the period table was updated to completion
the periodicity of chemical elements was already established as a fact. By analogy
biological evolution of life is a fact even if many missing details remain to be discovered.
but it must be because of the bible- because no-one in the US believed in god before now.The US is in decline for many reasons but believing in Genesis isn't one of them.
Further, it isn't as though no one in any other state believes in God.but it must be because of the bible- because no-one in the US believed in god before now.
I agree with your approach, but find it unwieldy to use in easy conversation, and think it lacks a certain potential effectiveness when the debate moves from the real of open minded discussion to that of political partisanship.Rld, nice quote from Gould, the wise dude indeed that he was. But I still like the line of argument that theories are our human efforts to make sense of observations and processes. This means it is quite pointless to ask if they are true or false, because such a question implies they will or will not correspond perfectly to observations and processes. But theories don't work that way, in the sense of 1 to 1 correspondences. Rather, they are approximations. As such, evolution can be said to be the best, most reliable, least disconfirmed approximate account of known observations and processes associated with organisms on our planet. The language of truth and falsity, when applied to theories, makes it too easy for creationists - for instance - to take any kind of non-perfect-correspondence as evidence for falsity, when in fact it is just evidence for what all theories share, that they don't perfectly correspond with sets of observations and processes they seek to explain.
Observationally, I think there is no doubt that evolution happens. The question of why or how it happens is where all the fun is.
A few posters have kindly explained the difference and link between theories and facts in the scientific world. But, to grossly simplify things, just in case you can't comprehend it, in science, theories are used to explain facts. Evolutionary change is a fact.Fuck your peer reviewed links. Evolution is the theory which says life evolved by chance according to natural selection of variations, without the help of intelligent design, God or highly advanced aliens. It is a theory because it has not been completely proven to be true. If it was, it would be classified as a scientific fact. "Missing links" was used by me to represent the further proof needed to move from theory to fact. If it is a fact to you, then you are a religious person.
Evolution is a change in the gene frequency of a population over time. That is all. It has nothing to do with the initiation of life as you believe it does.
As for how life began, there are hypotheses about that, related to the building blocks of RNA getting together in the right way by chance - but we don't know for sure yet. Hell, maybe it was a sophisticated alien race like you said.
As for the universe, I hope the theoretical physicists can at least shed a little bit more light on that one in my lifetime. The "God(s)" of organized religions aren't really in the picture as far as I'm concerned though.
Much of that 50% that "don't believe" in darwinian evolution are actually people who just admittedly don't understand it. It doesn't mean they actually think something else entirely.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
That is the source. It could be wrong. But my point about Dawkins dislike of American still stands.
So, a question for you all..........is it feasible or possible that Evolution is fact AND God exists? ( or how much has "god" intervened since setting nature in motion?) How did the life force emerge from dead matter?It doesn't sound to me like what you are posting about at all.
But just in case many religions and most major Christian denominations: Orthodox, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans etc. . . all find evolution to be compatible with faith.
Yes.So, a question for you all..........is it feasible or possible that Evolution is fact AND God exists?
Instead of answering your question directly let me point to you the fact thatSo, a question for you all..........is it feasible or possible that Evolution is fact AND God exists? ( or how much has "god" intervened since setting nature in motion?) How did the life force emerge from dead matter?
many scientists from the past and present are affiliated with a religion. As a research
chemist I've encountered more than a few religious men among my colleagues. My
mentor is an atheist. His mentor a world class scientist worthy of the Nobel prize
is an evangelical Christian. The thesis supervisor of an atheist ex-employer of mine is
an orthodox Jew. My external examiner is also a serious Christian. The list go
on and on. Science and belief in a deity are just two realms that don't necessarily
overlap.
i did not suggest they did. But to Dawkins to "not believe" in evolution is to be wrong. And I think he and I would agree that if people don't understand it, then it has not been properly taught to them.Much of that 50% that "don't believe" in darwinian evolution are actually people who just admittedly don't understand it. It doesn't mean they actually think something else entirely.
