Why won't Americans accept evolution? This was the question on the table on Feb. 19 as science educators, researchers and writers gathered at the National Museum of Natural History in D.C. The meeting was preceded by an off-hours tour of the remarkable exhibit on human evolution. (I took advantage of the special access to morph myself into a Neanderthal, the results of which are now on my Facebook page.) The museum and Rick Potts, the curator of the human evolution exhibit, are to be commended for an exceptional presentation of a complex and fascinating topic.
This project of teaching evolution in America, some variation of which I have been engaged in for more than two decades, looks increasingly impossible. Polls show no progress of any sort, with about half of the country continuing to reject evolution in favor of young earth creationism -- the view on display in the country's various "Creation museums," based on a literal reading of the first chapter of the Bible. Only Turkey, with a strong Muslim commitment to creationism, lags behind the United States in accepting evolution.
Participants in the workshop interact with this topic across many fronts and report an alarming set of challenges. In conservative parts of the country, students come to public -- not Christian -- schools with anti-evolutionary intelligent design books from the Discovery Institute. Public school teachers often reject evolution. Many who accept it don't want the political hassle of dealing with fundamentalist parents and so they ignore or downplay the significance of evolution. Millions of evangelical children have been raised to believe that evolution is incompatible with their faith, an unfortunate confusion that Francis Collins and I dispel in our new book, The Language of Faith and Science.
Even the vocabulary of this conversation is challenging. We discussed the great divide between the meanings of central terms like "theory" and "evolution." Theory in science means something like, "A well-tested and broadly accepted natural explanation that successfully accounts for a wide range of observations." On main street America, however, "theory" means "guess," as in "My theory is that Sarah Palin will not run for president." "Evolution" in science refers to a set of ideas in biology that explain how organism adapt and change over time in response to various stimuli. On main street, however, "evolution" mean "an origins story for atheists."
By these linguistic lights the "Theory of Evolution" means, for millions of Americans, "The atheists' best guess about how everything came to be without God." Who would feel compelled to take that seriously?
Further confusion surrounds the origin of the theory of evolution in the 19th century. Millions of evangelical students go off to college believing that "Darwin was an anti-religious crusader who wanted to do away with belief in God." Many of them believe he repudiated his theory on his deathbed as "youthful delusions." Few believe he developed his theory in response to careful observation of the natural world. These blatant falsehoods circulate on main street America like a dense smog, making it hard to see clearly.
Anti-evolution in America is big business. There are museums, glossy magazines, books at every level, curriculum for private schools. There are T-shirts and mugs and bumper stickers. Tens of millions of dollars are spent annually by organizations like The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute to convince Americans that need not and should not accept evolution. Evolution, such groups tell us, has no scientific basis and is simply the a "just so" story that atheists have conjured to rationalize their unbelief. And evolution is responsible for all manner of mischief, from Hitler and Stalin, to drug abuse and pornography. Even if it were true, we should not believe it.
Addressing such a complex social problem is an overwhelming challenge and will require resources on so many fronts. Some are working with religious communities, trying to dispel myths, counteract urban legends and make science less frightening. My new book with Francis Collins is a salvo in that direction, as are the various projects of the Biologos Foundation. Others are working to show the remarkable evidence for evolution. The exhibits in the Smithsonian, particularly the ones on human evolution, are superb example of this. And there are those on the front lines, like Eugenie Scott and her foot-soldiers at the National Center for Science Education, who are trying to keep anti-evolutionary pseudoscience out of the public schools, protecting the progress to date.
Despite these various efforts, polls reveal widespread opposition to evolution in America that shows no sign of abating. Even as I write these words there are school districts in various parts of the country plotting to undermine the teaching of the science of evolution in their schools.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
Creation and evolution in public education - Wikipedia, the free ...
Science & the Sacred | The BioLogos Forum
A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement ...
The Language of Science and Faith: A Brief History | The BioLogos ...
Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion ...
The definition in most science references for "evolution" is extremely vague. In addition the atheistic scientists have many conflicting - and vague - definitions for the word "evolution" as well.
(So even those who believe in evolution do not agree on what it itself actually is)
To make their arguments less believable, many do not even want to consider MICRO versus MACRO - evolution.
{{Granted many evolutionist "scientists" do not like the terms (macro/micro-evolution) because it gives more precise definitions and removes a BIG veil ("man behind the curtain") to their theory...
While logic, reason and science all scream "OF COURSE" - you need a definition to differentiate from small changes WITHIN an animals species/kind versus that animal changing into a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT animal... come on, it is only reasonable/logical/scientific...}}
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609/article_01.htm
EXAMPLE 1: A species characteristics changing over time.
Some scientist claim the differences (which are in fact already programmed in the genes/alleles) as "evolution"?
EXAMPLE 2: A species characteristics changing due to mutations.
Some scientist claim the new traits from mutations will somehow eventually lead to a new animal. Does this actually happen in scientific testing?
---> We will examine these 2 examples in detail in a reply to this post...
Some scientist claim the differences (which are in fact already programmed in the genes/alleles) as "evolution"?
GENETIC DRIFT / ALLELE FREQUENCY
These programmed differences ARE ALREADY THERE... Nothing is "evolving". Sure the animal's characterisitc changes - but it is due to this amazing set of "blueprints" that give such amazing variety when various details (alleles/traits) brought to the fore. These pre-programmed varity in "blueprints"/DNA are in every living thing. (this phenomena is famously noted in the "Peppered Moth" - is this "evolution" or just certain traits brought to the fore by changing environment.)
(Note the moth changes color but it is still a moth - it does not evolve into a different animal.)
DNA already programmed with a variety of genes/alleles gives more proof of an Intelligent Designer than "mindless" evolution.
For who could imagine a mindless process having forethought/foresight to have such a variety pre-programmed into all species.
Scientists term this "evolution"... I think you can see how broad and vague this term in fact is...
What Does DESIGN in NATURE Reveal?
-> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20070815/article_01.htm
Some scientist claim the new traits from mutations will somehow eventually lead to a new animal. Does this actually happen in scientific testing?
MUTATIONS:
[ Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”
Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new.
The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies.
And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch.
If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed. ]
- Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? - chap. 8 p. 104 par. 15 Mutations—A Basis for Evolution? - Unraveling the Mystery of Your Genes
Again, does this give more evidence of an intelligent design or some mindless process that by chance creates such a beautiful world with such amazing variety that is wonderfully made to rejuvenate and repair itself?
Unraveling the Mystery of Your Genes
Peering Into the Microscope
What Is Behind the Mystery of Life?
How DNA Replicates
How Proteins Are Made
http://www.watchtower.org/e/19990908a/article_01.htm
Could evolution occur at this tiny, molecular level? “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” he wrote. “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”
If evolutionists lack explanations, why do they preach their ideas so loudly? Behe explains: “Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature.”
The doctrine of evolution attracts many clergymen who want to appear wise. Similar to Paul’s letter to Christians in Rome.
“What may be known about God is manifest among them... His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made... so that they are inexcusable... but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish.” (Romans 1:19-22)
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
"Tens of millions of dollars"? Really? What you fail to mention is the BILLIONS of dollars spent on advocating evolution.
In reality there is absolutely no proof (zero) for evolution. Try (if you can) to name just one "proof". Make it a good one. I will tear it to shreds with the facts. Remember, offer just one "proof"; I don't want to waste my time debunking a multitude of nonsense.
Offer ME one proof of creationism and I will "shred" it to tears
Robbiedale
I see no discrepancy between Christian beliefs and evolution. My take on evolution can be found on my website: http://www.psychickaren.com Click on the Science page, second entry.
You should know. It's obvious that you never had any kind of scientific input in your whole life. From your website:
- "And over billions or trillions of years, living cells evolved"
- "The body will heal itself. Just learn the techniques of Energy Healing."
- "I have pondered my experience and sincerely believe that God wanted me to know that “children
who are abused by sexual or violent predators do not feel the pain administered by their attackers.”
Hilarious.
it has been a long time
truly, I knew you would understand about spiritual evolution. God has not changed but man's spiritual evolution dramatically changed from the Old to the New Testament - they were able to more clearly see God's will for mankind -
may the next step bring us ever that closer
Live long and prosper, my friend.
Vanity.
Proc Biol Sci.
Sexual imprinting on ecologically divergent traits leads to sexual isolation in sticklebacks.
Kozak GM, Head ML, Boughman JW.
Abstract
During sexual imprinting, offspring learn parental phenotypes and select mates similar to their parents. Imprinting has been thought to contribute to the process of speciation in only a few rare cases despite imprinting's potential to generate assortative mating and solve the problem of recombination in ecological speciation. If offspring imprint on parental traits under divergent selection, these traits will be involved in both adaptation and mate preference. Such 'magic traits' easily generate sexual isolation, facilitating speciation. We show that imprinting occurs in two ecologically divergent stickleback species. Cross-fostered females preferred mates of their foster father's species. Imprinting is essential for sexual isolation between species; isolation was reduced when females were raised without fathers. Daughters imprinted on father odour and colour during a critical period early in development. These traits have diverged between the species owing to differences in ecology. Therefore, we provide the first evidence that imprinting links ecological adaptation to sexual isolation between species. Our results suggest that imprinting may facilitate evolution of sexual isolation during ecological speciation, may be especially important in cases of rapid diversification, and plays an integral role in the generation of biodiversity.
OK, so I'm sure I botched up a bunch of that and Mr. "highly evolved species" Krautman can correct all my errors .. and just to show there's no hard feelings: God did it!
Hey Mr. Krautman, since you're much more highly evolved than us Christian Neanderthals, I'm sure you can explain this to us. Let me take a stab ...
"During sexual imprinting ... similar to their parents.": says that the child sticklebacks derive some parental characteristics and hence select mates similar to their parents.
"Imprinting has been thought to contribute ... problem of recombination in ecological speciation.": hmmm ... "thought to contribute" eh? Sounds like a bit of equivocating here ... but I digress .... they're saying that a species selecting mates similar to themselves has generally been a barrier to new species forming.
"If offspring imprint ... sexual isolation, facilitating speciation.": if we place the child stickleback in an environment with a different stickleback species, they'll look for mates of the different species with similar characteristics to their "parents" or traits inherited from the parents.
"We show that imprinting occurs in two ... owing to differences in ecology.": they can show that a stickleback female placed with a "foster father" of a different stickleback species will search for a mate of the different species with similar characteristics to the foster father.
Wow, snext thing you know, these guys will be creating humanoids using a kids chemistry set. Thanks for enlightening me, Angel and Krautman! Nice to know how the highly evolved side lives.
The Book of Genesis gives two different creation accounts. Chapter one creation is different in chapter two. Also, what is funny is biblical scholars can't agree when or how long it took the book of Genesis to be written in the form as we know it. I've seen some account that it took 400 years to compose the book of Genesis. Now don't you think if god was telling you how he created everything and how everything happened in the first few years the planet and humans where around. Don't you think the guy writing it down would get the Whole book written in a day?
[Day - age, always, continually, daily, birth, each, today,
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term)...]
The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.
How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609a/article_01.htm
A day 620 million years ago was 21.9 hours. 4.5billion years ago a day was about 6 hours with computer simulation. So technology has shown that a day was actually shorter. So did god just work on the planet fo 6 hours?
Why not just stick to that other religious gem, the one where Satan buried all the fossils to test god's flock's faith? It's not a bit more ridiculous than creationism, and it's much more consistent in itself.
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/3117.htm
For people raised to question, research, analyze, and verify, in short to use their minds and expect proof to precede certainty, it may be difficult to understand people who believe that all good things come with faith and that thinking for yourself is dangerous. But we have tens of millions of such people, and they won't change any time soon, because anyone who asks them to think is preaching heresy.
It's impossible to educate people who don't want to be educated or to make people think. Many of the evangelical groups and others who reject evolution, call abortion for any reason murder, hate gays, etc. frown on education and revile the intelligent.
They think education and thinking will result in children who don't accept things on faith (the horror of that!) and may even become atheists. So they hate universities, professors, and teachers who teach their children to think for themselves.
Unfortunately, this has not only religious implications, but profound political impact. The same people who believe in creationism are often the ones yelling about death panels and Obama's foreign birth. They're accustomed to accepting anything others like themselves say as fact. And they vote like lemmings on whatever nonsense their leaders say.
When I came back to the States for college I met some christian friends that did not believe in evolution at all. It shocked me as I always saw the US as the prime example of science over religion. I was wrong, and 13 years after my first college experience I am still amused and ashamed of this willful ignorance.
Indeed culture can shape us! Unorthodox Catholics usually accept evolution as fact. Maybe it's because, despite my differences with my former church, Catholics have had a history of real scientific research.
I never seen in my life a political debate about evolution in Ecuador, nor religion has been part of the debate.
I worked in a Catholic university and have heard a wide range of opinion, most rather enlightened on the subject of science.
It is a radically ( pun intended) different and disturbing story for American Baptists,Born-Agains, Muslim fundamentalist and other numerous literalists.