Scientists stunned by the public's doubt of Darwin

Apr 22, 2014 Full story: World Magazine 248

The scientific establishment recoiled in horror when a recent poll revealed a majority of Americans doubt the truth of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Full Story
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1 Apr 23, 2014
Ha, Ha ,Ha, the puddle goo religion needs a better preacher

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2 Apr 24, 2014
bohart wrote:
Ha, Ha ,Ha, the puddle goo religion needs a better preacher
Funny, the article was about morons who are skeptical about evolution, not about abiogenesis.

I guess you still haven't learned the difference.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3 Apr 24, 2014
It's okay, Bo zo was just admitting that his side was a PR political movement while evolutionary biology was demonstrable science. Average joe public doesn't know much science because they don't really care about it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4 Apr 24, 2014
"But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.”- Stephen Meyer

What a comedian.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#5 Apr 25, 2014
I was more depressed than stunned. And the Big Bang theory was even less believed than evolution. All it shows is that our educational system is failing miserably in teaching the sciences.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#6 Apr 25, 2014
The education system is being handicapped by politics and public opinion. Science teachers are not immune and can come under fire from parents. Few people want to stir up trouble for themselves.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#7 Apr 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
I was more depressed than stunned. And the Big Bang theory was even less believed than evolution. All it shows is that our educational system is failing miserably in teaching the sciences.
Darwin believed in progressive evolution. Progressive evolution is spiritualism. Spiritualism is anti-science. What is most depressing about our educational system is that students aren't learning that conclusions depend upon presuppositions and that a nontrivial set of observations often has equally valid non-isomorphic explanations. http://everythingimportant.org/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#8 Apr 27, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Darwin believed in progressive evolution. Progressive evolution is spiritualism. Spiritualism is anti-science. What is most depressing about our educational system is that students aren't learning that conclusions depend upon presuppositions and that a nontrivial set of observations often has equally valid non-isomorphic explanations. http://everythingimportant.org/

Well, that was pretty stupid. Nice example of a loose association, slippery slope fallacy, however.

You have a point about the education system. It certainly failed you.

"equally valid non-isomorphic explanations" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#9 Apr 27, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Darwin believed in progressive evolution. Progressive evolution is spiritualism. Spiritualism is anti-science. What is most depressing about our educational system is that students aren't learning that conclusions depend upon presuppositions and that a nontrivial set of observations often has equally valid non-isomorphic explanations. http://everythingimportant.org/
Darwin continued to the end to insist that the apparent improvement in organic forms disclosed in the fossil record was a necessary long-run consequence of random variation, population pressure, and differential survival to reproductive age. In the sixth edition, as in the first, these processes were represented as constituting "laws impressed on matter by the Creator" and as working "by and for the good of each being", with the result that "all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." What better metaphor could Darwin have chosen to designate these agencies of progressive improvement than the term "natural selection," evocative as it was of the benevolent selectivity of the improver of domestic stocks? True, nature's selection was much slower, much more erratic and wasteful than man's, but its superior workmanship was evident in the "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful" it had produced. The struggle for existence was harsh, but Darwin found consolation in the belief "that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply." Natural improvement, although costly, slow, and spasmodic, was, happily, inevitable. Having produced the human species, natural selection (aided by the inherited effects of mental and moral training) would, Darwin hoped, eventually evolve creatures who would look back on him and Lyell and Newton as "mere Barbarians". In Darwin's view, natural selection was no mere mechanism of organic modification and co-adaptation. It was also the Great Improver, blind but powerful and inexorable. It had, said Darwin, elevated man to "the very summit of the organic scale" and had thereby given him "hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future."

Darwin's metaphor had taken on a life of its own. Natural selection had become a being with many of the attributes of deity. Its works were manifold, like those of the Biblical Jehovah. Its power was awesome, conferring life and death, creating new and ever more complex organic forms, separating the wheat from the tares, rewarding the efficient and punishing the ineffectual, giving hope of ultimate progress to those who believed in its power and kept its commandments.-- By JOHN C. GREENE.

Charles Darwin Deified Progressive Evolution -- http://everythingimportant.org/evolution

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#10 Apr 27, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin continued to the end to insist that the apparent improvement in organic forms disclosed in the fossil record was a necessary long-run consequence of random variation, population pressure, and differential survival to reproductive age. In the sixth edition, as in the first, these processes were represented as constituting "laws impressed on matter by the Creator" and as working "by and for the good of each being", with the result that "all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." What better metaphor could Darwin have chosen to designate these agencies of progressive improvement than the term "natural selection," evocative as it was of the benevolent selectivity of the improver of domestic stocks? True, nature's selection was much slower, much more erratic and wasteful than man's, but its superior workmanship was evident in the "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful" it had produced. The struggle for existence was harsh, but Darwin found consolation in the belief "that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply." Natural improvement, although costly, slow, and spasmodic, was, happily, inevitable. Having produced the human species, natural selection (aided by the inherited effects of mental and moral training) would, Darwin hoped, eventually evolve creatures who would look back on him and Lyell and Newton as "mere Barbarians". In Darwin's view, natural selection was no mere mechanism of organic modification and co-adaptation. It was also the Great Improver, blind but powerful and inexorable. It had, said Darwin, elevated man to "the very summit of the organic scale" and had thereby given him "hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future."
Darwin's metaphor had taken on a life of its own. Natural selection had become a being with many of the attributes of deity. Its works were manifold, like those of the Biblical Jehovah. Its power was awesome, conferring life and death, creating new and ever more complex organic forms, separating the wheat from the tares, rewarding the efficient and punishing the ineffectual, giving hope of ultimate progress to those who believed in its power and kept its commandments.-- By JOHN C. GREENE.
Charles Darwin Deified Progressive Evolution -- http://everythingimportant.org/evolution

You do know you are quoting a maniac that we have proven to be both a moron and mentally unstable, don't you?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#11 Apr 27, 2014
Mentally unstable morons are published in the New York Times?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#12 Apr 27, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Mentally unstable morons are published in the New York Times?
Yes, quite often.

Of course it would help if you would link to the mentally unstable moron that you are talking about. And please no links to sites by an obvious idiot.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#13 Apr 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, quite often.
But you are evidently brighter because you publish exclusively in topix?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#14 Apr 27, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> But you are evidently brighter because you publish exclusively in topix?
Brighter than who? Brighter than you? Clearly. Brighter than your author that you have not linked? Perhaps.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#15 Apr 27, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Mentally unstable morons are published in the New York Times?
Well you publish here. The only place that so far hasn't rejecting your crap.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#16 Apr 27, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> But you are evidently brighter because you publish exclusively in topix?
Shube, I heard you rejected submission of your own material to that blog of yours. That has to suck for you, but at least you are use to it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#17 Apr 28, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
Mentally unstable morons are published in the New York Times?

On a daily basis.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#18 Apr 28, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> But you are evidently brighter because you publish exclusively in topix?

That is not a contest I was aware of. I have been published in a peer review journal.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#19 Apr 28, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Darw
Ah shaddap Shoob, ya mook.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 Apr 28, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not a contest I was aware of. I have been published in a peer review journal.
Yeah, Shoob hasn't.

BWAAAA HAAA HAA HAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 27 min karl44 134,013
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 44 min Kong_ 690
How would creationists explain... 3 hr Dogen 435
Science News (Sep '13) Wed positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web