This article references an external link -- click here to visit 
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.... full story here
JV
61 Comments
now if you are saying the majority of republican americans believe in creationism over evolution, that i can believe.
T REX was long dead by the time Noah came along. The bible makes no mention of dinosaurs. This is what leads people to believe that they didn't exist - and suggest that paleantology IS fake - or 'mistaken'. Some insist that the Devil placed the bones there to fool us into deserting God. Some even believe that God put them there to test our faith.
The reason the bible makes no mention of dinosaurs was because they were unknown at the time, still waiting to be discovered. Interestingly, I don't think the bible mentions China either, but now that we've seen it, we have no doubt it exists.
The idea of '6,000 years', comes from a Bishop (sorry cannot remember his name ... er ... prompt!) who added up all of the ages of people reported in the bible along with some other numbers and came up with six thousand and something years. The Scientific Community within the study of history maintains that civilisation itself is about 6 - 8,000 years old. Is this coincidence? I don't think so, I think both the bible and the Scientific Community are saying exactly the same thing, it's just that the Scientific Community looks at all the solid evidence that happened before civilisation and realises that that is way older than 6,000 years.
Now imagine the situation if the Theory of Evolution had preceded the 'theory' of Creation. Would the supporters of evolution have panicked?
No. Of course not. They'd have fallen about laughing.
yes.. like monkeys in a tree ;)
Either by criticizing my right to my own views..or trying to convince me i'm wrong about them by political actions.
Let us play with a hypothetical question:
Imagine that you know something to be true and you have a (very dear) friend who believes otherwise, and sticks to their moral right to believe anything they choose, both regardless of evidence and common sense. Imagine that there is only ONE possible true answer and that you know your answer to be so. Are you morally right to try and make them see the truth (as truth is sacrosanct)?
Or do you accept their right to wander blindly through the rest of their lives in ignorance? If so, how would that affect your future relationship?
Personally, I'm happy to let anyone believe that Ginger-pink monkeys live on the moon and send dreams to foretell the future to women who wear too many beads, if that's what they want. But I feel I would HAVE to try and 'put them right'.
and frankly im so happy i did not live in a place that was forced to teach creationism along with evolution - because there isn't any evidence to back up creationism.
though when i was at university i took a human behavior class (a science class about the evolution of humans) and i remember this student talking to the professor at the end of the class. she told him, "i dont believe we came from monkeys!"
i laughed my ass off.
And creationism,is by definition, unprovable because it is based on a faith in something that will not allow itself to be tangibly proven. That IS why its called faith in the end.
and maybe what it all boils down too is that everyone wants to know the answer to that ultimate unprovable question- WHY are we all here?
I suppose i've never been able to accept that I am simply an arbitrary being forced to live among other arbitrary beings for no other reason than it was simply how nature worked out.
I figured I was just surrounded by an unusually hardcore group, but when I left for college and found many other people coming from the same background, I realized what a strong force evangelical churches are in America.
I can respect someone's choice to reject evolution, but I'd be more comforted if I could trust they'd put any thought into their position.
Creationism has evidence - A book said to be written either by God, or by those who were inspired by God which "proves" its theory as correct (plus the religious following of millions of believers).
Be open minded to other possibilities - not everything in life is black and white.
but i think its absolutely wrong to include religion into science class
that is where the right wing loses me
The problem I have with Evangelicals is this concept of Open Mind - Satan's Door. On one level of course, that's true. Close your mind by indoctrination and anything 'outside the box' becomes heresey, or just wrong. Is the 'And God gave man Free Will' still in the Evangelical bible? If so, by whose authority do they deny him and oppose it?
But that's another thread, perhaps. Or maybe not. I've heard not all Christians forgive, lol.
I suggested in the first paragraph that creationism and evolution could possibly co-exist coherently. But I doubt it.
I have a lot more to say about truth being relative to the observer, but I fear I'd be travelling too far off topic. I may have to start my own thread...
But, as an ex-teacher, it is difficult to see a mind closed to your truths and not want to show them the light. I suppose this is why there are missionaries, preachers and Jehovah's witnesses.
It is difficult when you truly believe something to be right, to see someone denying what, to you, is obvious. I understand that. In fact, it's more than difficult - it can be frustrating.
Of course I think I'm right - I choose to believe the scientific evidence. I like to think I think logically and with reason and always try to see the other point of view (one of my most tiresome habits is playing Devils Advocate, regardless of whether I actually agree with something or not). But I only tend to do that to get the other person to actually consider the alternative interpretation - which, I suspect, is the reason anyone plays the Devils Advocate. But had I read different books, had a different upbringing, had an NDE, or some other profound exposure to a different truth, then maybe I too would argue differently.
But then again, maybe not. As I believe I have come to my conclusions thanks to rationality, I would hope that with it being MY rationality, any other conclusion I came to would just not be me. I understand that 'truth' can be percieved as relative. It's just that I don't believe it is. You either stole the cookie or you didn't. There's nothing relative about it at all.
I'll look out for the thread, jbravo. History is written by the victor - that doesn't mean its the truth.
The only problem I have with the Creationists is when the religion involved demands blind obedience to the dictats. I'm very much a believer in the saying "I think, therefore I am." I object to being told what to think, but I am always open to others views, because life is a progression of events and meetings which hopefully makes us better people and in turn we can help others.
Evolution should be taught in the science classes and creationism in religious classes and as a parent of a child you can decide if you want your child to be taught religion. We all have choice, we can choose to think for ourselves.
The very nature of creationism is in itself scientific- because how long has science been trying to prove against it.. or to find some evidence FOR it.
The fact is - both theories are still very vague and neither have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt... why limit the access to these discussions simply because of political mindsets? yes yes ..i know..pie in the sky.. ;)
The thing I do find interesting though is that Creationism allows for the possibility of Evolution as an integral part of the process, whereas Evolutionism shows no equal consideration for Creationism.
I fear the day may yet come when, in the name of "tolerance," we will be teaching that htere are two sides to the "Holocaust story," one that says it happened -- based on eyewitness, photographic, bureaucratic, historic, legal, and other types of evidence -- and the other that says it was all made up to garner sympathy for the Jews in their quest for world domination.
This point of view, that says "we must give each position to the student body, and let them decide for themselves which one is right," is utter nonsense.
Creationism is not scientific for precisely the reason you suggest it is. An idea cannot be scientifically valid unless it is testable; i.e., unless there is AT LEAST the possibility of disproving it. So, no, creationism can't be disproved; neither can unicorns or minotaurs, but that doesn't make them scientific, either.
Nor can God be proven scientifically. To suggest so actually diminishes, rather than enhances, the idea of God. In fact, I think suggesting that God can be at all subject to human measurements is blasphemous -- to say nothing of being totally futile. Rose, please see my lengthy remarks at the bottom. I am NOT knocking God, nor am I knocking the metaphorical truths contained in the idea of creationism.
But it AIN'T science.
there is ACTUAL evidence to support evolution, there ISN'T any evidence to support creationism.
everyone is entitled to their religion and belief, that is why keeping religion out of public schools and teaching science is the way to go (n will continue to be the way it is)
fossils, the fossil record, DNA and the genetic code, bones (could be considered fossils), migration, continental drift, oceanic island distribution, RNA, spliceosomes, and speciation just to name a few examples.
i can't think of one actual piece of evidence from any religion that proves to me theres a divine entity out there. of course if someone chooses to believe in one, far be it from me or anyone else to tell them what to believe in.
But when you look at evolution from a DNA point of view there is hardly any difference other than sequences. All DNA looks very similar. So evolution can start to make a lot more sense.
Life on earth has just been millions of years of DNA sequences trying out different combinations. That's all.
("The Selfish Gene" is interesting reading regarding this topic)
I personally believe (strongly) in God, although I don't pretend for a second to "know" anything about Him/Her. Nor do I believe it is possible to truly "know" God, except through Her creation -- and that includes us. Human beings are the most complex and intelligent creatures in the Universe -- that we know of. Again, on a personal level, I am much more impressed with the Divine Intelligence of a Deity who invents a process like evolution which culminates in a creature like the human being than I am with a big bearded old man in the sky who sits on His Divine Posterior and says, "Let there be....whatever!!!" And there we were. Whatever.
Life -- unless you honestly believe that we're just a big walking, talking bag of chemicals -- is a mystery. It is paradoxical. It is joyful and it is tragic. We have questions we can't answer. Yet we create new questions all the time, most of which we will never answer. And we're the ONLY creature in the Universe -- that we know of -- that can do this, and that bothers to do this. And that fact always makes me wonder "why?"
I am ready to concede that God is "imaginary," if you'll suspend your judgment for a while about what, exactly, the word "imaginary" means. We can only know God through our imagination. We can only think God. We can never sense God, because God does not exist in time or space and has no corporeal existence. So our senses are useless in trying to understand or recognize God.
Nor can God be reasoned into existence. The great Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas notwithstanding, there can be no reasoned proof of God's existence, because all reason is dependent on the senses.
The only way we can experience or "know" God is through our imaginations, and through faith.
God, for us humans, is an idea. Because God is ultimately unknowable, God is an abstract idea. In a physical sense, God does not exist.
But there are a number of abstract concepts that do not exist in the physical world that we have no problem acknowledging the existence of. Justice is one. Love is another. Freedom is another. We could name dozens.
It is important to point out that NONE OF THESE concepts "exists" in the sense that that 2006 Honda Civic over there exists. I can prove to you that the Honda exists, because I can show it to you, let you touch it, smell it, hear its engine. If you continue in your disbelief I can run over your foot (that usually works). But Justice does not exist, except in our minds. Yet we believe in it!!! We MUST believe in it. In order for justice to exist in the world, we must believe in it. In order for love to exist in the world, we must believe in it. In order for truth to exist we must believe in it.
Once not too long ago we believed in Justice,in Love, in Truth, in Democracy....and in God. We could see significant benefits in believing in these abstract concepts. If everyone believes in Justice, Justice will be done. If not, then something else will prevail -- perhaps vengeance. If everyone believes in Love, than Love will exist. If not, then something else will prevail -- the best case scenario is that sex will prevail; the worst case scenario is that coercion based on physical force will prevail. If everyone believes in truth, then people will follow the truth, seek out the truth, and speak the truth. If turh, as an abstract concept, loses its meaning for us, then something else will prevail -- falseness, and artifice, and manipulation, and lies (sound familiar?).
So does God exist or not? That depends on whether or not you see any reason for God to exist. What can She give you that is missing in your life? What can you learn from Her? What lessons lie waiting in Her creation for us to discover? What can She give us that actually makes our lives better, more meaningful?
I have an answer to those questions, for me. If you choose (because God really DID make us free and intelligent), you can find answers for yourself.
But if you decide, right off the bat, that this particular abstract concept -- God -- has no existence whatsoever, then you will certainly never find out the answers to any of those questions.
i personally believe i live in a world of real world evidence where if you want me to accept something is true and exsists, then please by all means, im open minded but show me the proof of it, which evolutions theory has to back it up. thats just my opinion on it and im sure everyone else has different ones.
i would however recommend a book for anyone who is interested, whether you are deeply religious or not, its a truely facinating read called "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
1. You cannot teach creationism in a science class because it's not science
2. In this modern world, with more and more integration of peoples, cultures and religions, you cannot maintain a 'state religion'.
3. Religious classes should provide a curriculum based on all relevant religions, exploring them scientifically if you want but with the idea of giving pupils the information necessary to adopt one - or not.
4. LBP - you said it should be up to the parents to decide if their children are taught religion. I disagree - Religion is a major part of being human. Some scientists believe that without it, Mankind would not have got this far. Interestingly, it can be said that it was Religion that helped us from Ape to Man (which is somewhat ironic). Therefore religion should be taught to all children - that is; they should not be indoctrinated by '..and this is true...', but by ' ... and people who follow this religion believe that this is true...'.
5. Instead of saying '..and man evolved from the ape...', it should be '...and scientists believe man evolved from the ape ...', but of course in a science class, real evidence can be shown (sorry - just couldn't resist)
6. Cassie51 - you disagree that your main problem is dogma - and that you think, therefore you are - and that you can choose to think for yourself. You're absolutely right - it says so in the bible. The bit I have trouble getting MY head around, is the bit where the benevolent, merciful God hands out free will - and follows it up with 'but if you choose not to use this free will as I say, you'll burn in hell for eternity'. Hobsons choice or what?
7. Mark - you live in a world of real world evidence in which you're open minded, but need to be shown proof. I would assume that you can accept an argument as truth without actual proof - providing the argument is feasible, possible, reasonable and survives an examination by common-sense.
8. That's a powerful argument Dr Fallon, and I like it. I accept the existence of God on that basis. I believe in justice, love and truth - and your alternatives are horrific. But you stopped short of providing an alternative for a general non-belief in God. Remove the 10 commandments and you have hell. Anarchy, Chaos and Darkness. We should perhaps be aware that THAT may be what Revelations is telling us.
However, I have read several interesting research studies that suggest that all of these things could have a biological basis - after all, they are ALL tools we use to be what we are, in the main. Take an average human being and (s)he will be just, will have loved, see the virtue in truth, and, most likely will believe in God - or "something". All these things create harmony - and evolution needs that if it's going to produce a lifeform capable of overrunning the planet. Yes we have wars (most of which are religious, interestingly enough), but without those, we would complete the contamination of this planet all the sooner. In order for 'society' to evolve in tribes of emerging Mankind, Justice, Love, Truth, and yes, God had to have meaning. It is easy to say that God gave man these things, harder to accept a biological process being responsible. But even if this is biologically proved to the satisfaction of everyone, it does not negate your statement, rather it reinforces it.
Do I believe in God? On that basis, yes. The problem with that of course is that if Man created God in his own image, this God could not have created the world. The only way you can accept a 'creator' as such is to give it sentience, and intelligence. It needs no more than that, but you can give it compassion. That gives it an awareness, the assumed authority for the explanation of anything you do not understand (thereby stopping you going insane) and a reason for doing it. And hope; that this awareness is of you, and the compassion is for you.
Mankind was very frightened when it was young. It lived in a dangerous world, where it could eat and then be lunch almost anywhere. The thing that guided its days and nights was the sun. It was big, it was powerful, it was in the sky. It brought food, it brought the heat necessary for life, and it appears to be eternal. Sun in sky = good, sun not in sky = bad. Therefore, the sun was most probably the first 'God'; the first thing to be worshiped. If not for the formation of the sun of course, the earth and everything on it would not exist - and on THAT basis, I can accept that God created The Earth and All Creatures Bright And Beautiful.
snak - meaning i dont think its up to a public school in the united states to teach christianity to someones child and that is for sure what would end up happening if right wing extremists got their way on creationism
If evolution means that a species changes to improve itself, it seems more logical that humans would grow hair to keep warm, reduce their diet to the most nutritious foods, eliminate high mortgages by adapting to the outdoors, and do away with money, complex governments, saying what you don't mean, war, stress, traffic congestion, and genocide (which occurs when you let other members of your species needlessly starve). Apes have accomplished all this.
Apes, by evolving from man, have "created" a more workable and more sane life-style. If the ultimate aim in a more advanced society is for peace and equity, then those who evolved into the ape species have certainly surpassed their forbears of the human species.
Pass me a banana. I want to be an ape.
Life—according to evolutionists—began when different chemicals, under the right circumstances, came together and formed
a more complex unit which eventually developed into an organism.
It took millions of years for life to begin because the right kinds of chemicals, initially, didn't know they were right for each other until, under some arbitrary, chance circumstances, they finally met and made a match. Then, it required millions of more years for organisms to co-mingle and become transformed into complex creatures.
The key factor in the theory of evolution is that the right elements came together under arbitrary circumstances. It would have to be that way, because if the elements were to be put together in a planned, or predestined, or systematic way, there would need to be a force directing them. The life forms that resulted would, then, have been "created."
Charles Darwin advanced the theory of evolution by natural selection in1859. As it was gaining wide acceptance in the scientific community in the 1920s, noted scientist Sir William Cecil Dampier wrote:
The fundamental concepts of physical science, it is now understood, are abstractions, framed by our mind, so as to bring order to an apparent chaos of phenomena.
In other words, some scientists believed it was valid to use an abstract a theory to provide a simple answer to something that they could not otherwise observe and called it "evolution science." Yet, what is true science? Is it merely theory, or is it demonstrated fact? Is it arbitrary and unpredictable, or specific and systematic? In true science, a theory may be the basis for inquiry and study; but until it is "proven up," it is only speculation. It is not scientific to guess at conclusions.
In addition, whatever has been determined to be scientific fact always turns out to be part of an elaborate pattern. When you take a closer look at fact-based science, it is very systematic.
Science looks at the way something is. Research may have to discover how it is. But once a discovery is made—for instance, the speed of light—it becomes a scientific fact because it repeats itself in exactly the same way. Scientific facts are consistent and predictable—from the simplest to the most complex.
Two plus two is four; and two times two is four. It is absolute, conclusive, and unalterable. The way you do a certain calculation, whether basic math or complex algebra, is the way it will always be done, and it will always produce the same result. Physics. Chemistry. Electricity. Radio waves. Plant life. Animal life. The physical and life sciences are all very precise and systematic sciences. Each follows a specific pattern. There are basic forms of each, as well as scientific combinations. For example, you can "mate" an orange and a tangerine because they are from the same family. But you cannot mix apples and oranges, even though they are both fruits. Nor is there any logic or proof that an apple evolved from an orange, or an orange from an apple. Likewise, monkeys and humans may have many similar physical features and social behaviors, but that seems to be a rather thin link to conclude that humans are the offspring of monkeys.
Furthermore, for anything to be considered scientifically true, it has to be something that can be duplicated. If evolution were true, wouldn't scientists be able to recreate the sequence of change that transformed monkeys into humans?
Instead, scientists in the 1950s discovered that each organic species—both plant and animal—has a specific, complex code for its species. It is called DNA which are complex segments of information in a cell that determine what kind of a plant or animal something is. The DNA signature is unique for every species, plus every creature has a DNA pattern which is unique for it. In other words, "Joe" has a DNA code for the human species, as well as a DNA pattern unique to him.
More importantly, that DNA pattern has to be in a specific sequence for each species. In humans, there are three billion bits (called nucleotides) of information which fall into a very precise DNA sequence.
And this DNA sequence cannot, and does not, rearrange itself to create something new. DNA does not have the independent capacity to add nucleotides at will. Once a given program is established, it remains fixed in its basic sequence.
So in terms of pure science, "evolution science" appears to be a contradiction—an oxymoron. Evolution is unpredictable and arbitrary, while science is systematic—based on a preexisting system. And in a broader sense, it does not seem the universe could have created itself arbitrarily and still be completely, totally, and in every regard, systematic.
Evolution faces additional problems besides not fitting into the standard definition of science. Despite the extensive research in this field, it has to be acknowledged that some 130 years after the theory was proposed, there are still more questions than answers.
The Darwin concept of evolution was chiefly based on a cause-and-effect scenario: creatures changed and developed because of the necessity to adapt to new surroundings.
In this century, various paleontologists have discovered bone fragments of skeletons which they claim are extinct creatures that are the "missing links" between apes and man, thus supposedly proving evolution, and proving that today's humans are better adapted than these other creatures of a bygone era.
But what supporting evidence do we really have? Why are we so quick to believe that a one-of-a-kind, hunch-backed skeleton 400,000 years old is suddenly the "missing link"? A few years after this discovery, some different fossils—supposedly one million years old—were found in another part of the world and were called the "missing link." Is there a link between these two links? And where are all of the other missing links? Where is the chain of evidence that shows how the unique parts of creatures evolved? How did the eye develop? How did we get a heart, stomach, other organs, teeth, hearing, smell, nerves, muscles, bones, and skin all in one nice, neat package?
And a sperm meets an egg, we get another creature, almost as easily as using the Xerox. For that matter, how did the distinction of male and female genders occur?
How does evolution explain an unattractive, slithering caterpillar going into a chrysalis and emerging as one of nature's most delicately beautiful creatures—a butterfly?
But the most basic and difficult question of all is: How did inorganic material make the transition to organic, living cells? In fact, this was one of the first questions raised about evolution theory. But the proponents of evolution past and present avoid it. I. L. Cohen points out in his book, Darwin Was Wrong—A Study in Probabilities: "The idea that life sprang spontaneously from dead inorganic matter was quietly set aside, under-emphasized, and virtually forgotten."
With so many pertinent questions, and such weak science in the limited answers offered, at best, evolution seems to end up being a jigsaw puzzle with a significant number of pieces missing. Looking closely at the issues surrounding evolution, it seems perplexing that so many scientists still cling to and advocate it, even to the point of endorsing it as factual truth in science textbooks.
Are evolutionists disingenuous? In the beginning, the proponents of evolution theory asked that society become broad-minded to allow the free expression of their minority point-of-view. But now that Darwinists represent the majority viewpoint, they have become narrow-minded, forcing the exclusion in the free marketplace of ideas of differing opinions.
In the most democratic of places—public schools—evolution has been elevated to a scientific gospel, and other concepts are no longer presented because they are heretical. But other ideas need to be given a forum. Indoctrination in only one viewpoint, demeans true science. Let's be more fairminded.
Your case for suggesting that Apes would be more likely to evolve from men, due to the fact that evolution ‘tries’ to get to a stable state in which evolution is no longer necessary is flawed. There are two answers to this. Firstly (and as more of an aside than anything), both Whales and Dolphins used to be land animals. They decided it was safer in the water and returned. This could be seen to support your argument. However, evolution as such does not ‘try’ to do anything. It has no goal. It reacts, totally without compassion or objective. If it gets colder, fur gets thicker. Evolution does not develop an eye because it would be a good idea; it develops an eye because an eye aids survival.
If you take two related species of primate and give an advantage to one of them, whilst retaining stability for the other, then the advantaged species will change, whereas the disadvantaged one will not. The advantage gained by the human primate was that of the opposable thumb. Only humans have a completely formed opposable thumb, which allows it to work with more intricate tools. Primates live in communities and within any community there is communication (yes, even within a herd of deer). More complex tools make more complex problems, which require more complex communication. In order to cope with more complex communication, one requires a bigger brain. With a bigger brain, bigger questions can be asked – and bigger questions lead to better tools. WE may look at an apes’ life and think it cool. But we only do so whilst beset by the problems our so-called ‘intelligence’ has brought us. It is a fallacy to think we are the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution just because we are intelligent. If we were the pinnacle of evolution, we would have eagles’ eyes, gills, wings, powerful hind leg muscles – but we don’t. Other animals have evolved those whilst we just have more dexterous hands and bigger brains.
Life, you say, began when different chemicals came together to form complex units which eventually became a living organism. Close, and ultimately true of course, but there is something you (and all who have used that argument) have missed. It is the predisposition for the right chemicals to mix in the manner in which they mix, to form the precursors to life. Oxygen naturally mixes with hydrogen to become water. This is part of Oxygen’s nature – it cannot do otherwise. Likewise, amino acids and proteins are naturally predisposed to share nuclear bonds which will, given the right circumstances, develop compounds that are the precursors to life. This has been shown to be true in a laboratory. It is interesting to note that recent discoveries have been made that show amino acids are present on a great number of bits of rock, comet etc floating around in the Big Black. Which suggests if not here, then somewhere else, but inevitable.
You use the phrase ‘arbitrary’ circumstances. The universe is huge and I don’t doubt that there are other arbitrary circumstances around. Our planet is in the right place, our sun gives off the right light, our moon throws developing organisms onto the land twice a day. Of all the billion billion suns in the universe, I expect many to have planets in similar temperate orbits. Both Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov separately formulated equations to ‘calculate’ the number of ‘possible’ technological civilisations in our galaxy. Using different equations and different reasoning (though of course there’s some overlap, science depends on things being the same), they both came up with – exactly the same answer – about 10,000 in our galaxy alone. And there are billions of galaxies…….
You quote Sir William Cecil Dampier: “The fundamental concepts of physical science, it is now understood, are abstractions, framed by our mind, so as to bring order to an apparent chaos of phenomena”
Let me make one slight modification and you will see that this cannot be offered in an argument over evolution and creationism: “The fundamental concepts of religion, it is now understood, are abstractions, framed by our mind, so as to bring order to an apparent chaos of phenomena”.
Sir William has no more authority on this than do I.
You ask if science is merely theory, or demonstrated fact. It’s both, and ‘truth’ is defined by demonstrated fact, in as far as it CAN be demonstrated. However some things are obviously reasonable and logical. It is logical to accept that apples fall to the ground in all circumstances, whether you have theory of gravity or not. Science today can prove the existence of gravity even if it is struggling to find the ‘graviton’, the particle or quantum ‘thing’ that does the actual attraction. Some current ‘theories’ about the nature of the universe proffered by respectable scientists border (in my mind) on the ridiculous. For example, to explain some theories you need 11 or more ‘dimensions’ to space. This is daft – it’ll work quite well with 5. There are two ways you turn a theory into fact. You may look at the evidence, formulate a theory, test it and find that you’re right (or wrong). Or you can have an idea, turn it into a theory and then go out to find the evidence. If you find it, you can then test it. If not, it’s down to faith.
You say that “In addition, whatever has been determined to be scientific fact always turns out to be part of an elaborate pattern. When you take a closer look at fact-based science, it is very systematic.”
Of course it is. Without patterns, however elaborate, nothing but chaos could exist. Oxygen has a predisposition to bond with Hydrogen …. Without intervention, it can do nothing else, but each and every possibility of intervention follows the same rules, obeys the same pattern. Atoms work like that, and for the sake of this debate, everything is made of atoms.
You suggest that because apples did not evolve from an orange, man could not have evolved from a monkey. But you’re wrong. You forget that both apples and oranges evolved from the original plant that ‘discovered’ bearing fruit was A Good Idea. Likewise, an ancestor of both monkeys and us was similar to both, albeit less er…well developed. The chicken and egg conundrum has always amused me because the answer is obvious: The egg came first, because what was to develop into a chicken was hatched from an egg. There is a lot of evidence to suggest birds developed from those dinosaurs that survived the Big Rock Festival that happened 65 million years ago. And dinosaurs lay eggs. But if you want to take that further, everything on earth evolved from the sea and very few sea creatures produce live issue – it’s mostly eggs. Interestingly, one sea-based creature which does have live births is the seahorse, and it’s the male that does it. If you’re a man, be grateful that we evolved from the alternative. If you’re a woman, take comfort from the fact that seahorses, however pretty, are stupid; one of nature’s food sources – for creatures that lay eggs.
You then suggest that science is repeatable and that in order to ‘prove’ evolution, scientists must be able to recreate the sequence of change that turned monkeys into humans. You yourself have said that this takes millions of years. You would expect that any experiment would therefore take millions of year to complete. Not so. The reason scientists use fruit flies (and mice) is that they have very short life spans (the fruit flies that is, not the scientists) and in the space of a single career, fruit flies can have thousands of generations – it’s not TIME that evolution needs as much as FREQUENCY. Evolution has been observed working very well, thank you, in several short-lived (and therefore frequent) species. As all DNA on the planet (including that of cabbages) is very similar, it is actually easier to say everything evolved from a common (ultimate) ancestor, than not. Some people are horrified to discover that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, others merely find this interesting. I find it to be logical.
You say that DNA cannot rearrange itself, which is not quite true. Left to itself, you’re right, but DNA has several ways in which it ‘develops’. Firstly, DNA mutates – copies of itself are occasionally not quite as pure as the original. These mutations can engender changes which may or may not be beneficial. If this was not the case, there would be no malformed babies – and there are – and there would be no fear of ‘bird flu’ developing into something that could wipe us all out. Secondly, DNA can ‘pick up’ bits from elsewhere. Viruses can insinuate themselves into DNA, which keeps them, integrating them into further ‘offspring’ if the addition is beneficial (or at least, not harmful). Radiation also causes DNA change – and on the early Earth, there was no ozone protecting the planet from UV……
You query the ‘evidence’ of a 400,000 year old fossilised bone suggesting a ‘missing link’. Our bodies carry the evidence of earlier forms. The hair on our backs is arranged to promote effective swimming. The fact that we no longer use this is irrelevant. Likewise, the appendix was used for digesting seeds when we used to eat more of them. It now lies almost defunct. Out hips are shaped as they are to enable us to walk upright (and female hip of course is so shaped to allow big-headed offspring to get out). A precursor to humanity, living in trees has a different hip. Find a hip that could only have come from a primate with both tree-hugging and land-lubbing features, of the right age and containing 99% of our DNA, and you have a ‘missing link’. You go on to ask how come we have all the right organs (stomach, liver etc) wrapped in a nice tidy package. All of life is symbiotic. An early organism that can detect light attaches itself in a symbiotic relationship with one that can move, and you have something that can follow the light. Give it another symbiotic arrangement with something that can absorb light as an energy source, and give off the sort of nutrient the Light Detector and the Mover can utilise and you can go off in search of food. Add more and more mutually beneficial bits and you eventually end up with something quite complex.
The distinction of male and female is necessary to ensure diversity. If we were all perfect clones, nothing would evolve. My genes (as dictated by my DNA) are just a little bit different to yours. If they were to create an offspring between them, the offspring would itself be different enough to perhaps have a little extra something that would give it the edge. Or not.
Your use of the butterfly example is an interesting one. Most people see a butterfly developing FROM a caterpillar. Try looking at it as if a caterpillar is an undeveloped butterfly, in the same way that a child is an undeveloped adult. Butterflies develop wings; we develop breasts, more powerful muscles and useful genitalia. Think on this: when we are in the womb, we recreate the path evolution took to get us here. We develop gills and then lose them. We develop all-over hair