Slate makes fun of Americans who doubt Darwin

kairosfocus, no one is more blind and asleep than you are, no one is more guilty of refusing to acknowledge scientific evidence and methodology than you are, and no one is more guilty of sneering, not addressing the substance, and personalizing/polarizing the situation by falsely and maliciously blaming people who don't bow down to your theocratic demands. In case you missed this in another thread: Gordon, setting aside your unsubstantiated, irrelevant, endless drivel about FSCO/I, fishing reels, nodes-arcs networks, nanomachines of the cell (look who’s being a reductionist as usual), warm salty ponds, etc., for the moment, I want to point out some things about your drumbeat repetitive, character attacking, motive mongering, contemptuously dismissive, ideologically driven, disrespectful, factional, accusatory, slanderous (actually libelous), emotion-laden, fundagelical-theocratic worldview based intimidatory Marxist Agit-Prop Alinskyite tactics and rants that you lead out to strawmen and red herrings soaked in oily, incendiary ad hominems set ablaze to cloud and poison the atmosphere in the teeth of correction (Whew!): You are what you condemn, and then some, even though you zealously claim to have ‘God grounded’, is/ought, impeccable, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., morals. Your ridiculous whining about “outing” is apparently because I addressed you in a previous comment by your first name. Your name, Gordon E. Mullings, and a lot more about you is easily available by clicking on your kairosfocus username and then clicking on some of your links to other pages of yours on your own blog(s). Your full name and other information is also easily available by doing an internet search of your kairosfocus username. You publicly provide your real name, your email address, where you live, and lots of other information about yourself and your family, and some of it you provide on this very blog, yet you flip out and make up lame, dishonest stories about email spam and security/privacy when someone addresses you by your real name (even just your first name). I’ve seen you claim many times that you, your wife, and your “minor children” have been threatened, held hostage, stalked, etc., yet you never provide any evidence to support those claims, even though you’ve been asked multiple times to do so. I’m calling your bluff: put up or shut up and retract and apologize. Pachyaena

KS, it seems you are blind to what you and your fellow design objectors have been doing in and around UD, and refuse to acknowledge revealing documentation from sources such as leading science ed bodies, the US Academy of Sciences and leading scientists on their ideological context; notice, you have sneered not addressed the substance. That speaks volumes, especially now that you want to personalise and polarise the situation by blaming the inconvenient messenger -- and doing so in a separate thread. In short, your diagnosis, so-called, collapses into all too well known agit-prop tactics, in this case Alinski's RFR # 13. Please, wake up and think again. KF kairosfocus

Re #28, KF confirms my diagnosis. keith s

For a terminal case of us-vs-themism, look no further than UD's own kairosfocus. From his #26:

Which, is ever more luridly revealing of the thoughts and intents of the heart in a culture where the chattering classes so often preen themselves on tolerance and cultural sensitivity. It is time for a rethink. KF

keith s

Learned Hand:

In fact, the perception of disapproval from [outside] is known to be a factor in cementing beliefs about science and the natural world.

Yes, and that relates to the question of whether ridicule and mockery are good tactical moves when combating ID and creationism. The accommodationists generally think that they aren't, but I disagree. I was raised as a creationist, and for most of my childhood I was unaware that scientists regarded creationism as a complete crock. The message I got from within creationist circles was that evolution was "just a theory" and that scientists were actively arguing over its truth. It would have done me a world of good to know that scientists were laughing at my ridiculous views, because then I would have been motivated to a) learn why they were laughing so that I could b) refute the smug bastards. Perhaps then I would have realized, a few years sooner than I eventually did, that they were right and that my beliefs were untenable. I've been following the Scientology saga for a long time and you see the same thing there: Scientologists who are protected for years or even decades from the knowledge that outsiders are laughing their asses off at the idea of Xenu, "body thetans", and implant stations on Venus and Mars. I understand that for some people ridicule can have the opposite effect, though, hardening them into an us-vs-them mentality. I'm reading The Soul, by J.P. Moreland, and the us-vs-them thinking is striking:

If we revise the traditionally understood teachings of Scripture in light of the supposed demands of science, then we contribute to the idea that it is really science that gives us confident knowledge of reality and not Scripture... Or is cognitive and behavioral authority set by what scientists or the American Psychiatric Association say, or by what Gallup polls tell us is embraced by cultural and intellectual elites? Do we turn to these sources and then set aside or revise two thousand years of Christian thinking and doctrinal/creedal expressions in order to make Christian teaching acceptable to the neuroscience department at UCLA? ...Third, loss of belief in life after death is related to a commitment to the authority of science above theology...

It's all about us versus them, bowing to this authority or that. What about simply looking at the evidence to see who makes the better case? That's what I did, and it's what enabled me to escape the irrationality of my youthful creationism. keith s

JB: I suspect that some clarification on the meaning/message and truth of Scripture is needed. First, that scripture must be understood on grammar, language [esp. Heb. Aramaic and Koine Greek], genre and imagery [What does Jesus mean to say, I am the Door . . . sensus literalis does not commit us to thinking of Oak or Cedar etc, and when Scripture portrays how Paul and Silas were beaten and thrown in stocks at Philippi it does not commend kangaroo courts but just the opposite, etc . . . ], context, setting and occasion, authorial intent, etc and so taking the text at its proper meaning per what it actually says vs what many may read into it, becomes important. You are right to highlight the problem of strawman caricatures and a subtext of contempt. Which, is ever more luridly revealing of the thoughts and intents of the heart in a culture where the chattering classes so often preen themselves on tolerance and cultural sensitivity. It is time for a rethink. KF PS: This thread caught my eye as I was about to shut down UD after a win 8.1 performance checkout. kairosfocus

Up here in the frozen north of Canada even our 'conservative/alternative' news organization is pro-evolution. This week the Toronto Sun had an article "Bill Nye: 'Fighting against Creationists is a hard job'." What I appreciate at the Sun is that readers can blog on every article. The blogging didn't seem to go the way the reporter, Jim Slotek, would have liked because comments were cut off within hours. I guess he never expected to read so many intelligent rebuttals to evolution. The creationists had the reasoned arguments while the evolutionists mostly resorted to name calling without any indication that they did any investigation into evolution. http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/03/bill-nye-fighting-against-creationists-is-a-hard-job-3 Peter

This slate mag/rag seems to think they know better then the people. These stats admit enough people agree with creationism as a viable idea for origins and absolutely deserves equal time. the ppeople simply are reasonable about a fair hearing in science class about options for origins. Its the oppressive elites/establishment that is the enemy of truth, freedom, and mankind and God and christ. Robert Byers

If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014 Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly. Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller. The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development. The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/scientists-discover-proof-that-humanity-is-getting-dumber-smaller-and-weaker “Neanderthals are known for their large cranial capacity, which at 1600cc is larger on average than modern humans.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anatomy Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013 Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/skull_rewrites_078221.html “A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012) Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001) Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/following_the_evidence_where_i047161.html#comment-9266481 The Red Ape - Cornelius Hunter - August 2009 Excerpt: "There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html

bornagain77

Evidence for Human Evolution is severely overblown

Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/ The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity and Chromosome Fusion between Humans and Chimps - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - video https://vimeo.com/95287522 Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: "Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species" http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked - Jeffrey P. Tomkins - Oct. 26, 2013 http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.php The primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, Beta-Globin Pseudogene, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphism) evidence was overturned: Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust - Casey Luskin - April 23, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.html Of related note: Richard Dawkins claimed that the FOXP2 gene was among ‘the most compelling evidences’ for establishing that humans evolved from monkeys, yet, as with all the other evidences offered from Darwinists, once the FOXP2 gene was critically analyzed it fell completely apart as proof for human evolution: Dawkins Best Evidence (FOXP2 gene) Refuted - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU

bornagain77

WD400: I find this fascinating. How to supporters of “big tent” ID deal with the fact that most of the people in your tent are, at least as far as the science goes, so horribly wrong about this subject? I guess it depends on who is defining "big tent" and how. How could one even entertain the idea that fundamentalist Christians or Orthodox Jews would not be very thankful that the illogical underpinnings of the scientific materialist cult are being exposed by us for what they are - the foundation for an unmistakable cult with a creation story (nature creating itself), a figurehead personality, persecution (firings from academic employment), hush-hush confidential admissions of wavering faith (see below link), in short all of the behavior associated with the the power of cultists and their priesthood, including an obsession with getting to the children at an early age for indoctrination purposes and obliterating childhood common beliefs. In short why would any non-Darwinist resent what we do? If you call it joining under a tent, go ahead -- its just a metaphor anyway, with meaning mainly for yourself right? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ groovamos

From https://sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf Chromosome Fusion Speciation (Immediate - Human) Humans may be the result of a molecular level good-guess called Chromosome Fusion Speciation1 produced by a large head to head telomeric fusion of two average size chromosomes which became our second largest #2. Although there was not a significant amount of gene code scrambling at the fusion site, even in common much less disruptive fusion events which do not create a new species the rearranging of the chromosome territories can still produce large-scale gene expression (coding remains the same) changes elsewhere.2 At the molecular intelligence system level this can result in a somewhat traumatic event, experience, which can produce reproductive isolation (operational definition for speciation/species). Usually around 2/3 of pregnancies involving one person with a balanced translocation will end in miscarriage.3 There may also be behavioral differences where they then can intelligently recognize and choose to be with their own kind (reproductive isolation which includes human intelligent causation). To fully qualify as a new chromosomal species the lineage must stay going until there is a self-sustaining population in reproductive isolation. Until then it remains unknown/unclear whether it was a species creating event or not. Unlike normal chromosome crossover exchange (guesses) that happens each time cells divide down during meiosis into egg or sperm cells, chromosome fusions are only an occasional but much more dramatic and risky guess. Where the guess works, a new chromosome design is created (that may or may not have a visible change in phenotype) that encourages reproductive isolation, which gene level (earlier discussed) “behavioral speciation” further acts upon to help make final. No “behavioral speciation event” (lineage split to show in cladogram) yet occurred, that would require a new species (same chromosome count) to branch from our lineage because of “behavioral speciation” alone but unlike immediate chromosomal speciation there may be no single genome level change that (by itself) produced reproductive isolation. Apes kept on going through time with the undisturbed 48 design that is stable making quadrupedal apes, but the human design requires restructured pelvis, limbs, ribcage, cooling, vocal/breathing system, brain circuit wiring with much longer development time, and we are an almost hairless self-clothed biped not a furry quadruped. We are also the only specie to build public schools and universities, meanwhile our closest relatives are still living in trees. Even after attempting to teach chimps and monkeys how to read and write they would all likely still score zero on written science tests. We could easily see which tests were taken by chimps because of not looking much better than those filled in by much more distantly related tiny brained monkeys. These significant differences require considering the effects of a molecular intelligence level chromosome fusion guess, which only (at least successfully) occurred in humans (not related species). This type of event has a direct effect upon the emergent cellular intelligence behavior, which in turn has a direct effect upon the emergent multicellular system. There are here two intelligent causations in the emergent pathway that similarly change in response to small molecular intelligence level behavior changes, a new behavior can amplify into a complex behavior change by the time it finally effects the complex thoughts of the emergent multicellular intelligence level (our brain). Not all chromosome fusions are a guess being taken. It is possible for another system to not be functioning properly in which case we are seeing what happens when something else goes wrong elsewhere. And in human origin there was specifically a single large head to head telomeric fusion event. Other types of fusion may have another cause and would not be a direct example of the chromosome fusion speciation mechanism being discussed here. Chromosome fusion speciation is not like crossing different species such as donkey and a horse where there is the birth of a mule that is normally sterile. Here, parents who gave birth to the first 47 (because two fusing into single long one) were both the same species and both had 48 chromosomes. A 47 has all of the chromosome material of a 48 and was fertile enough to have offspring, but with the fusion present in only one pair (one from each parent) the instability can make it harder to conceive anything less than a stable 46 chromosome (even number) arrangement where there are two fusions, one from each parent. This pairing further accelerates such a speciation process by favoring conception of 46 over 47 hence there is a speciation event where the new design is right there forced to become a new species or it soon becomes extinct. The direction of our species would then have been set the moment the good-guess was taken. The first (of two) fused chromosome is in either allele (mother or father) of the haploid (one of two sets of chromosome pair) germ cell (egg or sperm) to become a 47 chromosome heterozygote (alleles differ). This one copy expresses human chromosome #2 along with copy of the original two unfused chromosomes to provide all that the cell had before, therefore it is not a sudden unsurvivable change. The new fusion produced chromosome is also controllable through epigenetic systems which can reregulate genes to a successful balance. We now have the first human Chromosome #2. Next, the fused chromosome replicates to go from 48-ape, to 47-protohuman, to 46-human, in the population as follows: 48 and 48 parents produce a 48 offspring only. 48 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 offspring. 47 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 or 46 human offspring. 48 and 46 parents produce a 47 offspring only. 47 and 46 parents produce a 47 or 46 human offspring. 46 and 46 parents produce a 46 human offspring only. The 47’s were a transitional stage that soon led to a stable 46 human design. New traits that may have appeared could have increasingly taken a 46 to find desirable, further accelerating speciation through the species recognition mechanism. Our human genome design has an easily recognized "signature" in the phylogenetic data where the most obvious feature was produced by a chromosomal fusion/rearrangement speciation event through a progeny born to 48 then 47 chromosome ancestors who were not of the chimpanzee design, they were protohumans. Without our unique chromosome design being expressed they were not yet systematically human. Therefore where fully "human" is operationally defined as a 46 chromosome ancestor from our lineage (the result of chromosome fusion speciation) there is the genetic signature of a man and a woman progenitor couple expressing the new human design who deserve the colloquial name of Chromosomal Adam and Eve, whose descendants preferred to be with their own kind, through time, all the way from them to us.. Footnotes: Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi, “Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes”, PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102 http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl_1/6535.full Harewood Louise, Schuetz Frederic, Boyle Shelagh, et al., “The effect of translocation-induced nuclear reorganization on gene expression”, Genome Research, Volume: 20, Issue: 5, Pages: 554-564, DOI: 10.1101/gr.103622.109, May 2010 http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/554.full The 44 Chromosome Man, And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past, The Tech Museum, 2010 http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news124

And after having just answered question of "why planets always orbit suns" this best explains the power of the scientific forces that are now at work for Adam and Eve that are expected to spectacularly collide into the ridicule against them thanks to ID having stirred things up just right to make such a splendid thing possible: Powerman 5000 - When Worlds Collide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsV500W4BHU Gary S. Gaulin

@johnnyb,

Just to be clear, my goal is to clarify the beliefs of others. For myself, I *am* the “unreasonable” person that you are thinking of. I just wanted to clear up the variety of belief on the subject. We do a disservice to the conversation itself by trying to block everyone into small, predefined, polar boxes, without recognizing the true variety of options that are available. We have to be ready, willing, and able to *really* talk to each other, and that requires taking other people’s beliefs seriously, and not just judging them as being “with us” or “against us”, as neither of those categorizations leads us any closer to the truth.

Fair enough, can't argue with that! eigenstate

We have to be ready, willing, and able to *really* talk to each other, and that requires taking other people’s beliefs seriously, and not just judging them as being “with us” or “against us”, as neither of those categorizations leads us any closer to the truth. Well said. Learned Hand

cmow - I attended a left-wing seminary, so I can attest to at least some of the beliefs on that side. Usually, most of the Old Testament is considered an epic and theological retelling of a community's understanding of themselves. Therefore, it is more or less irrelevant whether or not said people actually existed - they may have, but probably didn't do very many of the things attributed to them, or at least not in the way it was told. It is considered a bit like the stories of John Bunyan. There was probably someone named Paul Bunyan, but the stories told about him tell more about the values which were important to 19th century woodsmen than it does about the historical character of Paul Bunyon. johnnyb

podcast: On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-12-05T17_06_16-08_00 Casey Luskin speaking at a recent Science and Human Origins conference. Casey discusses why the fossil evidence doesn't support the claim that humans evolved from ape-like precursors. Also of note is this recent podcast: podcast: "The Universe Next Door: Dr. Ann Gauger": http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-12-03T17_07_48-08_00 bornagain77

eigenstate - Just to be clear, my goal is to clarify the beliefs of others. For myself, I *am* the "unreasonable" person that you are thinking of. I just wanted to clear up the variety of belief on the subject. We do a disservice to the conversation itself by trying to block everyone into small, predefined, polar boxes, without recognizing the true variety of options that are available. We have to be ready, willing, and able to *really* talk to each other, and that requires taking other people's beliefs seriously, and not just judging them as being "with us" or "against us", as neither of those categorizations leads us any closer to the truth. johnnyb

Actually when the genetic evidence is looked at without Darwinian blinders on, the genetic evidence clearly supports humans originating from one couple and is antagonistic towards the Darwinian narrative: :The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve - Robert Carter - 2014 - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_nMuq_lH4 bornagain77

"Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people" I rarely comment; I am a simple-minded Christian. But I read this statement has simply saying that that they were historical. I honestly fail to see how that could be proven horribly wrong; I fail to see how such a simple proposition, even if wrong, could be deemed 'horribly' so. I'm curious with those who don't believe this -- who is the earliest biblical figure who was historical? Noah? Abraham? cmow

drc466, (a) Humans are much too genetically diverse to arise from one couple (here's the estimates of human populations sizes going back through time) (b) The range of times to coalescence in human genes is too varied to all trace back to a single original couple (c) Populations outside of Africa have ~4% Neanderthal admixture, Afrian populations do not (d) There are genes which have retained distinct alleles in humans and chimps since human-chimp speciation The only "asumptions" you have to make to establish these facts is that the mutation rate wasn't vastly greater in the past, but it was we wouldn't have survived and ancient DNA from humans wouldn't so nicely into phylogenies of modern human populations. wd400

@johnnyb

I think you are wrong on both the evidence and the interpretation of the survey. There are many, for instance, who view Adam and Eve as being part of a population, and, for all intents and purposes, genetically identical and interbreeding with them, but as the first “biblically human” people. That is, God did something special in these two to set them apart. That “something” isn’t necessarily biological. I think that humanity descends from the pair, but that is not universally true of evangelicals, or even those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

What you are recounting *is* a belief in a literal Adam and Eve. That there were other humainoids around with to breed with that aren't mentioned in (or, perhaps under a strict interpretation, allowed by) the Biblical account doesn't make your Adam and Eve any less 'literal', any less actual, or less fundamental theologically (you said humanity descended from this pair...). The bottom line is, the beliefs you are espousing here, ostensibly more... I dunno... "reasonable" by the way you present it, are still so far away from any serious view of science that you might as well as hard-bitten a YEC as you might contrast yourself with, here. The problem is not solved by allowing for other 'non-Biblical humans", it's this granting credence to the Adam & Eve store as "parents of humanity" or historical in any way. It's just way out in left field in terms of science and evidence-based thinking. You've got lots of company, especially in America, sad to say, but that itself doesn't bring those beliefs any closer to reconciliation with our scientific knowledge. eigenstate

You’re making the assumption that the “culturally acceptable answer” is pro-Bible anti-Evolution. Basically. But what's relevant is the culture the respondent feels and values, not "the ridicule heaped upon the Creationist viewpoint by major media." Most people care about what their friends and family believe, not what Bill Nye and U.S. News and World Report believe. In other words, it doesn't take more courage to side with the Bible if your friends, family, peers and the people you look up to all profess a belief in the Bible. In fact, the perception of disapproval from is known to be a factor in cementing beliefs about science and the natural world. When people start to see empirical questions as fronts in the culture wars, they're less inclined to study evidence and more inclined to align with their preferred sides. You are certainly correct that answers to polls often reflect what people think they are supposed to say, rather than what they honestly think. It's more complicated than that; you might say I'm not persuaded there's much of a difference between the two positions. People honestly believe what they want to believe when there is no cost of error. The opinions of our peers help shape what people want to believe, and there isn't any cost of error here. Learned Hand

LH,

we’d expect rational actors to be more likely to give the culturally acceptable answer than the scientifically accurate one where the two diverge

You're making the assumption that the "culturally acceptable answer" is pro-Bible anti-Evolution. Given the ridicule heaped upon the Creationist viewpoint by major media (ref the ever popular process of ridiculing Conservative politicians who don't buy into Evolution hook, line, and sinker), I'd argue that at worst the "culturally acceptable" answer that people feel peer-pressured into answering is a wash between Bible/Evolution, and not a significant factor in how they answer these polls. I'd argue that it takes more courage to say "I believe in Adam and Eve" than to say "I accept Evolution". Personal opinion only, of course. You are certainly correct that answers to polls often reflect what people think they are supposed to say, rather than what they honestly think. These polls seem rather consistent from year to year, decade to decade though, which seems to indicate some level of immunity to cultural swings. drc466

wd400,

How [do] supporters of “big tent” ID deal with the fact that most of the people in your tent are, at least as far as the science goes, so horribly wrong about this subject?

(emphasis mine). You might be over-stating the case for the non-existence of Adam and Eve a bit. If you can provide me with evidence that humanity didn't come from 2 distinct humans less than 10K years ago, that doesn't involve at least 3 unprovable and untestable assumptions, I will agree with "horribly wrong". Otherwise, I'd leave it at "disagrees with the majority opinion of evolutionists". Which is, of course, kind of what the article says anyway. (edit) And a standard part of ID. (/edit) drc466

Johnnyb, probably some of the survey respondents read the question as you do. But it must be a very small number, because that reading isn't quite consistent with the question: “Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people.” Adam and Eve, according to the Bible, weren't representatives of an extant population. They (and their bodies) were specially created. People read everything creatively, so surely some respondents picked that answer for the same reasons you suggest. But fifty-six percent of all respondents picked it, and probably most of them were thinking along the lines of the traditional Bible story. That's not to say that most of them really believe that version of the story. These polls have a serious flaw, which is that any respondent has an incentive to support the story they were taught (or profess in church) and no particular incentive to buck it. That is, giving the answer I know ties me to my friends and family makes me happy, while questioning it does nothing for me. Consequently, we'd expect rational actors to be more likely to give the culturally acceptable answer than the scientifically accurate one where the two diverge. I think that's what we're seeing in these polls, by and large. Learned Hand

Despite your blaring headline, News, you forgot to point out any way in which "Slate makes fun of Americans who doubt Darwin." Is this like your Slate dumps on Jim (pre-owned Nobel for sale) Watson piece, where you asked whether your readers could "bear to read the whole screed" and said that "listening to self-righteous progressives tear Watson apart is almost (no, not quite) enough to make one like him," and then failed to disagree with anything Slate had to say? A lot of News posts could be summed up quite simply: "I am a Canadian, and the following things are bad: materialism, progressivism, professional journalists and the multiverse theory. Also I am Canadian." Learned Hand

wd400 - I think you are wrong on both the evidence and the interpretation of the survey. There are many, for instance, who view Adam and Eve as being part of a population, and, for all intents and purposes, genetically identical and interbreeding with them, but as the first "biblically human" people. That is, God did something special in these two to set them apart. That "something" isn't necessarily biological. I think that humanity descends from the pair, but that is not universally true of evangelicals, or even those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve. johnnyb

he next most popular statement was that “Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people.” Fifty-six percent of respondents affirmed this statement.

I find this fascinating. How to supporters of "big tent" ID deal with the fact that most of the people in your tent are, at least as far as the science goes, so horribly wrong about this subject? wd400

As a non-American (yes, it is true, your News desk is outsourced to someone who lives way north of you), I am surprised by the continual drumbeat of hate for evangelical Christians in the US. Slate is owned by the uber-cool Graham family, late of the Washington Post. So one guesses they aim at the cocktail set. What have evangelical Christians done to the US apart from being - probably - overrepresented in various rescue operations? News

Also of note - it appears that secularists have not bothered to ever listen to what any evangelical has had to say, ever. I gather this from the "shock" that inerrancy doesn't mean literalism on every word:

Two-thirds of respondents selected one of the top three options. These people affirmed, in one form or another, that the Bible is God’s word. A majority, 51 percent of the entire sample, picked one of the top two options. But only 21 percent agreed that everything in the Bible is literally true. Thirty percent chose the second statement: that the Bible is “without errors” but that “some parts are meant to be symbolic.” This isn’t what secular people tend to think inerrancy means. But it is what a lot of Christians apparently believe. Most people who believe that the Bible is inerrant do not believe that this means everything in it is literally true.

So, what Slate has admitted to is that secularists have been straw-manning evangelicals the whole time, and then turned around and believed their own lies. It's also interesting that he seems to take a different view of what constitutes "science-denial". If you take him to really mean what he says, Intelligent Design would not be considered a form of science denial:

By the time you get to specific denials of evolution—whether “humans evolved from non-human life forms” and whether “God created the world in six 24-hour days”—the percentage who take positions incompatible with scientific evidence drops to 41 and 37 percent, respectively.

So, for him, Behe's position would be considered compatible with scientific evidence. johnnyb