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.

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.

Take away the "hell theory" and there'd be more atheist.

Creationism is one of the dumbest ideas (its not even a real theory) I've heard!

the theory of their being an 'intelligent' designer makes more sense to me than the theory that humans have come to be through a series of conicidences and accidents,,,,

"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."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... HOW FUNNY!... i suppose whoever wrote this dribble never took a science class...

As always, I respect your "cup always 1/2 full" attitude towards most everything MsH, but I would have to ask on the creationism theory "which came 1st, the chicken or the egg?".

If there was a "creator", who created them? It would seem they would be the one I would wish to acknowledge as the "supreme being". Of course, then who created them?

Evolution is much more scientificly theorized as plausable to an intellegent, reasonable, and analytical mind. It is evident in present day as actual, you can see, feel, witness it, and therefore "believe" in it without a stretch of the imagination. It is arguable, and provable.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but so are fairy tales, and wishes. They provide visions and a symbolence of hope for better things than exist in a present state. They are however, just that, a hope, a belief, not founded on fact or even reason.

It is personal to a specific being, an opinion shared by teaching, adopted by many, but unprovable and not based on fact or evidence.

I will not argue religious faith or principle. We see the results of such things in the world today, and witness the results of it.

If I must bomb or invade a country because of a religious belief, or difference, or intolerance of it, I can not in good conscience think it a notable belief system, or teaching, to adhere to.

jmo

we agree

I have never and dont plan to ever feel like I have to bomb or invade anyplace because of religious beliefs (my own or anyone elses)

huh... i guess the reason don't really matter, as long as the bombs are let loose...

thats a whole other thread, wars are about gaining or maintaining 'power',,, people disguise the motive with religion, or politics, or justice,,,etc,,,

but that reason never changes,,,,,many humans want power, many humans want MORE than what they have,, by nature

I heard they talked about our mamas....

lol, and we talked about their religion/political leader/system of government,,etc,,etc,,,etc,,


it never ends,,,

Unfortunatly the Tribes of Adam have rocks that swallow cites and rain death for decades after they throw them.

Time to end the feud.

Is it not?

Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. Not understanding evolution is a sign of a poor education. I myself had received a very poor education, that is until college and then self study changed that factor.

We as a society harp on and on about falling behind with education, but then we feel so intellectual propping up anti science rhetoric such as intelligent design.

When I learned that evolution was so central to the advancement of biology I immediately studied the topic in great detail to better understand how I could make the mistake of thinking it was incorrect when really it was the most important theory in biology.

It shocks me when adults are told about how important evolution is for the biological sciences and do nothing to correct there misunderstandings.

Me myself being an absolute believer in darwinist theory wonder, why creatonism thinks that any INTELLIGENT founder would feel the need to create a world that doesn't change, instead of a world where the given set of rules make an evolution towards the goal possible... creating a machine that develops itself further is a goal that fills whole universities, a challenge to human intelligence. Why should a creator of a superior intelligence be any different, the more so as we are (by creationist views) made to be like him?

Why is it so unbelievable, that a system that develops itself towards the "crown of creation" (Actually, we are FAR from being that, if you want my opinion) was intended?

There is a given set of natural laws... like that water is the ONLY material I know of is actually more dense at a certain temperature ABOVE the solid state, meaning that there is USUALLY a reservoir of free water (a condition essential for the survival of higher life forms) at the bottom of any body of water that deserves that title... So to form this set of rules in the way it is would be quite brilliant, I think!?

Water has another characteristic that enables life.

It seeks the gravity well and can compress to allow more of itself to be present.

Yet it can also 'solidify' into a protective layer (and melt at the bottom to allow life to exist under the ice).

Like on a moon to small to contain an O2 atmosphere by gravity. (but the ice keeps it in)

See? And concidents like these made life (and evolution, if you ask me) possible... ;)

I agree with that. Science and Creation go together, because the designer created the science that humans constantly try to understand and the features which help living things adapt which some scientists want to believe are just coincidental.

True, but there are subtleties to the theory which can be hard to grasp without a really good education.

Most anti-evolution arguments are based on complete misunderstandings of the theory.