part of the people have. theres people who want peace , and act despite their violent nature. we just can t have them all give up the greed and violent instincts.
What does Darwin have to do with anything?
The theory of evolution isn’t the problem. It’s religion that’s the problem.
New American Atheist wrote:
The theory of evolution isn’t the problem. It’s religion that’s the problem.
Most intelligent post I’ve seen all day. Thank you for bringing a little reason.
Everyone together will never want peace. There have to be people who will not agree, stand out. And I agree, its not about Darwin at all!
I suppose Darwin was the motivation behing the Crusades? Oh wait, he wasn’t born yet.
and thats also correct.the theory of evolution its just about human progress up to a point. darwin doesnt sustain world wars and conflicts.what we have to win against is not darwin, but against history repeating over and over.
New American Atheist wrote:
The theory of evolution isn’t the problem. It’s religion that’s the problem.
Absolutely true.
Solid wrote:
Most intelligent post I’ve seen all day. Thank you for bringing a little reason.
I agree.
You propose we rise against Darwinism? I don’t see how we can rise above the truth.
Not everyone fights like animals. No, that is for people who believe their religion is the right one. We’ll leave them to it.
The reason that we can not be one country with one religion is that everyone wants power. That’s the reason religion was INVENTED in the first place.
If people stopped wanting power and control, we’d all know the truth by now, and live in a better world.
this is one of those things where it only comes down to opinion is there really a right answer for evolution and the facts therin or the questions we have for life all we can rely on is a group opinion and the hope it comes together
I think that acting on self-interest alone is a sure-fire way to run into problems. The main reason why I’m taking issue with this post is because it presents its argument using the two extreme fallacy; that we should all follow religion because there are only two options, religion or anarchy. However, there are more than two options. For one, secular democratic/republic government has done more to ensure peace, enfranchisement, prosperity, and liberty than any religion.
Two, ethical behavior can be taught without religion. If any one religion effectively promoted good behavior, then the majority of criminals and unethical people would not be of that religion. When you look at criminal statistics however, you find that every religion has a proportionate prison representation. However, when you examine the atheists portion of the population, it has a disproportionate portion of its population in prison.
For example, United States federal prisons take statistics about a person’s religion when they are incarcerated (for providing appropriate religious services such as a chaplain in the event of your death). While atheists make up an estimated 3% of the country’s non-prison population, they make up only 0.2% of the prison population.
Further support for the idea that societal health corresponds to organic atheism or secularism is data gathered by a comparison of statistics between countries. Statistics show that countries with higher levels of organic atheism also have higher levels of societal health, such as a lower homicide rate and lower teen pregnancy rates - to name two of many - than countries with high levels of theism. Even the United States is beaten in these areas.
So if we’re going to get serious about forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing liberty to ourselves and our posterity, we need to investigate alternatives other than religion, which has had one hundred thousand years to make a positive mark and has left either a negative one in most instances, or a minimally positive mark in a rare few instances that could have easily been accomplished via other methods.
If we study Darwinism and take the time to learn the difference between his philosophy of the natural world and the so-called “Social Darwinism,” maybe we can learn to look at things in differently. There’s a huge difference between the two, and unfortunately, not many people realize this. But there will always be people trying to screw others to advance themselves–let’s just hope they stay out of politics ;]
oh, are there still modern neanderthals dragging that idea around? ever wonder if the ones who think we came from apes actually did? hmm. basic religion, by the way, is no better than the non-religion that spawned it.
FreshandForeverYoung wrote:
oh, are there still modern neanderthals dragging that idea around? ever wonder if the ones who think we came from apes actually did? hmm. basic religion, by the way, is no better than the non-religion that spawned it.
Ahhhh…I think evolution is pretty much the accepted theory around the world.
In the scientific community, Solid. Over 75% of non-scientists believe that evolution is false. (Whether or not the populace means evolution as the explanation for the diversity of the species (which is probably true), or evolution as a means of change and adaptation (which is certainly true) is uncertain, because usually non-scientists don’t understand the difference.)
New American Atheist wrote:
In the scientific community, Solid. Over 75% of non-scientists believe that evolution is false. (Whether or not the populace means evolution as the explanation for the diversity of the species (which is probably true), or evolution as a means of change and adaptation (which is certainly true) is uncertain, because usually non-scientists don’t understand the difference.)
Isn’t that in the United States? I’m sure that figure doesn’t hold true to Canada and Europe and probably a lot of other countries around the world.
We’re talking about world statistics.
Most vocal strict creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in Science, a survey of the United States, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[80] (See chart)
According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.”[81] Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in developed countries.
A 2008 Canadian poll revealed that “58 percent accept evolution, while 22 percent think that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.”[82]
In Europe, strict creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which runs three government-funded 13 to 19 schools in the north of England (out of several thousand in the country) and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions”. One exam board (OCR) also specifically mentions and deals with creationism in its biology syllabus.[83] However, this deals with it as a historical belief and addresses hostility towards evolution rather than promoting it as an alternative to naturalistic evolution. Mainstream scientific accounts are expressed as fact. In Italy, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.[84]
New American Atheist wrote:
We’re talking about world statistics.
I pulled that off of Wikipedia. I know, it’s Wikipedia, but where are you getting your stats?
Sorry, it was a misinterpretation on my part. I mean 75% believe in some theistic involvement. That includes theistic evolution. So I have to revise my assessment and say that at least 50% of people believe in some evolution.
New American Atheist wrote:
Sorry, it was a misinterpretation on my part. I mean 75% believe in some theistic involvement. That includes theistic evolution. So I have to revise my assessment and say that at least 50% of people believe in some evolution.
Well, I know it’s hard to pin down stats on an issue like this, but I do know that there are a hell of a lot of religious people in this world. I wonder what other religions’ view on evolution is? I’m guessing they’re against it.
Do you happen to have any stats on what percentage of the world’s population consider themselves religious NAA?
That does help, thanks NAA.
Wow, so Christianity is #1 huh. Followed by Muslims at roughly 20%…do Muslims agree with intelligent design I wonder?
Quite a lot of Christians do believe in evolution though…50/50 seems pretty plausible to me.
Of course, one could argue that the majority of people are about 99% atheist. They believe that all gods other than their own do not exist. Atheists just take it one step further and make it a nice even 100%.
Abiogenesis is a different story than evolution though.
Isn’t that more like the starting point of evolution? When proteins arranged themselves into living matter that began replicating?
Lol, I find it kind of funny that a post that started off decidedly anti-evolution has turned into a pretty informative post about evolution.
Well, I should do some studying here…nice talking to you NAA.
moufette_l
Solid
M. Wright
Meow...
Zone
akumas_owne
virgin_queen
FreshandForeverYoung