Intelligent Design

Do You Believe In Evolution?

Spread the love

There has been some discussion about what a politician should say when asked by a reporter, Do you believe in evolution? My response would be:

Of course! Everyone with an IQ above room temperature, who isn’t a science denier, knows that it is an established scientific fact, supported by all the evidence, not to mention computer simulations, that random genetic mutations aided by natural selection turned ancient microbes into Mozart in approximately three billion years (that’s about 10^17 seconds). If evolution can do that, it can do anything.

Scientists say it. I believe it. That settles it!

By the way Mr. reporter, you believe that too, don’t you? Surely you aren’t a science denier.

27 Replies to “Do You Believe In Evolution?

  1. 1
    rvb8 says:

    Wow, is this a post or an incomplete missive?

    In US politics it is important that religion is central, and that denying science publicly scores more points than it should, I’m aware of that, but what is the point, who benefits, what is accomplished by the above?

    We learn that Gil is in evolution denial? We new that already. We learn this site doesn’t support science? We new that too. We learn that religious people equate themselves and their admittedely unlikely existence on a par with Motzart? (I’m all for the sanctity and equality of life but really, Gil-Motzart?)

    It is posts such as this that cause ID to be held in such disregard beyond its borders. It has no substance, merit, and explains nothing. Was it just a mad expression of pent up frustration at the impotence of ID?

    There is no excuse for this trivia!

  2. 2
    GilDodgen says:

    My post was a thought experiment. Reporters who ask this kind of question are obviously trying to set a trap. By presenting Darwinian orthodoxy and its claims in all their glory and without apology, one would force the reporter to acquiesce to claims that any rational person would find ludicrous.

    However, it is possible that I thought I new much more than I actually no, in which case I should pursue much more noledge.

  3. 3
    Jim Smith says:

    I would smile and say, “I believe that journalists evolved from pond scum”.

  4. 4
    Andre says:

    Well it depends on what type of evolution ain’t it?

    Eeek Punk?
    Darwinian Evolution?
    Lamarckism?
    Guided Evolution?
    Theistic Evolution?
    Cosmic Evolution?
    Unguided evolution?
    Panspermia?
    Neutral Drift?
    Convergent Evolution?
    Vertical Evolution?
    Stasis?
    Horizontal Evolution?
    Adaptation?

    Actually everybody believes in evolution but which one could it be? If you’re subjective you can’t claim any single one as your own belief because hey you can’t really know can you?

  5. 5
    Blue_Savannah says:

    To play off Andre’s post a little, perhaps they could say, “before I answer I’ll need a little clarification. What specific definition of ‘evolution’ are you (the reporter) referring to and could you list the limits/falsification criteria of it.

  6. 6
    bFast says:

    I would respond, “I was brought up with the understanding that ‘believe’ was a religious term. What exactly do you mean by ‘believe’ in evolution?”

  7. 7
    Hangonasec says:

    You really think sarcasm is the way to go Gil? Some people can be sooooo literal!

  8. 8
    humbled says:

    rvb8, evolution is myth, legend and fairy tales NOT science. Further, the so called scientific consensus has been wrong countless times in the past, I maintain they are wrong again. Especially in light of there being ZERO verifiable evidence supporting the ridiculous theory.

    If I was asked this question I would simply tell the reporter that I already have a religion I don’t need another 😉

  9. 9
    Piotr says:

    humbled,

    evolution is myth, legend and fairy tales NOT science…

    Yeah, got it. Evolution is myth, flyin’ monks is science.

  10. 10
    Hangonasec says:

    Yes, the scientific consensus certainly has been wrong in the past. For example, it was once overwhelmingly Creationist.

  11. 11

    I’d respond: “I’d like to believe that some day the press can evolve beyond asking irrelevant “gotcha” questions like that.

    “However, since that day is not today, let me ask you: Which would you prefer to have in office, someone who believes humans are a collection of random mutations filtered by natural selection and are nothing more, really, than really clever talking apes, or someone who thinks every individual is a sacred being with inalienable rights and liberties that no man, group, government or ideology has the right to abridge?

    “Who would you prefer to have in office, someone who thinks humans are simply another natural resource for the powerful to exploit as they see fit, or someone who feels they have an obligation to treat every individual on Earth as if they are divine creations with the highest intrinsic value and worth?

    “However we have come to be here, I consider every single human a sacred being with inalienable rights and liberties. Not being an evolutionary biologist, I don’t know if the theory of evolution is reconcilable with the idea of humans as sacred and rights and liberties as unalienable. Do you?”

  12. 12
    Joe says:

    Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution:

    As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution — the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis.)

    Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. (Yes, design is a mechanism.)

    Now we are left with: the only way Intelligent Design can be considered “anti-evolution” is if and only if the only generally accepted definition of “evolution” matches the definition provided for “materialistic evolution.”

    However I cannot find any credible source that definitively states on the record that that is the case.

    Unfortunately the liberal media is ignorant of that and evolutionists cannot afford to have that made public.

  13. 13
    humbled says:

    “Yeah, got it. Evolution is myth, flyin’ monks is science.”

    Piotr, for someone that has placed his faith in a theory that promotes spontaneous generation and a host of other fairy tales as well as a theory that defies logic, physics, mathematics etc, flyin’ monks are the least of your problems 😉

  14. 14
    humbled says:

    “Yes, the scientific consensus certainly has been wrong in the past. For example, it was once overwhelmingly Creationist.”

    And?
    Under Christian rule science flourished. All you darwin faithful did was corrupt and destroy ushering in a new scientific dark age. You science terrorists have a lot to answer for. Can’t wait for the future tribunal one day, would love to see the many skeletons leaping out of that closet haha.

  15. 15
    Hangonasec says:

    humbled

    And?

    And … the Creationist position became untenable. I don’t have to spell everything out do I? You seem to think the consensus having been wrong in the past says something about its present position – but more bizarrely, in this instance it will return to a previous consensus. Not sure that’s ever happened, but keep your fingers crossed, eh?

    You science terrorists have a lot to answer for. Can’t wait for the future tribunal one day, would love to see the many skeletons leaping out of that closet haha.

    Ooh, what’s the plan? Burning? Red hot pokers?

  16. 16
    bFast says:

    Hangonasec, “And … the Creationist position became untenable.”

    Now the neo-Darwinian position has become untenable. What do we do now?

  17. 17
    humbled says:

    “Ooh, what’s the plan? Burning? Red hot pokers?”

    Darwinian evolution (your belief system) and the subsequent mass slaughter visited on our world because of your insane anti-human philosophies are not to be taken lightly. One would think after having destroyed the twentieth century “your people” would have learnt something but no, you continue your path of science terrorism spreading corruption and destruction wherever you go.

    Red hot pokers? That would be letting you people off lightly 😉

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    rvb8:

    We learn that Gil is in evolution denial? We new that already. We learn this site doesn’t support science? We new that too. We learn that religious people equate themselves and their admittedely unlikely existence on a par with Motzart?

    Wow. This “we” versus “them” theme is a sure sign of religious fanaticism. It’s not unlike:

    Yeah, we are the true scientists who invented science and science belongs to us and no one else. We will defend it against the uneducated masses.

    Or:

    We are the true soldiers of Allah and we will defeat the crusaders from Rome because Allah is on our side and he is the greatest.

    Are all atheists and Darwinists possessed by the same medieval narcissistic demons?

  19. 19
    humbled says:

    I find it ironic that rvb8 and his kind talk about this site not supporting science. These religious nuts wouldn’t know what science was if it bit them on the backside. Further, “their kind” have done so much damage that a complete overhaul may be necessary to set science right again.

  20. 20
    bFast says:

    I have a new proposed answer: “to the extent that the theory of evolution has eliminated God, I do not.” That answer would be good enough for a young earther, and would cause very few Republican hardened atheists to leave the fold.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    NASA | The Moon – A View From The Other Side – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdkMHkF7BaA

    Apollo 8 – Christmas Message 1968 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFUx_KC1bHQ

    “They (atheists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?”
    Dr. Wernher von Braun – Director, Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration – Letter to the California State Board of Education – September 14, 1972

    NASA | 5 Year Time-lapse of the Sun – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-41gAPmUG0

    Every second, the Sun converts about 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium. The remaining 4 million tons of mass is converted to energy.

  22. 22
  23. 23
    rvb8 says:

    At sciencedaily.com humbled, I follow the latest breaking science news. I also visit NASA, several universities, pandas, Coyne, and others. At these easily available sites I follow science, in all its wonder. I do this not because I am learned in these fields, but because I am human being with a naturally evolved insufferable curiosity. What species are you?

    humbled, is this humbled by the lord? By the infinite beauty of creation, the unimagianable improbability that you would be here now at this moment? Good for you, the chances of the atoms that made you coming into being now, at this time is indeed improbable.

    I, rather than stare adoringly, with open mouth and slackjawed ignorance, like a guppy fish at feeding time, choose to follow scientists who explain the natural forces and elements that made this (oh god!) ‘miracle’, take place.

  24. 24
    Mapou says:

    rvb8:

    I, rather than stare adoringly, with open mouth and slackjawed ignorance, like a guppy fish at feeding time, choose to follow scientists who explain the natural forces and elements that made this (oh god!) ‘miracle’, take place.

    This explains it! You’re an atheist jihadist, on a sacred mission to convert the unbelievers. Just follow what the Imam, uh, scientist says.

  25. 25
    rvb8 says:

    Mapou ‘atheist jihadist’ is an oxymoron. These words can go before jihadist; Muslim, Christian, Jewish, any other faith, also creationist , fundamentalist, pretty much any faith based idiocy, but not atheist, sorry.

    Atheist means that I don’t have a belief in any type of god, hence also no religion; why is this word so poorly understood amongst ID/Creationists?

  26. 26
    Hangonasec says:

    ‘humbled’ @17

    Darwinian evolution (your belief system) and the subsequent mass slaughter visited on our world because of your insane anti-human philosophies are not to be taken lightly.

    Mass slaughter is not to be taken lightly, but you are. I’m anti-human because I think biological evolution is a reality? Yeesh.

    One would think after having destroyed the twentieth century “your people” would have learnt something but no, you continue your path of science terrorism spreading corruption and destruction wherever you go.

    Tee and, indeed, hee. Westboro a tad too easy-going for your tastes?

  27. 27
    Cross says:

    rvb8 @ 23

    Oxford dictionary – religion “A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:”

    “At sciencedaily.com humbled, I follow the latest breaking science news. I also visit NASA, several universities, pandas, Coyne, and others. At these easily available sites I follow science, in all its wonder.”

    “I…choose to follow scientists who explain the natural forces and elements that made this (oh god!) ‘miracle’, take place.”

    Actually rvb8 I think you have got religion.

    Cheers

Leave a Reply