Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[DBryan]

A theory is NOT a guess. Theories are supported by a large body of empirical data. Theories are established by observation or experiment. Theories contain facts. Also, laws are not above theories.

This link explains theories and laws http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

This link summarizes how the word theory is used in science http://www.notjustatheory.com

Here are a number of posts in this thread that cover what the word theory means.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22868227&postcount=4

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22868747&postcount=37

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22868961&postcount=51

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22869267&postcount=64

Apparently, only 40% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. Creation museums receive a great amount of funding and politicians constantly try to push legislation that would put creationism on equal footing with evolution in classrooms.

I'm interested to see what the dynamic here is. I'd like to see why people believe or don't believe, what they believe instead, and the reasoning behind it.

Do you have any interesting stories on discussions you've had relating to the topic, perhaps with teachers or people in class or whatever?

Post your thoughts!

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

I voted yes because the evidences are there.
In science I believe.
Also, in France we are far less religious than the US and creationism isn't mentionned often if at all and never at school.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

There is evidence supporting evolution.

When someone can show me evidence that proves any other option, I might question my acceptance of evolution.

But from what I understand, it's FACT. There really shouldn't even be a debate about it.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Yes. There is no other viable explanation at this point. A theory in science is in higher regard than facts. Theories are composed of facts, laws, observations, results and studies. At this point Evolution is one of the most thoroughly vetted theories. Those who deny it are comprable to Holocaust deniers.

 

[random_havoc]

Well after 5 votes anyways 40% is matched exactly here on the Hype

 

[Casius--J]

No I don't, I don't believe there is enough evidence to support evolution.

With everything there has to be some level of Faith and mine does not lie in Evolution

 

[DBryan]

No I don't, I don't believe there is enough evidence to support evolution.

What's your take on the fossil evidence?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/evidence-human-origins

Without even getting into DNA, the fossil evidence is kinda hard to ignore.

With everything there has to be some level of Faith and mine does not lie in Evolution

Accepting scientific explanations as viable hypotheses based on the available evidence requires no faith. If new evidence is presented which falsifies a hypothesis, a new one has to be formed which accounts for all of the evidence.

 

[El Payaso]

No I don't, I don't believe there is enough evidence to support evolution.

Is there enough evidence of any other option?

With everything there has to be some level of Faith and mine does not lie in Evolution

With everything there has to be some level of evidence actually. Faith is just when you don't have any evidence at all. And if I were to have faith, I'd put it where most evidence is.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Genetics only make sense in light of evolution.

 

[Casius--J]

To be honest I'm not looking to get into a debate about this, these kind of threads have a habit of getting nasty and go on and on for pages without either side accepting the others view.

I've said what I've wanted to say and thats it.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

The thing is there is no other view. You can believe what you want but scientific facts are what they are : facts.
Also, you can have faith and trust science.

 

[DBryan]

To be honest I'm not looking to get into a debate about this, these kind of threads have a habit of getting nasty and go on and on for pages without either side accepting the others view.

I've said what I've wanted to say and thats it.

Shutting yourself off like this is just so frustrating to see.

It's very HEALTHY to question yourself and your beliefs, and why you hold the beliefs you hold.

 

[El Payaso]

To be honest I'm not looking to get into a debate about this, these kind of threads have a habit of getting nasty and go on and on for pages without either side accepting the others view.

I've said what I've wanted to say and thats it.

Okay, we were looking for your reasons man, not to attack you.

 

[childeroland]

Yes. Reason: Evolution provides the most comprehensive picture we have.

 

[Hmarrs]

I vote No because I believe in Biblical Creation and I believe there is evidence supporting that.
Even in the theory of evolution.
One must ask if there is such a thing as natural selection
then who is making the selection.
I am not against science because I don't believe science disproves God just the method in which he does things.
However I don't want to make this into a big heated debate involving personal beliefs.
However there is interesting movie called:Expelled with Ben Stein
http://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists

Science is coming to terms that there is a higher form of intellegence:
Quantum physics measurement problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Entanglement theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lOWZ0Wv218&feature=related

 

[Nevincer]

Yes, I believe in evolution. As already stated, there's no other compelling theory as things stand.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Yes. I also believe in gravity, time, and light.


Also it's not a theory. It's a scientific theory. Little different than what Creationists try to make it.

 

[Nevincer]

Also it's not a theory. It's a scientific theory. Little different than what Creationists try to make it.

 

[Casius--J]

Shutting yourself off like this is just so frustrating to see.

It's very HEALTHY to question yourself and your beliefs, and why you hold the beliefs you hold.

Oh I agree with you there its just that there are certain discussions I don't like to have over the internet and this is one of them. Its too easy to misinterpret tones and meanings.

Okay, we were looking for your reasons man, not to attack you.

I didn't think you were just didn't want to potentially get into it down the line with someone else.

Basically I didn't want to vote and leave I thought it would be better to leave some kind of reason, vague as it may be

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I vote No because I believe in Biblical Creation and I believe there is evidence supporting that.
Even in the theory of evolution.
One must ask if there is such a thing as natural selection
then who is making the selection.

That's not evidence...

But to answer the question - no one.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Natural Selection isn't the WWE. It's the UFC.

 

[obin_gam]

Yes. Because evolution is proven. There really is no discussion about its truthfulness. We have actually witnessed evolution in certain species and plants during our lifetime.

 

[DBryan]

I can answer the natural selection 'who is making the selection' question in more detail later but the simple answer is, we make the selection. Nature makes the selection.

Animals, humans, we pick our mates for a variety of reasons. If you want to understand natural selection, look at dog breeding. That's the simplified version of what happens throughout nature.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I voted yes. Even as a child, the evolution of man posters and the fossil evidence seemed far more credible to me than the story about the talking snake. As I grew older and was able to understand more of evolutionary theory, the evidence just reinforced my beliefs. I don't know how a creationist can look at something like the fossil of the archaeopteryx and argue that there's little evidence for evolution.

Even in the theory of evolution.
One must ask if there is such a thing as natural selection
then who is making the selection.

No, one must not, any more than one must ask if lightning is caused by Zeus throwing lightning bolts from Olympus. Or by Thor, or thunderbirds, etc. The funny thing about assuming that a "who" is involved is that you can make up whatever answer you like and nobody can prove you wrong. Even when the scientific reasons for these things are discovered, you can just say, "Oh yeah, that's how it happens, but _____ is who's setting it into motion." You can't disprove for, example, the assertion that there's a Queen Mab who causes us to dream by using her magic on us.

 

[El Payaso]

I vote No because I believe in Biblical Creation and I believe there is evidence supporting that.

Show us please.

Even in the theory of evolution.
One must ask if there is such a thing as natural selection
then who is making the selection.

It's not who but what. Elements and many other factors naturally select who is more able to survive and who is not.

I am not against science because I don't believe science disproves God just the method in which he does things.
However I don't want to make this into a big heated debate involving personal beliefs.

I agree; in order to disprove something, that something should be proven first.