Evolution Wars: The Battle Continues!

The battle rages on

On the one side
while on the other.

First: I support evolution as fact. I am not a Christian. I would not call what I’ve seen of Intelligent Design a science.

Now, where to start?

Corporations seem to be afraid to take a stand. I understand that - why would they if the risk of profit loss was real. But how real is the risk? Has there been a case where a business was hurt by seeming to support evolution? The Smithsonian case illustrates the real effect of the opposite. If the fear is unfounded, what can we do to assure corporations it’s okay? This isn’t my most intelligent set of questions, but corporations as organizations of people are an extension of the human experience. They are obviously players in the debate if not combatants in the war. I guess the question that would interest corporations is: How can we make a buck by supporting evolution? (hmmm… maybe there’s a reality TV show to be made here).

Does anyone have stats from other countries? Is this a World War, or an American Civil War?

Are the battle lines solely drawn to the contours of belief, or is there even a smidgen of real science going on under the umbrella of creationism? Has anyone seen the “The Privileged Planet”? Is it worth considering? I have no problem if someone states as a starting point “creation exists therefore someone created it” then sets out to discover the nature of said creator. Have there been any studies/experiments that would satisfy a skeptic that, if not proving a creator, at least raise the eyebrow of a doubter? Is it this type of material being sought to be taught in the classroom, or is it merely the assertion “Evolution Bad! ID Good!” that is the heart of the war?

Why can’t the theory of evolution just be reconcilied with one’s religious belief? At one time it was believed a literal interpretation of the Bible precluded adopting the Copernican view of the solar system. Does any fundamentalist today have a problem with the Earth going around the Sun yet still believing in Christ’s salvation? Can’t they just take the stance “evolution may be the mechanism the intelligent designer employed” or something along those lines?

While summarizing this post to my next-cube-neighbour, my cow-orker said he’d read recently that even the Catholic church is of the mind that ID is pseudo-science. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

Not even a bit of science.There’s no evidence for creationism at all, and it’s sterile as a theory. “God did it” produces no predictions, no deeper understanding; quite the opposite. After all, if God did something, why look for deeper mechanisms to explain something ?

None I’ve ever heard of. Frankly, the more scientists learn of the universe, the more unnecessary and implausible a Creator looks.

That’s it; there isn’t anything scientific/factual to teach about creationism.

Plenty of people do just that; the anti-evolution fools just refuse to accept reality.

No, they want to believe the Earth was created in seven days 5000 years ago; anything that says otherwise is a lie of Satan.

Yes, it’s true.

The drug industry and the biotech industry all make plenty of bucks using evolution, so if they had any cajones they would have sponsored the exhibit. No one makes money directly sponsoring a museum exhibit.

If there was anything behind ID or creationism there would be papers published in peer review technical journals. Instead they make their own magazines. In science you follow evidence. You’d need a reason to think there was a creator before positing one. There has been plenty of opportunity to find the need for a creator - anything that could not have arisen from known scientific methods for one. Whereever there has been a gap, new evidence has shown it can be explained by a natural cause. It is not impossible that such a gap might be found some day, just very unlikely. Today, belief in a creator is faith, not science.

It obviously can be, as is the case for many here and for Catholics. Only fundamentalists have a problem.

It’s not that important for most people to accept evolution. The real problem is that creationism is dead set against reason and logic. Those who say that if the Bible says something evidence must be wrong can’t face reality. And then they wonder why their jobs are going overseas.

Reason and rationality are essential to the health of the US, and creationists and their ilk are more dangerous to the future of my country than any number of terrorists. Who knows how many smart kids have been ruined by religous abuse?

My proposal is to but Falwell, Hinn, Robertson and their fellow travelers in Gitmo. Might reset their priorities.


I am normally a peaceful and controlled person, but the dark and sinister corners of my mind start demanding cold-blooded mayhem whenever I read something like this. In order to prove that a certain characteristic is “increasing” (or “decreasing”) in society, it is not enough to provide one data point. “Increasing” implies a trend, change over time. One data point taken at one specific time does nothing to prove that any characteristic in increasing. Suppose, for instance, that five years ago 60 percent of Americans rejected the theory of evolution. In that case, the current 51 percent would show that rejection of the theory of evolution is decreasing.

The quote is correct. From an article on a 2005 Harris Poll from the Nov/Dec 2005
Skeptical Inquirer:

54% of the American public does not think human beings developed from other species, up from 46% in 1994.

46% think ape and man have common ancestry, down from 51% in 1994.

Oddly enough, the percentage of people agreeing that Darwin’s theory is proven by fossil discoveries increased 3% from 2004.

The the use of “increasingly” is not out of line.

No. ID/creationism is very explicitly NON-scientific. If it has science in it, it’s not ID; if it’s ID, it has no science. I make this statement unambiguously.

Science = observe → hypothesize → test → conclude.
ID = observe → conclude

ID ≠ Science

“Evolution Wars: The Battle Continues!”

Only among those that missed the last 150 years accumulation of supporting data.