63% - Reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution

[malkin767]

In the 150 years since he published his groundbreaking On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the 200 years since the date of his birth celebrated this week, Charles Darwin has failed to convince the majority of Americans of the validity of his theories; an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion &

Comments

[anthrodork]

Stupid bible belt. I swear that is where the majority comes from. I taught evolution theory how it pertains to humans there, and I had to stop fights in the class because of the topic.

[kenosis]

Maybe the Bible belt has a culture that's different than yours, and it's not fair to judge them by the standards of the Other.

[vacant_thomas]

What depresses me most is that it didn't surprise me.

[petal_abstract]

I remember being in 7th grade, being taught evolution, and being the only student who got it and thought that it was the most likely theory.

Happy Birthday Darwin! I love you!

[hellolindseylu]

icon love

[mexicanwine]

double icon love.

[mexicanwine]

well that one works too, but i meant to use this one...

[onthetide]

D:

Although, "or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being" doesn't sound crazy. Like, there was evolution, but it was divine?

thoughts

[jjblue]

I don't have a problem with this concept, that we evolved, but Something sparked life into being in the first place, and has continued to create along the way. I think the problem, tho, is what Supreme Being(s) teachers would say did this. There is no way a school in the US is going to spin it any other way than towards the Judeo-Christian God.

Re: thoughts

[onthetide]

Oh yeah, I completely agree.

[manana]

Bleh. I remain convinced that there are two primary reasons for the continued resistance to this (ignoring the obvious but insulting "magical thinking" angle):

1) Bad marketing. Evolution is not a theory, in the sense that it doesn't posit anything at all; it is instead the absence of any theory, the null hypothesis of the diversity of biological forms. It states simply that all the differences we observe in living organisms are a result of randomness, and nothing more.
This error takes two (equally damning) forms: first, teleological thinking, ie the idea that evolution "improves" things or that it drives organisms "toward" something. Second, the "it's just a theory" argument; evolution is fundamentally an untestable proposition, because there is no proposition to test, which makes it look very weak when it's framed as a positive claim about how organisms develop.

2) Most people do not understand randomness, in any case, even if 1) were somehow circumvented.

[scholarinexile]

I think you're misunderstanding the fundamental premises. Evolution is positing a great deal; a theory, as sciences uses it, is a broad explanatory framework. And it's not saying that everything is random. The only part that's "random" is mutation; the evolutionary process from that point on is anything but random. It's simply not controlled by some unseen guiding divine hand, but the lack of an intelligence nudging it along does not randomness make.

[manana]

I strongly disagree; evolution is very much the null hypothesis in explaining the diversity (and diversification) of life. I think you're maybe meaning to allude to things like theories of inheritance--namely, genetics--and the details of survival and reproduction, but I would say those are not really central to the theory

[hollowman]

You are arguing against Darwin's theory right now. Evolution is not random at all. Genetic *drift* is random. Evolution by natural selection is the opposite of random - if it was random, you wouldn't be able to model the prevalence of sickle cell based on the presence of malaria ... you would simply see the sickle cell population fluctuate in isolation from selective pressure. this is not what we see.

Rather, we see what the theory of natural selection suggests we would - a predictable pattern of genetic fitness based on how traits impact one's ability to produce offspring. All the things you call random do inject an element of randomness, but they are not truly random at all. One can pull out statistically significant patterns within each of those categories.

What you are putting forth is some kind of alternate theory of evolution - it sounds like a play off Gould's most radical evolutionary ideas, but far beyond anything he ever argued for.