How many believe in Evolution

[TrevorW]

A poll you can select up to two choices

[trent_julie]

Other?

[Chris85]

There is no "believing" in evolution. You either accept the facts, or you choose to live in la la land.

[ianB]

I think the Poll should have a seperate box for Creationist and Intelligent design as there is a big difference between the two.

Creationists believe that all creation, Heaven Earth etc was created in a Literal time period of 6 days.

Those that beeliefe in intelligeent design "generally" believe that all life / creation came about by the act of an intelligent being ( God ) over a period of billions of years.

To add further you could include even another box for those that believe that there is a God but that he just gave the first spark to life and allowed it to evolve on its own.
( in fact that thought is apparently in line with what the Catholic church has stated in the past )

[Peter.M]

If there was no earth, how long is 6 days?

[ianB]

Keep in mind that evolution does not explain how life first started, rather it explains/theorizes how first life developed.

[deanm]

This is a poorly-phrased poll - probably because it's a difficult question to phrase.

The question might be "do you believe in evolution? Yes or No"

There is a veritable universe of (some absurd) ideas on how we got here - aliens seeding the galaxy with primitive life forms, comets spreading panspermia, a diversity of earthly religions - each with its own traditions and inevitable myths, etc., etc..

And even then, few of these ideas explicitly exclude the possibility of evolution - intelligently directed or otherwise.

But having worked in the relatively-new field of ancient DNA, I have personally been involved in reconstructing the evolution of 2 major groups of mammals - and evolution is real (unless Him/Herself pre-arranged all of the evidence, including the fossil record, as some claim)....

Huh?!

Dean

[ianB]

Personally speaking I think there was not much thought given to the structure of this poll.

Given time this thread will without fail degenerate, as such imho it would be better to close this thread now.

[Wavytone]

Evolution is a demonstrable fact supported by objective evidence.

It's not a matter of who believes what.

[deanm]

Ian - how about we let the thread persist....as an experiment?!

It may evolve itself into a more robustly structured discussion (poor pun intended!).

Dean

[ianB]

Sure, I just hope everyone will be polite and allow others to express their thoughts without someone being overly critical.

[multiweb]

:lol: :thumbsup:

[LAW]

The difference is that Evolution is a theory supported by a weight of evidence, Creation and Intelligent Design are both hypotheses based on no physical evidence which don't make testable predictions. So Evolution is subject to constant scrutiny (and constantly holds true) whereas the 'other' two can't be proved or disproved because there's no evidence to investigate, and no predictions to validate.

Any debate about the differences between ID and Creation are also futile because they're the same idea with the 'god of the gaps' shrinking into the narrowing abyss.

[ianB]

Actually all is not as clear cut as it may seem, many who believe in the bible and a god disagree among themselves as to how life started, many accept certain parts of the bible yet reject otherbparts, likewise there are many scientists who disagree about many areas of evolution, and this was confirmed at a sumit in France by scientists from around the world, they failed to reach agreement on numerous issues in relation to evolution, including evidence and how such evidence is interpreted.

[LAW]

While I'm not surprised that most people who claim to know the 'ultimate and incontrovertible truth' have differing opinions on exactly what that truth is, I'm glad you've pointed out another vital part of the scientific method. Dissent.
The fact that there is just as much fame and fortune in disproving something we once believed is what keeps science moving towards the truth, by simply saying "that's what I meant" when one's position is disproved is why we have Intelligent Designers rather than Creators.

[big-blue]

I like to think of these things in terms of levels of evidence.

such as
facts(evidence),
belief, and
faith.
eg.
1. there are facts. eg 'things fall down.'
2. belief can based on repeated facts (evidence). eg based on 1., I believe gravity exists. (never mind! the complications from relativity at this stage)
3. faith can be held without facts, and sometimes in spite of them.!

There is a gap from 2 to 3, which involves a mental 'leap' aka a paradigm shift. Basically, never try to argue with someone whose view is founded on a different paradigm !

UNfortunately I get upset when I occasionally thumb the pages of the latest 'creationist' magazine in my local newsagency. (really easy to find, in the science/astronomy section usually mixed in with astrology..!.)
What upsets me is the selective cherry picking of 'facts' that support the faith paradigm, while ignoring everything else ! I guess this is the realm of 'blind faith'.

maybe I have already said too much...anyway, you know where I am coming from. All the same, I have tremendous respect for those in the faith camp who are exploring their own faith with the same uncertainty of those who look up at the night sky in awe, from the alternative paradigm. I recall one amazing conversation with a visiting Vatican astronomer a few years back, about astronomy, more so than the nuances of faith. Ultimately the conversation was about the same fascination that comes from 'looking up'.

I guess in the end it is about how we treat each other, whichever paradigm we come from.

I will leave it there...

[ianB]

If I remember correctly the Vatican have their own observatory.

[Zaps]

I'm in Vegas for a conference: I defy anyone to walk the strip at night and deny humans are unrelated to primates.

On second thoughts, that's very possibly libel on primates.

[marki]

Talk about dropping your gutz and running away Trevor :lol:.

[KenGee]

God sheds a tear every time someone votes for creationism.

[TrevorW]

Not really I'm all for evolution and do believe we descended from apes this can be gleaned from the observations of the monkies we have running this state and the way people behave sometimes.

I was going to change the wording choices but don't know how and may be to late. I am presently doing an online short Uni course on human evolution which is being run by a US Uni through Coursea. The forum often gets hijacked by wacko's.

A survey was conducted locally in 2010 that showed 71% of Australians believed in evolution, 11 % unsure etc whereas in the US of A around 40-45% believe in evolution, although apparently a recent survey shows only 1/3 don't believe in evolution

As I considered most on this site to be reasonably intelligent I was conducting my own poll to see if the more scientifically orientated have a greater consensus.

[AG Hybrid]

What a random thread to appear in general chat! I predict it will be locked in some time due to TOS. Unless this vote somehow gets around it.

I voted anyway.

[GeoffW1]

:rofl:Been there, seen that, oogh, oogh. :lol: That's why the palm trees, no branches at low level.

[ianB]

If this Poll is for a uni course that you are doing it needs to reflect the opinions of a wide cross section of society, a poll conducted on this forum will not reflect that and as such the results are of little to no consequence.
It would be better Trevor to conduct this poll by some other means whereby you can obtain the opinions of a larger group made up from a variety of social and economic backgrounds.

[Astro_Bot]

Thankfully, real scientific conclusions are not determined from popularity polls like this one!

[TrevorW]

Not required for course
Just seeing what you guys think

[ianB]

Oh sorry Trevor, I got the wrong end of the stick.............again.

I would think that on a science forum there would be more that accept evolution than creation, but at the same time there are scientists that priveatly reject evolution and have a belief in a God but they keep this to themeslves as such ideas would jepodise their careers / funding.

[barx1963]

Don't mean to be picky but surely being able to pick 2 makes this a bit of an odd poll? The only 2 that would be compatible with each other are "Unsure" and "Don't Care". The first 2 are obviously incompatible, and if you pick either of those 2 then picking either of the others is nonsense.
On second thought, if you believe that man evolved from another primate but that an intelligent designer "caused" that to happen, maybe the first 2 are not incompatible! But I am sure that the people behind ID would be pretty quick to disown such a view.

Malcolm

[strongmanmike]

Unfortunately it has gone that way with accepting anthropometric Climate Change too ie. climate change denying, intelligent design and creationism are all given credence and legitimacy as genuine models, which none of them are, when they are included in the debate in the first place...somewhere they simply do not belong :)

[barx1963]

Sorry Ian, but those last statements are absolute nonsense. The number of serious scientists, and by that I mean people doing actual science, who reject evolution is vanishingly small, and among biologists is is practically zero. Sure there is some debate about the nature of the evolutionary process, eg the Gould/Dawkins debate about punctuated evolution, but the fact of evolution is widely accepted as any scientific idea can be.

This is not to say that there are not some credible scientists who hold such views but they are a tiny minority. The statement "there are scientists" indicates it is a significant number, which is simply false.

The creationist/ID proponents attempt to inflate their support by including people who have degrees from fringe institutions with little or no scientific credibility.

Malcolm

[barx1963]

It's not a matter of Mike or any one person deciding what is to be included in a debate. Evidence is evidence, if all the evidence points to something being true, then points of view, even if strongly held, that contradict that evidence should be excluded from the debate, unless those holding the views can come up with evidence supporting their view.

Creationists/IDers etc have access to the same data as every other scientist on the planet, all the have to do is find the evidence. In the words of JBS Haldane find the ol' "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian".

To call someone closed minded for simply demanding that points of view be supported by evidence is simply bizarre.

Malcolm

[barx1963]

Fair enough, let's see how that discussion would go.

Creationism - no evidence supporting
ID - no evidence supporting
Evolution by natural selection - tons of evidence and growing

Hmmm:question: which one will we support? And remember we are being "rational, balanced and intelligent"

[astronobob]

Well, I hope I dont get thrashed for this, Lol. but Im a believer in a god and intelligent design. Im also going to state that everyone should be entitled their own opinions and/or beliefs !
I just dont understand the idea, man came from apes/monkeys or what have you, cut to the chase, "The Missing Link" even tho there are some ideas and attempts out there to conclude the concept, there is No real Evidence, otherwise it would be written & taught everywhere as fact ?
Man know's many many facts on how the Planet & Life works, but Not this concept of a Missing Link ?
Now, if we believe in a missing Link, as such, there should/must be missing links of all the animals, fish and birds showing their evolutions as well, because that would be the norm right, changing constantly through time, right up to this day and continue changing for thats the way it works right ? Well I cant see any half species showing the physical changes over time otherwise we would not have individual species of animals fish & all life forms ?
I always wonder why, when a particular species is about to become extinct, man makes huge efforts to save it, funny that eh ? if evolution was true, life/people would have extinction totally accepted ?

Just my thoughts, thanx !

[barx1963]

Firstly, let me state that I absolutely respect your right to have a point of view, and that applies to anyone on this thread. BUT if a point of view is going to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis there must be some facts and evidence to support it. Einstein didn't simply say "I believe that E=MC2" and expect everyone to say "that sounds OK". He assembled his evidence and convinced the scientific world. And that is what Darwin did and his heirs continue to do today.

I will deal with your last argument first. Extinction these days is almost exclusively caused by man. Habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, whatever. So unlike extinction before we came along we make rational choices that lead to these extinctions and so can also make rational choices to try to prevent them. These facts say absolutely nothing about the truth or otherwise of evolution by natural selection only something about man and his interactions with the natural world.

Now to the "missing link". I am assuming that you are proposing the "gaps in the fossil record" argument? This is the argument that requires that there be a fossil for each intermediate stage of a lineages evolution. The problem with this argument is that it is not falsifiable. Say you have 2 creatures known to have lived a million year apart that are different in some way. Creationist says "look there is a gap in the fossil record" so paleantologist goes out and fills the gap with 3 nice fossils that show the evolution of the features of interest. Result, creationist says "Look, there are now 4 gaps in the fossil record". And so it goes. If fossils were the ONLY evidence we had, evolution would be utterly supported and what is more there is plenty of evidence even if there were no fossils! Darwin did not use ANY fossil evidence in arguing his case and modern science has now many other sources. For example the fact the every living thing on the planet uses the same proteins, genetic structures and chemical processes indicate we all evolved from a common source. So I am not sure what other "real evidence" it would take to convince you.

Now this section in your post "changing constantly through time, right up to this day and continue changing for thats the way it works right ? " that is the "if evolution is true, why is it not happening now argument". Well it is, ever heard of drug resistant bacteria? New flu strains? these are evolution at work. The fact that it happens very slowly in slowly reproducing animals like ourselves is not an argument against it.

Now this section "Well I cant see any half species showing the physical changes over time otherwise we would not have individual species of animals fish & all life forms". I am not quite sure what you are asking here. Presumably you are demanding that intermediates be produced that exist in the present day? This exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of speciation. All living creatures belong to a group (species) that exists in its own right, it is NEVER simply moving to be something else. So a lion is a lion and a tiger is a tiger. At some point a group of lions may change in such a way that they can no longer interbreed with other lions and so become a new species. So did that mean that the lion that exists today is only an intermediate and not a "real" species? Obviously not.

I hope this helps clear up some of your understanding of evolution. And above all please do not take this as "thrashing". Note I have not used name calling etc. simply looked at your arguments and attempted to rationally argue an alternate point of view.

Respectfully

Malcolm

[SimmoW]

I find this question quite ironic, being asked in an astronomy forum.

How do the stars and planets evolve? Trillions of possibilities

[barx1963]

Well "just a decades old theory". A theory in science is a hypothesis that is capable of being shown as false, but is supported by all the evidence currently available. Peter Higgs examined the maths and the experimental science as it was back in the 60's and proposed the Higgs Boson. It was predicted to have certain properties and the LHC at Cern was able to test if a particle could be generated with those properties which it promptly did. To date not one piece of credible evidence has been found suggesting that it doesn't exist. (If there are any particle physicist here please tell me if I am wrong!!)

So at this point in time it is a "theory" in the technical scientific sense. All the evidence points to it's existence, it is conceivable that contrary evidence could be found but none has. So whether I "believe" in it or not is irrelevant.

Creationism and ID are at this stage hypothesis not theories. Until some credible evidence is put forward to support them, that is where they should stay.

Malcolm

[AG Hybrid]

Semantics.

Adaptation to survive over generations like the mentioned bacteria is sensibly evolution.

A person building a house to survive from the elements and security is adapting, would you agree? Same as early man creating and using hand tool.

A bacterial strain altering its genetic make over a number of generations to survive a threat like antibiotics is evolution.

[barx1963]

Good question!!
Evolution is the process that involves species changing over time. It is common misunderstanding that Darwin proposed a theory of evolution. The fact is that by the time he published "Origin" evolution in the scientific community was largely an accepted fact. What he clarified was the PROCESS by which it took place. In this he proposed natural selection as a mechanism. As environments change species adapt to their changing environment by this process and that drives evolution.
So if you follow this line of reasoning you can see that adaption is the process, evolution is the result.
Evolution could be driven by lots of other processes. Before Darwin, Lamarkism was proposed, in the USSR Lysenkoism was proposed and if course it could be driven by some supernatural being. But Darwin gave us a simple easy to understand mechanism that explain it and is supported by evidence.

Malcolm

[Harb]

One thing for sure.....everyone will ultimately find out......or not.

I seriously don't think we as humans have the mental capacity to ever know the answer.
We have trouble thinking about where space ends....and if there was an end, whats on the other side of the end.......

[Astro_Bot]

Ah, shucks, I'm not in the mood for an argument, but I just wanted to respectfully and matter-of-factly point out something wrt climate change:

The rational, balanced and intelligent discussion has been going on for over 30 years. The evidence in favour of anthropogenic climate change has mounted steadily over that period as it continues to do so. The conclusions grow more certain with each year and currently stand at >95% certainty that climate change is caused by human activity. The percentage of scientists in the field that disagree with that basic premise is virtually zero. The scientific debate has moved on from (a) whether climate change is occuring, through (b) what is causing it to (c) how much/how fast, i.e. the accuracy of the models/projections and keeping them updated wrt new data.

In many of its stories, the media does not accurately represent the consensus of the scientific community.

--------------

And, now on to other topics, with a bit of opinion thrown in for good measure:

With respect to Intelligent Design, whereas some people may choose their own personal definition for what it represents, remember that the ID definition originally included (and still does for many of its proponents) that species did not evolve, i.e. there is/was no natural selection. This goes against not only large volumes of fossil evidence but also, in this modern age, an even larger volume of DNA evidence. The famous 2005 court case showed that ID and creationism could not be separated and banned teaching ID since it was "not science".

It seems that some people who say they believe in ID are really not ID followers at all, but rather are following their own set of beliefs including that "life" was "initiated" by other means. I'm not aware of any definitive proof or large body of evidence that shows how "life" was "initiated", so, in that respect, fill yer boots!

There are scientists who believe in God - I recall reading a story about that a few years ago - but they are (apparently) few and far between. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is what some people choose to say about God, about science, and everything in between. If you're religious, I'm fine with it. Actually, most people are. But I do get rather frustrated with people who promote creationism and ID (as originally described) as both are demonstrably untrue.

----------------

I think there's a bottom line:

I hope you (all) employ your mental faculties to their maximum extent when framing your beliefs, but ultimately, what you choose to believe is your own business.

What you (all) choose to promote to others, however, may invite rebuttal.

----------------

Finally, to paraphrase the late, great comedian, Dave Allen:

[Dealy]

My 2 bobs worth...
Emotions usually run high when this subject comes up. Everybody is biased one way or the other and usually don’t like to be challenged by those with an opposing viewpoint.
But if it’s possible to look at this without emotion, and for the sake of the argument bring it right back to one question, that of origins (ie Where did all this come from?), then it becomes an interesting topic.
Followers in the Intelligent Design camp might say that an intelligent Designer existed prior to anything else in the universe. Most believe the Designer created time itself. Nobody knows where the Designer came from or if it even had a beginning. Then this Designer through supreme intellect and power created everything we see today, including the laws of mathematics and physics that govern the universe.
Evolutionists might say that a small, dense body of material that contained all the mass in the universe once existed for some unknown length of time. Where it came from nobody knows. This mass sat there until, for some unknown reason, it became unstable and exploded. Some believe time itself didn’t exist prior to this explosion. This cloud of ejected matter has been expanding and changing form ever since. The laws that now govern the universe came about totally randomly and have brought into existence what we see today.
Both hypotheses are unprovable and require a large element of faith to elevate one above the other as being the truth or more truthful. All we can do is theorise about the distant past. Nothing is proven nor can it be. Either the Designer has existed forever or Matter has existed forever.
I believe the argument is not science vs religion but the science of one religion vs the science of another. There are many scientists that believe in ID, and obviously many more that believe in Evolution. The number of followers however does not prove or disprove either viewpoint. The truth may in fact lie somewhere in-between.
So which bias is the best bias? My unbiased opinion says my bias. :D

[iceman]

While people have been mostly courteous and not personally attacking anyone belief's so far, this thread is (no doubt intentionally right, Trevor) stuck right in the grey area with respect to the TOS.

I've seen threads like this degenerate far too quickly and I'm going to lock it now.

There are other places to discuss politics and religion where your thread won't get locked.

"Please avoid topics about global warming, race, politics or religion. These can be very sensitive topics, and people are usually very polarised about these issues; it can be very easy to take things the wrong way, creating arguments. Threads about these topics often end badly - usually being locked, with posts being deleted, or with people being upset."