Why do Americans reject Evolution so much?

[JustAlex]

The only thing they claim to be 100% correct on is that God created the earth ( they understand science is changing and constantly adapt to new evidence. And talkorigins claims to be 100% correct that God didn't create the earth.

NO....Talk Origins does NOT claim that they are 100% correct that god didn't create the earth, that's nonsense.

Only Christians deal in "absolutes".

most people accept and support single species evolving. science, despite the fact that apparently 99% believe in it, has yet to prove any type of inter-species evolution. It is only a theory. why should have be forced to believe in something that is only a theory?

OK, this is so easy to respond to:

#1: "inter species evolution".....I guess you are referring to a species turning into another species.

We do have evidence for that, TONS of evidence....it's called transitional fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

#2: Only a Theory?

YES, just like Gravity is ONLY a theory, just like germ theory and atom theory...

No one is "Forcing" you to "Believe" in theories....but this is the best we have....if you refuse to believe in the Theory of gravity....then by all means don't believe.

Saying "God did it" is NOT a theory, it's NOT scientific, and it has no place in public schools.

[boba]

NO....Talk Origins does NOT claim that they are 100% correct that god didn't create the earth, that's nonsense.

Only Christians deal in "absolutes".



OK, this is so easy to respond to:

#1: "inter species evolution".....I guess you are referring to a species turning into another species.

We do have evidence for that, TONS of evidence....it's called transitional fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

#2: Only a Theory?

YES, just like Gravity is ONLY a theory, just like germ theory and atom theory...

No one is "Forcing" you to "Believe" in theories....but this is the best we have....if you refuse to believe in the Theory of gravity....then by all means don't believe.

Saying "God did it" is NOT a theory, it's NOT scientific, and it has no place in public schools.

Show me an article that says anything that would even consider a creator.

Do know the difference between operational science vs. historical science?

[JustAlex]

Show me an article that says anything that would even consider a creator.

Do know the difference between operational science vs. historical science?

I don't know what you are talking about.


There are NO scientific articles that mention a "creator", science doesn't dwell in the "supernatural world".

It only deals with the observable Natural world.

Operational Science, Historical science????

Oh, you mean...this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Operational_science
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_science

Operational Science: "The term is not considered valid scientific terminology, and widely appears solely in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really scientific."

Historical Science: "The term is often misued by creationists for any science that "interpret[s] evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation.""

[duane1969]

I am not going to read through all of those sites. I have one reason and one reason alone, evolution fails to prove itself. Evolution says that things evolve due to habitat changes then shows us alligators and crocodiles and tells us that they have remained the same for millions of years even though we know their habitat has changed dramatically. This is the same theory tells us that humans evolved from apes, but fails to explain why some apes evolved into humans that build cars and skyscrapers, develop the iPod and achieve space travel while others remained dimwits trying to figure out how to peel a banana and eat it before another ape can steal it.

What most people like to call evolution is actually adaptation. What most scientist like to use as proof of evolution is adaptation. If I move to a cold climate and grow a thick beard to deal with it, did I evolve or adapt? I adapted. And since I adapted does that provide proof of evolution? No. Thus adaptation is not proof of evolution.

It is called the "Theory of Evolution" for a reason. It is a theory. Because 99% of the world believes it does not make it fact, it makes 99% of the world believing something that is unproven and makes it no better than religion.

[habsheaven]

I am not going to read through all of those sites. I have one reason and one reason alone, evolution fails to prove itself. Evolution says that things evolve due to habitat changes then shows us alligators and crocodiles and tells us that they have remained the same for millions of years even though we know their habitat has changed dramatically. This is the same theory tells us that humans evolved from apes, but fails to explain why some apes evolved into humans that build cars and skyscrapers, develop the iPod and achieve space travel while others remained dimwits trying to figure out how to peel a banana and eat it before another ape can steal it.

What most people like to call evolution is actually adaptation. What most scientist like to use as proof of evolution is adaptation. If I move to a cold climate and grow a thick beard to deal with it, did I evolve or adapt? I adapted. And since I adapted does that provide proof of evolution? No. Thus adaptation is not proof of evolution.

It is called the "Theory of Evolution" for a reason. It is a theory. Because 99% of the world believes it does not make it fact, it makes 99% of the world believing something that is unproven and makes it no better than religion.

Their habitat has changed dramatically over the past how many years? Evolution takes millions of years. Thinking that you are going to see crocodiles evolve in the span of even 10,000 years is offbase. You are confusing adaptation with evolution.

People constantly make this claim that humans evolved from apes to discount evolution. That is false, humans and apes evolved differently from a common ancestor over millions of years.

Finally, religion is based on absolutely NOTHING. Evolution (not adaptation) is based on volumes of scientific data. To claim they are both equally unreliable is outrageous.

Edit: As I am typing this I am levitating. It only works when no one is around. But it's true, just like religion is true. Afterall, you can't disprove either claim.

[boba]

I don't know what you are talking about.


There are NO scientific articles that mention a "creator", science doesn't dwell in the "supernatural world".

It only deals with the observable Natural world.

Operational Science, Historical science????

Oh, you mean...this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Operational_science
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_science

Operational Science: "The term is not considered valid scientific terminology, and widely appears solely in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really scientific."

Historical Science: "The term is often misued by creationists for any science that "interpret[s] evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation.""

Haha, their definition is garbage. No one is claiming the words are scientific, all they are are terms used to group different types of science together.You seem to be a master of semantics.

Operational science is science that you can test, observe, etc.

Historical science is " interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. "
The past is not testable, observable etc.
If the theory of evolution had never been popularized, and some other explanation was popular, then all the " scientists " would look through their shaded glasses and say all evidence from the past supports that theory, when it's just not true.

You look at the past with evolutionist shades on, I look at it with Biblical shades on. You have no more " proof " of evolution then I have " proof " of a creator.

[AUTaxMan]

Americans seem to be generally confused over the definition of evolution since it has become such a politicized issue in the U.S. I think that when most Americans think of evolution, they generally think of man evolving from monkey which evolved out of primordial soup, and they reject it in large part. However, if the question is do you believe animals evolve over periods of time, then most people would answer yes. I personally believe that man and certain animals were created by God and that their traits have evolved over time.

[boba]

Americans seem to be generally confused over the definition of evolution since it has become such a politicized issue in the U.S. I think that when most Americans think of evolution, they generally think of man evolving from monkey which evolved out of primordial soup, and they reject it in large part. However, if the question is do you believe animals evolve over periods of time, then most people would answer yes. I personally believe that man and certain animals were created by God and that their traits have evolved over time.

Yeah, I think a lot of Christians who haven't studied evolution get defensive whenever evolution is mentioned. In reality it is obvious that micro evolution is happing around us. Macro evolution is what I have a beef with.

[duane1969]

Their habitat has changed dramatically over the past how many years? Evolution takes millions of years. Thinking that you are going to see crocodiles evolve in the span of even 10,000 years is offbase. You are confusing adaptation with evolution.

I assume that over the last few million years or so the Earth in general has changed dramatically. Or so that is what scientist tell us. Are they wrong?

Scientist say that adaptations to the changing environment are evidence of evolution, yet these same scientist say that adaptations to their environment have allowed the crocs and gators to remain unchanged for 200 million years. So are adaptations evidence of evolution or preventors of evolution?


People constantly make this claim that humans evolved from apes to discount evolution. That is false, humans and apes evolved differently from a common ancestor over millions of years.

So we didn't evolve from apes? What was this "common ancestor" then?

Homo sapiens is classified as a hominid (great ape) while modern monkeys and gorillas are classified as lesser apes. If you look at a "family tree" you see that scientist say that a split occurred at Homininae, humans evolved from one side of the split, gorillas from the other. That is a pretty clear indication to me that science says that humans and gorillas share a quite common ancestor and that one side of the family became highly evolved while the other evolved none at all.

The "evolution of man" involves leaps and bounds with no common link between them. Evolution jumps from Australopithecus to Home Erectus to Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with no common link inbetween. We find no evidence of a being that was Australopithecus evolving into Home Erectus with clear signs of evolving. There is just these big leaps in change from one to the next with nothing to fill the gaps inbetween but speculation and theories.

Finally, religion is based on absolutely NOTHING. Evolution (not adaptation) is based on volumes of scientific data. To claim they are both equally unreliable is outrageous.

Evolution is a theory. Thus, it is unproven. To claim that one unproven aspect is believable while another is not is a self-fulfilling fallacy.

To say that Fords are better than Chevy's because I believe Fords are better and there is no proof that Chevy's are better is not proof that Fords are better. Strawman arguments don't carry much weight with me.

And lighting farts is not levitating...

Responses in bold

[habsheaven]

Responses in bold

If strawman arguments do not carry much weight with you, why do you continue to use them?