[han]

I'm getting very upset with the preachers here on the UW campus. They often bring their wives and babies, and let their 5-year old daughters hand out folders. How low can you go?

After going after the homosexuals last week, this week they attacked evolution theory. "Evolution is the religion of fools", their posters said.

It made me wonder, will the basics of evolution theory ever be generally recognized in this country?

I included enough options so that even the religious fundamentalists should feel at home in this thread.

[matmat]

you left out an important option, han:

evolution is the religion of fools

[han]

That's the last option.

[han]

I voted for "this century" btw.

[hrothgar]

A more interesting question would be why and when did the basics of evolutionary theory stop being accepted in the United States.

130 years ago, things seemed to be going swimmingly... It looked as if religion and science might be able to reach some kind of accomodation on these types of sensitive issues. Many of the mainstream Protestant churches professed that genesis could be understood allegorically and did not rule out the possibility that "God" used evolution as his tool as part of the act of Creation. (The Roman Catholic Church maintains a very similar position today)

However, some very weird stuff started happening about 100 years ago. First of all, there was a dramatic resurgence of so-called "young earth creationism". This resurgence was strongly associated with a sect called the Seventh Day Adventists, however, its now spread to infect an enormous number of Christian Churches.

It was at this same time that the doctrine of "the Rapture" was conceived out of whole cloth. (This has also spread to an alarming extent).

Regretfully, the US is very prone to bouts of extreme religious mania. Every so often, a whole bunch of folks go off the deep end. (Search on the expression "Great Awakening").

Personally, I'm expecting things to get significantly worse before they get any better. The whack jobs are driving anyone with half a brain out of the mainstream churches. Eventually, this is going to lead to some very ugly show downs between the believers and the non-believers. Normally, it expect the non-believers to have the upper hand, but the religious types breed like rabbits.

Its going to be very interesting to watch what happens to The Episcopal Church this coming weekend...

[Gerben42]

Quote

Normally, it expect the non-believers to have the upper hand, but the religious types breed like rabbits.

I'm aware that atheists have the evolutionary disadvantage of not following "go forth and multiply".

So if at some point no one thinks evolution is a good theory, Darwin had it right and no one will care. Funny, isn't it

[helene_t]

Not sure if there is much relation between believing in the Abrahamic god and not understanding evolution. There may currently be some correlation at the statistical level, especially in the U.S., but I can easily imagine a future in which either both, or neither, are popular.

[Elianna]

As some of you know, I teach science at a religious school. I don't have control of the curriculum, but I also don't have to sit and go over it with anyone. Basically, I am told, "here is the book, here are state standards, teach them".

So I teach about evolution at my religious (Orthodox Jewish) school. I make sure to use specific examples (selective breeding, etc.) to teach that evolution clearly works, and then explain that the Evolution Theory is not that evolution exists (which is incontroversial) but that it is the cause of diversity of life today. Some points I make sure to cover:

a) Evolutionists do not believe that people descended from monkeys

Evolution does not mean ruling out that G-d had a hand in people's development

c) "Theory" does not mean just a guess (this goes in the beginning of every science class, before evolution is even mentioned)

d) They have to learn about it, and the evidence for it, and can discuss it in their religious classes (I try to give their Judaic studies teachers a heads-up).

e) I find before I teach, even, that some students already believe that evolution is true without knowing anything about it (picked it up off the streets), and others already believe that it is false.

I just make sure to discuss selective breeding and extinct species ahead of time.

What I have the hardest time with students is about the age of the Earth/universe. I don't really have a good way of getting around the religious aspect, so I basically say that scientific evidence teaches us "....", and whether they believe the evidence or not is up to them (I don't say that, but I don't test them on that topic, either).

In general, I think that people will become more and more polarized, as the more religious people will not have their children educated in public schools.

[barmar]

Elianna, on Sep 26 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

a) Evolutionists do not believe that people descended from monkeys

While that is literally true, it uses semantics to obscure the truth. What is believed is that humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor species. And based on the fossil record of the time when this split occurred, we'd recognizes this species as more monkey-like than human. It definitely didn't have any of the features that are considered to set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, such as our higher intelligence and language ability, so we'd consider it a dumb animal.

As for the poll question, I have a hard time guessing what it will take for Americans to come to their senses. I don't understand the mentality that has gotten us into this situation in the first place. The problem is that it's very good at perpetuating itself.

[Al_U_Card]

But what about the space aliens!?! How can you forget about them?

[Fluffy]

Evolution Theory is a Theory, it is not demostrated, isn't it?

[helene_t]

Has physics been demonstrated? Surely there are some parts of physics that are controversial, but claiming that physics as such might be false is futile. The same can be said about evolutionary biology. It is a large subject, what you can read in hi-school textbooks about evolution are all established facts, but there are lots of minor details that are debated.

[Fluffy]

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Sep 26 2007, 11:42 PM, said:

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes you do. Calling something a theory doesn't suggest that there is any controversy about it.

[matmat]

Hannie, on Sep 26 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

That's the last option.

you are wrong, sir!

fundamental difference in believing that the stance is correct or recognizing that someone else has the right to believe that the stance is correct.

[matmat]

helene_t, on Sep 26 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 26 2007, 11:42 PM, said:

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes you do. Calling something a theory doesn't suggest that there is any controversy about it.

whereas they are most undoubtedly a theory, they are referred to as "laws" of gravitation more often than not. this is mainly to the fact that they have been passed by the US congress not too long ago.

in physics the words "law" and "theory" are fairly interchangable, given the nature of the science, where things are explained very well, but in essence, nothing is really certain.

nb. theory of gravity, electromagetic theory, theory of general/specific relativity, quantum field theory, string theory (ok, that last one is pretty much just a theory, but hey, it sounds good), the theory of the standard model, theory of good chocolate (just checking if you're still reading...)

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Sep 26 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

From www.dictionary.com -

'Theory', 'hypothesis' are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Sep 27 2007, 12:00 AM, said:

A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.

OK, the theory of natural selection accounts for the fact of evolution, like the theory of gravity accounts for the fact that heavy things sometimes fall to the ground.

[BillHiggin]

When all bridge players demonstrate the ability to consistently count to 13.

Not thinking is just too much easier than thinking. Certain types recognize this and realize that it can be very lucrative to attract a large number of non-thinkers to their church (would you rather seek donations from thinking people or from maleable lambs).

[cherdano]

Fluffy, on Sep 26 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

You do not call Gravitation a Theory any more.

Yes, it is usually referred to as "Theory of Gravity". Fluffy you should stop this non-sense, I can accept if you believe there must have been a creator at some point, and that the world we live in isn't just some random outcome of the laws of physics, but claiming that evolution is a controversial or not completely accepted theory among biologists is just wrong. Not pretty much wrong or mostly wrong but just 100% wrong.