Evolution Gets Plurality Support in America—Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin

Reader Comments
Back to blog

With all due respect to your spiritual readers,why couldn't both schools of thought be correct? The theory of Darwin was that creatures adapted to their envirnment over time. This created the "homo-sapien of today.We are ,theoretically ,still adapting which means in thousands of years, we should be phsically different than we are now.
The beginning of "mankind" began with the creation of universe.There had to be a starting point.There lies the spiritual founding by our creator.
Science and Religion are both correct.
P.S. I wonder how the stats would look(education,income,religion etc.) on those who agree or disagree with Darwin.

loureh of CT 8:27AM February 19, 2009

I see by the comments here that as expected, creationists have yet to evolve into a higher level of discourse. Instead, just more foot-stamping attacks on Darwin as if it matters one whit how he developed his concepts. Added to that recipe is my absolute favorite creationista hypocrisy, turning the words "faith" and "religion" into expletives. I find that so rich in irony.
The fact is - and it IS a fact - that for nearly 200 years, scientists of virtually every discipline, of every political, social, and national stripe, all agree that evolution is a fact of life.

Ando Joubert 9:11PM February 18, 2009

It's a law. Can't be broken. At least that's what all the physicist tell us. That is, until they try to explain how the universe evolved from a singularity to it's present size faster than the speed of light. Not to mention; where did all that matter come from?
Evolution has the same kind of problem. You first have to explain how life evolved from non-life, then and only then can you go on with the ability of a plant or animal to evolve.
I want a better explanation other than "the laws of the universe didn't exist yet". You might as well have said everything was magiced into existence.

John Kirkland of AL 9:33AM February 13, 2009

What a joke .As all are "GIVEN" free will, where do you think it came from?the mere ability to comprise thought comes from a 'creative power, to say yea, or nea.
ASK Darwin, no you can't because he believed not in God , so you go visit him, and and see if his opinion is the same about God -shoot he will tell you himself -believe in God!
do not be a fool, for fool saith in his heart, there is no God"
look where i am at now!

todd toure of NY 4:49PM February 12, 2009

Nice try boys - But no cigar. You tried to obfuscate the issue by writing lots of "stuff" - You wanted to put the "fat" back on the bone because you didn't like what the bone looked like.
I never mentioned the bible or Christianity - But you wanted to cover me in that cloak as a way of demeaning my words. Silly boys....
You dance around the issue of a "first cause", and never confront it head on - because you can't. You say, "The existence of matter and energy is a given." Oh come now, isn't that a little like saying, "Because the Bible tells me so."? You are simply begging the question.
You both beat the "straw-man" of religion, but can not refute my simple premise - "There is no third choice." You like to opine in half truths, attack positions that were never stated and cover it all with "unproven opinions" as "scientific fact".
Now, stop squirming and blathering pseudo-scientific platitudes. Reason and logic will take you far - but first you have to open your minds and loosen the tight grip your egos have on your thinking.
You guys are way too dogmatic in your thinking.... Where have I heard that before?

R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:12PM February 12, 2009

Darwinist's are delusional, they reject the truth of a creator, so the only alternative is to believe a lie. Denial is the Darwinist's shield, as their blind faith slowly brings them to the reality that their religion masquerading as science will be lost in the dust bin of history. Darwinism is the creation myth of the 19th Century.
Darwin plagerized natural selection from a creationist who developed the concept, not Darwin. Darwin's ignorance of Gregor Mendel's discovery of genetic inheritance, left Darwin's belief in evolution stillborn and irrelevant.
Most of all the branches of modern science were originated and started by Creationists, from Newton Pasteur, Mendel, to Virchow, Lord Kelvin, Joule, Maxwell, and on and on....

John of TX 11:42AM February 12, 2009

I don't think Copernicus was liked much by the church for postulating that the earth is not the center of all creation in the universe as was previously thought. But most people have now agreed to that idea, even though not supported by the Bible.

Muser of NM 11:22AM February 12, 2009

The problem is not a conflict between evolution and belief in God, as others have noted there is nothing preventing people from believing that God set up and/or guides evolution.
The difficulty comes in with the people who believe that the bible, or parts of the genesis stories, are literally true. Some of these people have a belief that all creatures on earth were created, in the exact forms they now have, over a period of six days. Modern biological science, which began with Darwin's theory of evolution, PROVES that to be absolutely false. There are species in the world today which did not exist when the genesis stories were written. Others believe that the world is only 10,000 years old... despite that view being proven false by biological, geological, anthropological, cosmological, and half a dozen other sciences.
Faced with clear scientific proof that their beliefs are false these people have chosen to reject science. They deliberately avoid learning the truth and violently reject any intrusion of reality into their realm of faith. They seek out and endlessly repeat false and misleading evidence against the realities of the world. Because of these efforts others who believe in God will also reject or express uncertainty about various facts, either due to true confusion as a result of the disinformation or to avoid conflict with their more delusional co-religionists.
Creationists and 'intelligent design' advocates, global warming deniers, republicans in general... they'll be with us so long as a significant portion of the population promotes faith above reason. Should that core of 'true believers' ever shrink below say 10% the 'debate' about reality will end and the large body of uncertain individuals will finally be free to accept proven reality.

CBDunkerson of NJ 10:34AM February 12, 2009

R.L. Schaefer of CA above compared a (heavily compressed and very, very simplified) account of events since the Big Bang with the second option of "a benevolent, eternal creator". I go for the first, the scientific version. Here's why.
The existence of matter and energy is a given. Why must it have a creator? If you think it must, then the creator must also have had a creator, and this creator must have had …. If matter exists it will have ways of behaving, properties. (Quantum physics shows that those properties are based on chance, BTW.) The self organisation of matter does not depend on a creative being, being based on the known fundamental forces. The forces require a force giver? Uh-uh. If so, who created the force giver? It is quite sensible to just accept that matter and fundamental forces exist.
The scientific story requires a long string of improbable coincidences? Not really. Every person on earth experienced yesterday as totally unique to them, as were all other days of their lives. The people you talk to, the clothes you and they were wearing, the phone calls taken and made, the coffee break chats, the pattern of cars and trucks on the street crossings and so on add up to quite unrepeatable events. Each day can never be repeated 100% exactly, virtually impossible in fact. The point is that the days become impossible only when an attempt is made to replicate them. And they cannot be predicted.
The unfolding (i.e. evolution) of the universe and of life is a story of countless contingent events. One of the truly bitter lessons to learn about evolution is that it has no goals. This makes it a bit like the exclusive sequence of unique days.
For better or worse, there is not the slightest indication that there was or is “a benevolent, eternal creator”. There is no objective evidence for a god of any kind. If anyone knows some, let us know please.
Even if there was evidence for a creator being, it is a big stretch to characterize Him, Her or It as benevolent. Why make most of the water on earth too salty or disease ridden to drink? Why create malaria and smallpox? Or polio? Why give humans a malfunctioning gene for vitamin C synthesis? (And give dogs a working copy! Ships dogs were OK on lengthy sea voyages of long ago while sailors died painful deaths from scurvy.) Why create human skin so that it is damaged by sunlight? Why create us with blood that is strongly attracted to carbon monoxide gas? That charming little design flaw surely has no cosmic significance other than to show that the putative creator has a vile sense of humor.

Roger Scott 6:33AM February 12, 2009

I am really interested in the Gerber vs. Darwin theory of evolution, a rather dramatic new theory disturbing yet liberating if science continues on the current course of validating it. read it on http://skeptic.me League of New Scientists. The controversial part is the vested interest in maintaining Darwin's Theory of Evolution, exactly the same type of crew thought promoted the “Flat Earth” fiction to use fear to discourage others from discovering the spice routes type of scheme. Also is the idea of intelligence driven dynamic DNA.

Richard Thomas of MI 12:50AM February 12, 2009