It's been just 150 years since the publication of "On the Origin of Species," in which Charles Darwin outlined his argument that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. That is scarcely an eyeblink in the epic context of evolutionary time, soperhaps we ought not to get too bent out of shape over a Gallup Poll suggesting that less than half of Americanadults are willing to acknowledge Darwin was on to something.
In fact, data gatheredon the bicentennial celebration of Darwin's birthday and reposted Mondayshow that just 39 percent of those surveyed in a 2009 random sample of 1,018 respondents say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while 25 percent reject Darwin's argument outright.
Another 36 percent, or nearly all the rest of those surveyed, said they had no opinion either way, which strikes us as a little like having no opinion whether the law of gravity has merit. But we're cheered by the possibility that this noncommittal third of the country is keeping an open mind, at least for the time being.
Americans' continuing reluctanceto embrace Darwin's argument is slightly more alarming when you consider that virtually everything biologists have discovered since either confirms or refines his theory of natural selection.
Indeed, the more education those polled in the Gallup survey reported, the more likely they were to subscribe to Darwin's theory. While just 24 percent of those who had completed high school or less said they believed in the theory, the percentage of believers doubled to 53 among college graduates and 74 among postgraduate degree-holders.
The opposite correlation was observed among those who attended church regularly; just 24 percent of those who attended weekly said they believed in evolution,compared with 55 percent of those whosaid they attended church seldom or never. Gallup said its previous research shows that church attendance rates are fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that differences in attitudes toward evolution were a direct reflection of respondents' religious beliefs.
What is most worrisome, to those of us who struggle in the even more amorphous realm of public policy, is the absence of consensusabout the validity of basic scientific method — the process of testing hypotheses about how the world worksagainst repeated anddisciplined observations of the world. How can Americans find common ground on the subject of, say, global warming if most of us remain suspicious about a scientific consensus that has endured more than a century longer?
The good news, according to Darwin, is that nature favors adaptations that enhance a species' survival. So, assuming observation continues to bear outhis theory of evolution, not only is our species' eyesight improving, but also its capacity to acknowledge what our eyes see.

Creation vs. Evolution.
The neo-Darwinians opine that it is not possible to see the mark of God in the evolution of living beings. There is no scientific proof of His divine hand. Changesoccur without the guidance of an ethical criterion.
Creationists, however, insist that it is not possible to explain the immense complexity of life without the intervention of a superior being. Further, they believe that human beings have a profound moral sense that can be explained only by the existence of God. It is even propounded that there is a gene that predisposes humans to seek God.

Embrace of science is an easy thing except for the most extremely religious.

To be sure there are conflicts when the extremely science oriented state that God is not as though IT is so...

But for religion to accept science is easy because religion is flexible (but slow to flex).

However it seems very hard for Science to embrace the spritual.

As we step outside of our Evolution on the Earth we will find that evolution is larger than science can grasp.

Yet religion has alread grasped that.

and condensed its years to a smaller format so it could fit in a book.

Which few seem to still understand.

Looking for a set time in a work that is a time and times.

Evolution takes time.

God happens in an instant and exists in every time.

At one time there were no Rainbows upon the Earth. (the book is true).

Yet in a time of times the earth had ice for an upper atmosphere also (and no magnetic fields).

In this day we have looked with tools to the past.

There was a time when Earth was covered with ice.

There was a time after that time when the first Aurora was recorded.

God's rainbow is not that of the water of the air.

God gave us a rainbow with the addition of a magnetic field.

so the ice could melt and we be safe.

Earth is also subject to Evolution.

Evolution is subject to God.

the Ruler of All Things seen and unseen.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/323579


once is never enough...i guess