QOD

Comments (21)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Nomen Nescio says:

   March 15, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   no, i certainly don’t. not anymore than i “believe” in gravity, or sunrises; demonstrated facts don’t need any mere belief.

2. nemski says:

   March 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm

   agree with nomen, “belief” is an odd word to use when talking about facts.

3. Steve Newton says:

   March 15, 2009 at 12:41 pm

   A scientist once argued that “in” is the problem, and that the question should read,

   “Do you believe evolution?” as in “Do you believe [the theory of] evolution?”

   In this audience the answers to that question are pretty predictable.

   And, yes, I subscribe to the current understanding of neo-Darwinian natural selection with the caveat of certain Lamarckian features that have been found in RNA recombinants and the potential of for the intergenerational passage of acquired characteristics on the cellular level, but leaving open the possiblity of pan-spermic or other external influences (chaotic or processual).

   That specific enough for you?

4. liz says:

   March 15, 2009 at 1:05 pm

   I have spent the majority of my adult life reading about all religions. I have come to this conclusion. I do not believe in the Jewish book of Fairy tales the Bible. I do think it very possible that evolution is a possiblity, but there are other possibilities. Anyone who actually believes in the “stories” in the Bible should add to the possibility that earth was inhabitated by extra terrestials and we are a “project”. Makes as much as sense as believing in some of the religions on earth created to put fear into people.

   Not an athiest, just still open to all possibilities.

5. JohnnyX says:

   March 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm

   OK, I’m with both of the previous comments – the word “believe” is troublesome.

   A more appropriate question would be “do you accept that evolution via natural selection is the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life currently found on earth?” In which case my answer would be a resounding “Hell yeah.”

   As to the why – it’s complicated, but a basic summary is this. We know that microevolution happens, it’s an incontrovertible fact. The development of antibiotic resistance among bacteria or the ever-mutating nature of HIV to become resistant to drugs are a couple of simple examples.

   Most of the “anti-evolution” types, to the best of my knowledge, concede the reality of microevolution. Where they have their gripe is typically with macroevolution – usually specifically with the idea that modern humans are descendant from some other species as opposed to having been magically plopped on earth as-is, Old Testament style.

   My basic take is this. We know microevolution happens. We can see it happen mainly because the organisms involved (i.e. Staph aureus let’s say) reproduce extremely quickly. However, the same exact types of biological, chemical, and physical processes that lead to microevolution in Staph aureus also occur in organisms that reproduce much slower (Homo sapiens or its predecessors, let’s say).

   If you expand everything out to the billions of years that the earth has been around (or, hell, if you just go back a couple million years to a potential human ancestor like Australopithecus afarensis), it seems quite reasonable to me that we could have gotten to where we are right now through evolutionary processes. At least, it seems far more reasonable to me than the idea that the first human was made out of dirt and the first woman out of his rib, which is generally the alternative offered by the anti-evolution crowd.

6. Art Downs says:

   March 15, 2009 at 1:32 pm

   I have never accepted the seven-day miracle of Genesis and believe that species have evolved.

   Yet the tale told in Genesis may be a very accurate analogy that starts with the Big Bang. Subatomic particle physicists may be some philisophical thinkers who seek truths with no practical applications.

   I have no fondness for literalist yahoos who believe that every word is an expression of pure truth. I hold them in as much contempt as I do those who took Swift’s Modest Proposal as a recipe for infant cannibalism.

   Yet why the emphasis on the teaching of evolution? Will it be of practical use to the students? Is it taught not for its own sake but as a part of an attack on all faith that involves a creator that ‘passeth all human understanding’.

   I suppose that I have now displeased everyone but if I have encouraged one person to think, some good may come of it.

7. xstryker says:

   March 15, 2009 at 1:32 pm

   Had to work in the Jew crack, huh Liz?

8. Unstable Isotope says:

   March 15, 2009 at 1:36 pm

   Why the emphasis on evolution? It’s because it’s the foundation of modern biology. Without it, modern biology does not make sense. We have to teach evolution to understand biology like we have to teach the alphabet to learn how to read. Teaching evolution is not “an attack on faith.” Faith is something that is taught at home and in church, not in school. It’s the religious that are attacking science, not the other way around. It’s because their faith is built on weak foundations so they can’t tolerate anything that might make people question it.

9. xstryker says:

   March 15, 2009 at 1:43 pm

   Yet why the emphasis on the teaching of evolution? Will it be of practical use to the students? Is it taught not for its own sake but as a part of an attack on all faith that involves a creator that ‘passeth all human understanding’.

   Amazingly silly. Evolution is as useful to students as every other discipline in biology. In particular, it’s vital to ecology (which is going to be important in 75 years when Delaware is under water) and to immunology. Your latter comment is stupid beyond all reckoning. Were the astrophysical discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus taught for their own sake or as an attack on the Church? Keep in mind, social conservatives struck first by banning it from the classroom. Any emphasis we put on it now is to keep the churches from dictating what kind of science our children are allowed to be taught.

10. Von Cracker says:

    March 15, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    “Do you believe in evolution? Why? Why Not?”

    Yes, because it’s been tested thousands of times since the 1800s and never refuted.

11. anon says:

    March 15, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    it’s vital to ecology (which is going to be important in 75 years when Delaware is under water)

    Hey wait, I thought God promised not to do that again. Maybe he will design us some gills.

12. anon. says:

    March 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    liz is proof that she evolved from a stupid jackass

13. Suzanne says:

    March 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    I believe in evolution because the thought that we all came from Adam and Eve is disgusting in an incest kind of way. Also, there is proof of life before humans walked the face of the earth and as far as I know God did, according to the greatest STORY ever told, not create dinosaurs many, many years before he created Adam and Eve.
    The theory of Evolution has never been disproven so there is no reason for me not to believe it.
    However, “the greatest story ever told “has been messed with a lot – so who knows what is true in that story – I have no reason to believe that Adam and Eve actually existed.

    Hey anon – I thought we’d all be gone in 2012 according to the Web Bot Project and numerous prophecies?!?!

14. Truth Teller says:

    March 15, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Wow the burning bush the naked lady and the snake.walking on water changing it into wine. Raising people from the dead just like Dr. Frankenstein.

15. Donhusseinsquishviti says:

    March 15, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Liz,

    I do not believe in the Jewish book of Fairy tales the Bible.

    Grow the fuck up and drop it already will you. Enough with the Jew shit over here. Go peddle that crap some where else.

16. Nancy Willing says:

    March 15, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Yet why the emphasis on the teaching of evolution? Will it be of practical use to the students? Is it taught not for its own sake but as a part of an attack on all faith that involves a creator that ‘passeth all human understanding’.
    *
    I don’t think that belief in evolution and belief in a creator that passeth all human understanding are mutually exclusive concepts.

    I don’t believe that evolution should be taught within any religious context.

17. delacrat says:

    March 15, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    I do not believe in the Jewish book of Fairy tales the Bible.

    Liz, I don’t believe in those fairy tales either.

    But remember, a lot of those fairy tales in the Bible are christian.

18. Nancy Willing says:

    March 15, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    I should clarify – I don’t think that evolution taught in schools should include any religious context. Leave that for the Humanities Study of Relgions and out of the science wing.

    I do remember going to my friend’s Unitarian Church where her dad was teaching the sixth graders in church school. He had the kids make evolving clay brains that were lined up around the edge of the room under the timeline….not anything I’d ever expect to see back at Grace Episcopal.

19. Susan says:

    March 15, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Just a question for those who don’t believe in the Bible. Why elect government officials that believe in the Bible if you don’t believe in it too? Just seems strange to me when I read all the comments. Not trying to get into the whole keep religion out of the government or out of the schools or anything else for that matter. I just happen to believe that is what is wrong in so many ways with today.

20. Nomen Nescio says:

    March 15, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Why elect government officials that believe in the Bible if you don’t believe in it too?

    if a candidate ever ran on a platform that proudly included disbelief in all religions, i’d be very likely to vote for that candidate (provided, of course, that their policy standpoints were acceptable to me). but when was the last time that happened?

    more to the point, why exactly should i not want to vote for a devoutly religious candidate? after all, they’re running for public office in a markedly, explicitly, secular nation. surely you’re not imputing they wouldn’t know to keep their religion out of all our mutual politics, now would you?

    surely anyone striving for political office in a multicultural, multireligious, secular country wouldn’t make the fatal mistake of commingling their personal faith with the policies they propose to drive, now would they? because any candidate who did THAT, would clearly have implicitly announced their unsuitability for any office in this country. don’t you agree, Susan?

21. Susan says:

    March 16, 2009 at 1:09 am

    Yes Nomen, I agree with everything you said. I just asked the question because when some comment they seem to put down others for their beliefs. I believe everyone is entitled to their own religion or not to believe at all, I just don’t like to see comments that take away from that.