<p>Really? When have you seen these things happen? You have personally been to outer space to witness the revolution of the earth around the sun? Or are you basing this completely off of scientific observations and hypothesis?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I suppose since very few people get to see electrons, we should all be very wary of the laws of electromagnetics. I don’t understand the concept of limiting acceptable scientific hypotheses to those that can be tested in a 5th grade science project. Is the idea that some concept that isn’t evident or accessible to absolutely everybody must be false?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a circular argument. To have confidence in the theory of evolution, you are asking for evidence or observation of something you call “macroevolution.” Then when asked to define what “macroevolution” is, you say that it’s defined as all evolution that cannot be observed. Do you see why this argument doesn’t hold any weight? </p>
<p>We can go back to the gravity analogy. I’m going to name two different kinds of gravity, small gravity and large gravity. Small gravity is stuff we see in everyday life, and no one questions it. However, I reject the concept that large gravity exists. No one has ever observed it.</p>
<p>I would interpret the original article as saying that 25% reject the theory of evolution.
The headline makes it look like 60% reject evolution–which is far from the case.</p>
<p>I think the high percentage of those answering “no opinion” may have been confused by the wording of the question if it contained the word “believe.”</p>
<p>Belief in God and acceptance of evolution are not incompatible. The more we find out about the universe, the more we find out how little we know. We can’t blame those in the past for not having the knowledge or the means of discovery that we have today–but people shouldn’t hold on to old beliefs in the face of new evidence.</p>
<p>“Belief in God and acceptance of evolution are not incompatible.”</p>
<p>They are incompatible for some, with their whole belief system crashing down if they accept that a single word in their bible is wrong (never mind whole passages in KJV that were not in the originals).</p>
<p>vossron - the same is true for many in my family. I think they actually had no problem with evolution years ago and just assumed that, hey, we look a little like chimps, so we’re probably related. Then, it became a hot button issue in the church and, suddenly, I can’t say the “E” word in front of them. It is seen as an attack on religion.</p>
<p>I tried to raise the issue of literal interpretation of the Bible with someone once by bring up the very hot topic of mistaken translation… the person I was speaking with just kept saying ‘the Bible is God’s word, the Bible is God’s word.’</p>
<p>To make a long story short it quickly became apparent that this individual didn’t understand that the Bible wasn’t actually written in English and that Jesus didn’t speak English.</p>
<p>Given that this type of population makes up a not insignificant proportion of those who don’t believe in evolution, it’s no wonder that a frank discussion the evidence based reasoning behind evolution has no impact on them.</p>
<p>Okay. For those who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible; can someone explain to me how you reconcile the fact that Adam and Eve had three sons? Then what?</p>
<p>If you want to see a really good example of not so intelligent design, go to You Tube and search for “Del Jeff Frederick denounces Darwin.” This guy, who was obviously standing behind the door when the brains were given out, makes the much maligned Miss South Carolina look like a rocket scientist. He says Darwin is used by atheists to explain away a belief in God and that Darwin stands for the idea that all men are not created equal because some are more evolved than others. Well, maybe he proves that point. Prince William County Virginia - you can’t do better than this?</p>
<p>Frederick mentioned that Lincoln was a Republican. He apparently doesn’t know that at that time it was the liberal party; it “put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United Statesemphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. They vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values. … It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war.”</p>
<p>vossron - this is the guy who “twittered” himself right out of office. The Virginia Senate evidently had a deal going to lure a Democrat to their side so there would be a 20/20 split and the Republican Lieutenant Governor would get the tie breaking vote. This guy “twittered” about the secret deal - oops. The Dems rally and defeat the plan. Why does he think they call it “twit” ter? So he’s not running for re-election but he is campaigning for his wife to run. What are the chances that he married someone a lot smarter than he is? Mrs. Twit?</p>