Evolution belief in America

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is the biology subforum. I think you were probably looking for science & society, politics, or ethics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree... Also I think that you'll get more accurate results when you'd move this thread to a forum more 'neutral' to theism and atheism. I imagine that compared to the other subforums more atheists than theists come here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ironically there is no correct answer in the poll.

 

Seems to me the logical choice would be democrat then :shrug:
Why put a whole nations fate in the hands of someone that doesn't even acknowledges science ?

 

Do you believe God created human beings in their present form more than 10,000 years ago? Or, do you believe a more advanced form of life played a part in human evolution?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's a no-no to talk about 'more advanced' as in 'later in a lineage' in evolutionary biology.

Since that is not how we see things. You can't say primitive either.

Saying these things signifies a wrong understanding of the science behind evolution. Something nobody cares about here, but it doesn't change the fact none of the options are therefore correct.

Feel free to vote a bogus poll.

 

I can't vote any of the options

 

what do you believe in then?

 

Me neither.

To be honest, I am inclined to choose the first option, but not for the same reason that many others would choose it.
I think that what defines us as humans is our ability for abstract thought.
About the time that we, as an animal, gained abstract thought and as a result invented religion.
Religion, like it or not, is very much a defining characteristic of the human race.

I suppose, "All the Above" would be the most suitable answer, in my view.

 

spurious:

According to Islam, creation is an unending process that is constantly ongoing and knowledge about this creation is gained by using your eyes (or senses) and hearts and minds. That is the purpose of life, to learn and enjoy learning, but always keeping hearts and minds involved in the process. The process will last as long as creation lasts (there will always be more to discover than we can find out); God is an unknown quantity in this equation that is not yet understood or defined.

To deny the evidence of evolution would be foolish, to claim that it is against God/religion makes no sense. That would presume that we have the knowledge/understanding to do so.:shrug:

 

That sounds like evolution to me.
I like it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

One more thing I like about Islam.

 

Guess that makes more sense then the standard Christian approach.

Can God ever be understood in this line of thinking? Or is the desire to understand God merely a method to come closer to God and not so much that the actual knowledge is an end goal in itself?

 

There are two schools of thought (maybe more but these are the ones I know of):

One school believes that God is not the goal, but a very important part of the process, ie. the goal is to live the life with the guidance of the Quran, keeping in mind that actions have consequences, sometimes invisible ones, so any action that is undertaken must first be considered in the light of right and wrong.

The other school believes that God is the ultimate goal, that the steady pursuit of knowledge, ie all action, will ultimately lead to perfect knowledge or Truth and that the truth will be God.

The two schools are not mutually exclusive.

There is another well known school of "ignorance is bliss" but it is not officially recognised

 

spuriousmonkey,

But I didn't equate a 'more advanced form of life playing a part in human evolution' with 'later in a lineage'.

I don't think anyone has mentioned 'primitive' until you did. I believe the questions in the poll were phrased as they were in the 'Skeptical Inquirer', as humans evolving from less advanced forms of life. So, are you saying the 'Skeptical Inquirer' is not much better than 'The National Inquirer' in terms of scientific accuracy? Would your acceptable phrasing be that human beings evolved from earlier forms of life?

 

I think Spuriousmonkey is right. In the strictest sense "advanced" should not be used in an evolutionary context. Sometimes the term "complex" is used, but except for large distances even that can be difficult.

 

"God is the Creator of everything" (Qur'an 13:16) and that God specifically created humanity (in the person of Adam; Qur'an 38:71-76)

 

You didn't? Humans gave rise to all the less advanced life forms? Well, that's certainly a new concept.

I haven't really encountered any of these journals in my endeavors as a scientist. I believe none of them is a scientific publication. Hence I would rather wipe my ass with both of them then to suggest that one is more scientific.

Since there is only one theory of evolution this would be excessive information. Humans evolved would be enough.

This poll is not scientific. It is a political tool that reflects ideology present in the general population. By giving the mob already the wrong options we merely confirm they are all uneducated philistines.

Advanced is just as bad as primitive. You can play word games but nobody in the field of evolutionary biology would nowadays use the term advanced or primitive without caution.

In fact, someone said it during a recent lab meeting and was corrected for it. And it may seem unimportant to some, but the whole concept behind not using primitive and advanced lightly is one of theoretical importance in evolutionary biology.

So please don't mind if I vomit when I see crap like that in a poll.

let's not pretend it has anything to do with science.

 

Thanks for sharing, but what did you say any different?