Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Pew Forum has an interesting chart showing the degree of acceptance of the validity of evolution among various religious groups in the US. It ranges from very high among some groups (81% of Buddhists, 80% of Hindus, 77% of Jews) to very low among others (22% of Mormons, 8% of Jehovah's Witnesses). I suspect, however, that this has as much to do with educational levels as it does with religious affiliation. Buddhists and Hindus will tend to be Asian and Asian immigrants in the US tend to be very well educated, so their acceptance of evolution is not surprising.
On the other hand, the same is true of Muslims in America and they only show 45% acceptance of evolution. So perhaps I'm wrong. It would be very interesting, however, to break each of those groups down by educational level and see how that changes the results. Full chart below the fold.
Politics
Comments
In case you were wondering where the non-believers stand, it's 87%. Here is the breakdown of the "Unaffiliated".
Unaffiliated 72 22 6 =100
Atheist 87 9 3 =100
Agnostic 87 11 2 =100
Secular unaffiliated 77 16 6 =100
Religious unaffiliated 55 37 8 =100
Source.
Posted by: Doug | February 21, 2009 9:20 AM
I'm really hopping the nine percent of atheists who don't believe in evolution are being contrary for contrariness sake. Otherwise... What?
Posted by: nedlum | February 21, 2009 9:25 AM
@nedlum: There are a handful of non-supernatural hypotheses which are alternatives to abiogenesis (which is what I assume is what they mean by 'evolution), such as panspermia. As far as I know, none of them are taken too seriously in the scientific community, but I bet there are a few atheists and agnostics who accept them.
Posted by: D Johnston | February 21, 2009 9:53 AM
D Johnston - That explanation actually strikes me as stretching, although it might be true in a relatively few individual cases. I think there are just a certain number of people, and atheists are no exception, who have a caricature of evolution in their heads, think it sounds silly (which it does in that version) and dismiss it. Which doesn't mean they hold any truck with creationism, either. (I remember reading a quote from John Lennon where he dismissed evolution with some dopey strawman description, that was very similar to what you hear from some YECs in the TalkOrigins comments, or wherever.)
A misdirected urge to feel oneself a rebel against The Orthodoxy can also be a factor, as it certainly is in many religious creationists.
Posted by: MPW | February 21, 2009 10:10 AM
I'm really hopping the nine percent of atheists who don't believe in evolution are being contrary for contrariness sake. Otherwise... What?
In this regard, we should mention self-proclaimed non-believer and evolution denier Dr. David Berlinski, a first class asshole if ever there was one.
Posted by: SLC | February 21, 2009 10:11 AM
The numbers for atheism and agnosticism make sense to me. Atheism is simply rejecting the claims made that there is a supernatural overlord, but it does not imply skepticism or rational thought, although there tends to be a very large overlap.
BTW, Scott Adams is one of the quacks who falls under the nine percent.
Posted by: Doug | February 21, 2009 10:28 AM
I think you should be much clearer that this is a survey of followers in the US only. For many of those religions, the US adherents are a very small and highly nontypical sample. Without making that quite clear in the description (I missed it the first time I read your post) it's easy to make some rather misleading inferences on the stance on Evolution by various world religions.
Posted by: Janne | February 21, 2009 10:32 AM
I should clarify that I don't know for sure how much atheism and skepticism overlap, it's just an observation taken from a very limited and admittedly biased sampling. I have no actual evidence for this.
Probably a better explanation for the high correlation between atheism and acceptance of evolution is that those who identify as non-believers often don't have a preconceived belief in a supernatural origin of life that is contradicted by evolution.
Posted by: Doug | February 21, 2009 10:51 AM
Educational level may not be as important as you think. Large numbers of Mormons are highly educated (at least in this country), but their belief system denies evolution. Buddhists and Hindus may be well educated, but they also believe in reincarnation, life after life, including life as "lower" animals, until Nirvana frees them from the Wheel. The paradox is how irrational thought is a survival mechanism. Humans seem to be the only animals prone to irrationality, yet they survive all too well.
Posted by: Ann Klein | February 21, 2009 11:08 AM
I wonder if Christian wingnuts feel an affinity with Muslims that believe in creationism. (Oh-oh.. what if they unite against the rest of us?)
About reincarnation: my own view is that believing in souls doesn't necessarily mean believing in a god. Especially not the spiteful murderous tribal god of the Old Testament upon which creationism depends.
Posted by: Rodney | February 21, 2009 11:19 AM
There a few that fall under the creationism umbrella that believe that aliens seeded life on earth.
(matter of fact if you believe in creationism you have to acknowledge that aliens could of been the 'grand designer' - bring that up to creationists and watch their head explode)
Posted by: yoshi | February 21, 2009 11:45 AM
Two Popes (at least) have endorsed evolution and catholics are stuck below 60%. That's appalling. Just what sort of influence does this twit actually have?
As for atheists/unaffiliated having 9% which reject evolution, remember that New Age and other whack superstitions are often atheistic. I've met atheists who reject God because they see it as patriarchal and it suppresses our natural gifts, blah blah blah. The loony left.
Posted by: Tyro | February 21, 2009 11:46 AM
John Lennon described himself as an atheist in at least one interview; he also said he believed in god, though he qualified that with a phrase like "whatever that means". He was always opposed to evolution, and for that matter archeology and paleontology, which he described as people looking at rocks and making up stories about how things used to be. On evolution he said "Nor do I think we came from monkeys ... I don't believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren't monkeys changing into men now? It's absolute garbage. It's absolutely irrational garbage, as mad as the ones who believe the world was made only four thousand years ago, the fundamentalists. That and the monkey thing are both as insane as the other. I've nothing to base it on; it's only a gut feeling. ... I've got no basis for it and no theory to offer, I just don't buy it. Something other than that. Something simpler. I don't buy anything other than 'It always was and ever shall be.' ... Everything they told me as a kid has already been disproved by the same type of 'experts' who made them up in the first place." (Sheff, Playboy Interviews, p. 85)
Posted by: sbh | February 21, 2009 11:50 AM
I would argue it's a little more complicated than that. While I can not describe Mormons, I can fundies and I'd bet the correlation is similar to the following:
Those that graduated from college and still adhere to the faith largely attended private religious colleges or received degrees from secular schools with degrees where was it easy to avoid curriculum that focused intently on origins. I have several relatives close to me that attended church colleges, received Bachelor of Science degrees, and were indoctrinated to believe in young earth creationism where ID was lightly covered as a cutting edge, compelling, but "unproven" theory (the way Dembski tries to market it ad ); my questions to these relatives regarding the TOE left me convinced it was in no way properly taught or even covered substantially except to discredit.
Therefore, I would expect fundies to still largely deny evolution given the type of higher education they received. Given that I'm an advocate for federal minimal standards, I find such avoidance replaced with indoctrination unconscionable.
What would be interesting is the rate of fundies who accept evolution and who received B.S. or higher degrees in the life sciences from public or secular universities. My guess is that you'd be stretched to even find a representative sample, but I'd really love to supplant my guess with real data if anyone possesses such.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 21, 2009 11:54 AM
It would have been interesting if each participant in the survey was given a brief multiple choice test to see if they fully understand what evolution is. It would have been a good indicator of which communities are actively hostile against evolution and which communities simply need better educational standards.
Posted by: Brandon | February 21, 2009 12:32 PM
The surprise for me was the percentage of Catholics that disbelieved in evolution, since Catholic schools were teaching it long enough ago that I was still one when I heard it -- that's both 45years ago and pre-Vatican II.
I would have been very interested to know the sample size -- and, ideally, where the samples were taken from. (I am always leery of breakdowns along surveys that quote breakdowns by subdivisions -- race, religion, ethnic group, age group, etc. -- because while the initial group sample might be large enough for the statistical breakdown, the sub-group size may be small enough that one eccentric -- or deliberate non-complier -- can make a substantial difference. Thus if a survey asks 1000 people, maybe 11 of them would describe themselves as atheists -- a less frequent self-definition than 'agnostic' or 'unbeliever.' This means 9% = one.
Ed dosn't give the sample size or a link. Ideally, I would like to see a sample size large enough that you could make meaningful comparisons across several 'dimensions.' I'd like to see the following questions asked:
a) religious affiliation
b) subgroup as self-described i.e.,:
1: Orthodox: I accept all or almost all the tenets of my religion
2: Conservative: I accept most beliefs of my religion, but reject some (birth control, homophobia, biblical literalism, etc)
3: Reform: I accept the basic beliefs of my religion, but have strong reservations about many details)
4: traditional/secular: I consider myself a believer and/or attend Church because I was brought up that way, but religion plays little role in my life
c) What area of the country did you spend most of your years in before age 18.
d) What area of the country did you spend most of your life after age 18
e) What sized community did you grow up in
f) What sized community do you live in now
g) For each of the grades K-12, check the box that most applies:
1) I was homeschooled
2) I attended public school
3) I attended a religious school run by my own religion
4) I attended a religious school run by a different religion. [Quite a few non-Catholic parents send their kids to Catholic school because of the education or discipline)
5) I attended a private, non-religious school.
and finally,
h) My parents were very religious, somewhat religious, secular but believers, or non-believers (maybe a separate category for mother and father)
i) My parents were the same religion, different religions originally, but one converted to the other's religion, remained of different religions
I think you'd need a very big sample size for most of the sub-groups to be of meaningful size, but if you did one that extensive, you might have a useful picture and nort just a fuzzy snapshot.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 21, 2009 12:34 PM
In this regard, we should mention self-proclaimed non-believer and evolution denier Dr. David Berlinski, a first class asshole if ever there was one.
I don't know that I believe Berlinski. He was recently overheard saying that as long as the Discovery Institute keeps writing him checks, he'll keep cashing them.
I wonder if Christian wingnuts feel an affinity with Muslims that believe in creationism.
When studies are conducted, fundamentalists often say that they better understand and have more in common with fundies of other religions than they do with liberal adherents of their own religions.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | February 21, 2009 12:38 PM
I grew up (and am still very active) in a moderate evangelical Church. Being located next door to a major University the congregation is populated with a good number of scientists. Most people in the Church (but perhaps not all) would hold the view that evolution was the method that God choose to use in creating this world. The creation account in Genesis is interpreted a bit more liberally with the "days" seen as presenting "ages" rather than a 24 hour period.
But what is most striking is that in my Church evolution is very much a non-issue. Personally I am just not all that interested in questions of evolution.
Posted by: Cheddar | February 21, 2009 12:44 PM
Jeff Eyges - Doug gave a breakdown of the Unaffiliated' responses that might allow you to reconstruct the original sample size, thus gauge the significance of the response groupings (Unfortunately I can't seem to link to the sources). -DJ
PS: Can anyone tell me what 'Historically Black Protestant' means? What are they now, white Catholics? :)
Posted by: DingoJack | February 21, 2009 12:54 PM
I think your hypothesis that education has a lot to do with it holds up well with the evidence. The group that's out of whack isn't the Muslims--it's the Mormons.
You can compare religion and educational attainment here:
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-education-by-tradition.pdf
American Muslims, Mormons, "secular unaffiliated", Catholics and New Agers are about average for educational attainment. Since the national average for believing creationism is around 45%, Muslims may not be out of place. But Mormons are pretty well educated considering how many of them believe creationism.
Evangelicals, black Protestant, Jehovah's Witness and "religious unaffiliated" faiths are well below average in education. And, no surprise, they also have much higher levels of creationism.
Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Unitarians, and liberal Christians are all well above average. And, of course, these groups accept evolution in much higher numbers.
Posted by: Wes | February 21, 2009 1:10 PM
Sorry, my original link to the source failed. Source: Pew Forum U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007, released in 2008
Posted by: Doug | February 21, 2009 1:22 PM
Cheddar wrote: The creation account in Genesis is interpreted a bit more liberally with the "days" seen as presenting "ages" rather than a 24 hour period.
Whether your god created earth, day, night, animals, and people in a few days or a few billion years seems like a distinction without a difference. It's still accepting a supernatural creation without a shred of evidence.
Personally I am just not all that interested in questions of evolution.
As long as you accept that your god created everything I can see why evolution would be uninteresting.
Posted by: tomh | February 21, 2009 1:27 PM
Correcting Doug, who didn't do his homework, Scott Adams accepts evolution as a scientific fact.
But if the Boltzmann's brain hypothesis is correct, or time is an illusion, then evolution has to be rethought.
Posted by: scott Adams | February 21, 2009 1:28 PM
Scott Adams also apparently believes in a little truth-telling gnome in his head. That he calls it his "bullshit filter" doesn't make it any less goofy, or unscientific.
Posted by: Science Avenger | February 21, 2009 1:58 PM
Frankly, the result that surprised me a bit was the Mormons. I've had dealings with several Mormons who assured me that their religion -- properly understood -- had no problems or conflict with the theory of evolution. Those creationist Mormons were outliers doing their own theology.
Must be similar to those 42% of Catholics.
I'm not that surprised that 9% of atheists don't accept evolution. As others have said, not all atheists reject the supernatural and paranormal -- and some of them are just contrarians about anything any authority is going to tell them. Plus, in most surveys there always seems to be at least 5% of respondents who are either idiots, or confused. I remember one of those surveys which showed a surprising percentage of self-designated atheists agreed with the statement "I believe there is a God."
I'm guessing that a survey which included 'secular humanists' would have almost 100% agreement on evolution. That's the category of atheist which is driven not by outcome but by method -- particularly science. They don't think that homeopathy, say, can be properly tested by trying it out for yourself, and seeing if it 'works.' And they know why.
Posted by: Sastra | February 21, 2009 2:17 PM
I should point out that the same survey found that 8% of the self-described atheists also had an absolute belief in a god or universal spirit and another 7% were fairly certain. My guess is that some self-described atheists have a non-standard definition of 'atheist' (perhaps 'Those who hate god are atheists, I hate god, therefore I'm an atheist').
Posted by: Erp | February 21, 2009 3:31 PM
Perhaps surveys ought to include "maltheism" (the belief that God exists but is a right horrible bastard) as an option. Or, just offer definitions of each term for religious belief (or non-belief) so everyone is on the same page.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | February 21, 2009 5:36 PM
Tomh:
I am bemused by the absurd dichotomy of an aethist evolution view versus a religious anti-evolotion view. I just dont buy into it. I don't see evidence for evolution as constituting evidence against God... or conversely....evidence against evolution as constituting evidence for God.
Posted by: Cheddar | February 21, 2009 5:42 PM
I wonder if specifying "human life" in the caption didn't load the question to some extent.
Posted by: Crack Pipe Lenny | February 21, 2009 5:56 PM
Cheddar:
I am bemused by the idea that you don't see a contradiction between something, life, for instance, being created by a God, as in Genesis, and the quite different view that life evolved naturally. It sounds like you hold both views simultaneously.
Posted by: tomh | February 21, 2009 6:32 PM
Some of the most brilliant people of the financial world handed all their assets to Bernie Madoff, who lost every penny for them. Others, basking in their glow of financial savvy, brought down the entire worldwide financial system. It wasn't uneducated people who did this. It was highly educated ones.
Educated people can be herded into the popular mindsets of the day just like uneducated people. In some ways, they are more vulnerable, since they are often obsessed with not about losing face among their peers. I believe you're focusing on the wrong factors. More significant than formal education is the boldness not to be bullied into thinking a certain way just because everyone else does.
You imply that if only those with less education were exposed to more of it - then they'd see the foolishness of rejecting evolution. Hogwash. I sort of like the way John Lennon put it (thanks, SBH) "Everything they told me as a kid has already been disproved by the same type of 'experts' who made them up in the first place."
That, from the Jehovah's Witnesses point of view.
Posted by: tom sheepandgoats | February 21, 2009 6:43 PM
For Buddhists, at least, the answer is not that hard to understand--it's just not a relevant question. Your practice is not affected by it one way or the other. So evolution is not a threat.
Also, the creationist story in America is very dominated by Xtians, using Xtian mythology. If you did this survey in other countries with different religious majorities and cultural traditions, you'd probably get very different results.
Posted by: Moopheus | February 21, 2009 6:58 PM
Tyro wrote:
My creationist, catholic sister tells me this is because his authority and infallibility extend to matters of scripture only. Or something.
O don't know. I don't get it either.
Micheal Heath wrote:
That reminds me of a woman I work with. She was home-schooled by her missionary parents and then earned a BS in chemistry from a Christian college.
Big surprise, she is a YEC and an anti-vaxer.
Posted by: Leni | February 21, 2009 7:09 PM
Tomh:
My view (and the view of many other people of faith) is that evolution is the method God used to create various forms of life. This is the whole point of the survey that Ed highlighted in this post. Accepting evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Cheddar | February 21, 2009 7:19 PM
Cheddar:
I see, so your view is that your God created Man, he just used the mechanism of evolution and took three to four billion years to do it. I guess that's one way to do it. It sounds like you use your God to explain whatever science hasn't completely deciphered yet. Those areas keep shrinking but there will always be something, I suppose.
Posted by: tomh | February 21, 2009 7:32 PM
Tomh:
Well it is not just my view. It is the view of everyone represented in green on the bar graph above that Ed posted. The whole notion that science and belief in God are somehow opposed to each other is a mindset created by certain group of Christian fundamentalists in the United States. What a crazy way to think. That was one of serious problems with the Bush adminstration. They catered to that mindset. The scientific community has expressed tremendous relief by Obama's open embrace of their "rightful place" in American society. So what has changed? Did America elect a new atheist president whose disbelief in God frees him up to view science differently? No. They elected a Christian president who does not buy into the fundamentalist mindset.
Posted by: Cheddar | February 21, 2009 7:53 PM
It always amazes me how, when someone religious says they accept evolution as good (and true) science, there will always be someone who picks away at the rest of said person's beliefs. Personally, I'd think that hearing about a theist who accepts the science of evolution would make me feel a little better about humanity if I were an atheist; certainly it should be better than the alternative of rejecting evolution merely because of one's theism. But no, there's always a Debbie Downer.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | February 21, 2009 8:02 PM
Also, I would be very curious to see what constitutes "Mainline Protestant."
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | February 21, 2009 8:05 PM
"Two Popes (at least) have endorsed evolution and catholics are stuck below 60%. That's appalling. Just what sort of influence does this twit actually have?"
Two Popes (actually I think it's three or four) believed in evolution, but it isn't a church position or a Catholic teaching. It's a non-issue in the Catholic Church. It's never discussed from the pulpit, not because it's controversial, but because it's a non-issue. It's regarded as a scientific question. That said, I can't imagine any Catholic school from grade school through graduate school where anything other than evolution is taught. But it is taught in science classes, not in the religion or theology department.
If a Catholic doesn't believe in evolution they've decided that entirely on their own. But they aren't in violation of any church teaching because there is no church teaching on the subject.
Posted by: Dr X | February 21, 2009 8:09 PM
Cheddar wrote:
As you say later, accepting evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive. There are many theists who believe that God worked (and still works) through evolution. That's fine. It's a common position.
But like tomh that's not how I read your first statement. You seem to imply that you just can't understand how any reasonable person could see evolution as 'constituting evidence against God.' But it's a reasonable inference, since it removes one of the major pieces of evidence which the hypothesis was formed to explain.
I think that evolution does count as evidence against God -- if God is approached as one would approach a scientific hypothesis. But of course it's not conclusive evidence. Many people choose not to approach God as if it were a hypothesis -- and, if one has faith and a desire to believe, then one can easily believe in a God which is not otherwise distinguishable from nature acting alone, because it works "through" nature.
Posted by: Sastra | February 21, 2009 8:12 PM
"...evolution denier Dr. David Berlinski"
I don't care much for Berlinski, but he is certainly not an evolution denier. He just doesn't think natural selection explains the evidence.
Posted by: Neal | February 21, 2009 8:19 PM
Cheddar wrote: Well it is not just my view. It is the view of everyone represented in green on the bar graph above that Ed posted.
I don't see how you draw that conclusion. The question is about "the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth." Evolution explains the origin of human life on earth, just like all other life on earth, by tracing it back to the first replicator, about 3.5 billion years ago, or so. According to you, and other people of faith, that first replicator came from God. How is that congruent with evolution? You just want to draw an imaginary line and say that on one side of the line God created everything and on the other side of the line it all evolved. People of faith who claim to accept evolution are just contorting their faith to accomodate any science that they're not comfortable denying. As that imaginary line moves back, with regard to evolution, the contortions become more extreme.
Posted by: tomh | February 21, 2009 8:25 PM
It is fascinating to hear atheists defend the mindset of the fundamentalists who deny evolution. The fundamentalists have long argued that they cannot possibly accept evolution because it conflicts with their belief in God. So here on "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" we have people (who I assume are atheists) stating that the fundamentalist view is correct. I guess that makes them atheist fundamentalists! I suspect that the Christian fundamentalists and the Atheist fundamentalists hold secret meetings at midnight in the old Johnson barn down by the river. In these meetings they exchange notes on how they can work together to create as much strife and division as possible. Because as the super secret joint memo states "We put the "fun" back in fundamentalism".
Posted by: Cheddar | February 21, 2009 8:56 PM
I'm not that surprised about the American (!) Catholics who are creationists. I'm surprised that eight percent of Jehovah's Witlesses (anywhere!) are not creationists, because creationism is one of their dogmas, promoted (on rare occasions, though) with much fanfare in Awake! and/or Watchtower (I forgot which).
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 21, 2009 9:16 PM
Cheddar wrote:
Assuming you're including me in this group of 'atheist fundamentalists,' I think you misunderstand my position (and that of many other atheists who think that the theory of evolution counts against the existence of God.) It's a bit more nuanced.
I am not arguing that the literal reading of the Bible is the only 'right' way to read the Bible. Nor am I saying that a Christian cannot possibly accept evolution, and reconcile it with their religion. Theistic evolution is a perfectly reasonable position. In fact, it's a much more reasonable position than creationism, from both the scientific and, I think, the religious standpoint.
However, if one takes faith and the desire to "reconcile" a pre-existing belief away from the issue, one would no longer look at the evidence of the natural world as revealed through science and derive the existence of God, from the evidence, just as one would formulate any other hypothesis or model. If you follow the implications of evolution -- and neurology -- all the way down -- then the supernatural is cut out by Occam's razor. The existence of God then falls away through the same process, and for many of the same reasons, that Vitalism, Mind-Brain Duality, ESP, and other unnecessary hypotheses have fallen.
This is not saying that the Fundamentalist view is correct about theology. Nor is it saying that they're right, and nobody can both believe in God, and accept evolution. Yes they can.
The argument then is over how far down one ought to continue to apply the scientific method. "Not on God," the theistic evolutionists say. "Yes, on God too," the atheists reply. The Creationists only think they agree with the atheists, because they don't recognize what they're doing. They think science will not only be "consistent" with God, but will need it. The atheists aren't 'playing along' with the Creationists: the Creationists are throwing out a faith they think they don't need and marching right into atheism.
So you're not completely wrong. The atheists think the creationists are right to a small degree, in that they accept that, if God exists, then it ought to have testable implications, and should be conceived of in such a way that it's either falsifiable, or eliminated if unnecessary. But the atheists think this because they don't value faith as a method. The Creationists think they do -- and bring it into how they do science. Theistic evolutionists value faith, and keep it out of science.
Posted by: Sastra | February 21, 2009 9:23 PM
David Marjanovich wrote:
Above, Erp wrote that "the same survey found that 8% of the self-described atheists also had an absolute belief in a god or universal spirit." That lines up with the percentage of Jehovah's Witnesses that accept evolution. Perhaps 8% of every belief system is only there for the snacks and company.
Or maybe that 8% figure is the same group -- atheists sitting in Kingdom Hall secretly worshiping Charles Darwin as a God.
Posted by: Sastra | February 21, 2009 9:31 PM
So we are to be scolded for taking fundamentalists at their word regarding what their beliefs are? I'm sorry if it bothers you that you have to share the "Christian" moniker with people you consider looney, but that's not my problem. Evolution clearly conflicts with their belief in God, and I find it amusing that you would disagree and lambaste us for taking fundies at their word.
Posted by: Shygetz | February 21, 2009 10:16 PM
D Johnston | February 21, 2009 9:53 AM:
Why would you assume evolution means abiogenesis? There's nothing in the survey description to encourage that assumption. Abiogenesis is a theory about how life began, not how it changed over time. It's independent of evolution. Panspermia is also independent of evolution, but it's a theory of how life on Earth began. Panspermia may be unevidenced, but it is entirely compatible with evolution. Abiogenesis is no more compatible with evolution than panspermia. The only advantage of abiogenesis over panspermia, is that panspermia is specific to a particular location (Earth), and assumes transport. Abiogenesis just assumes less. (Abiogenesis is also compatible with panspermia.)
Posted by: llewelly | February 21, 2009 10:22 PM
Shygetz;
You know full well that the fundamentalists do not speak for all Christians. Just because evolution conflicts with their belief in God does not mean that the same holds true for other Christians.
Sastra:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Having grown up in the evangelical world I have come across numerous Christians who attempt to definitively prove the existance of God. Much of it has struck me quite silly. Occasionally someone like C.S. Lewis comes along and approaches the topic in a compelling way. But even then we are only talking about hints and possibilities. There is no definitive proof that God exists. And I would suggest that the reverse is also true. Nothing that science has to offer will ever definitely disprove the existance of God. For me the entire discussion rings false.
Posted by: Cheddar | February 21, 2009 10:41 PM
I don't think its just education, I think its history, theological compatibility, and prevalent cultural attitudes as well.
Evolution, or at least, certain popular misinterpretations of it, fits neatly into Buddhist and Hindu theologies regarding the hierarchy of life. As for Jews, you need to remember that most (but by no means all) of the Diaspora Jews who ended up within the United States over the late 19th to mid 20th centuries were either part of the well-to-do, secular, reformed Judaism tradition which dominated the urban centers of Europe during this time, or they were not-so-well-to-do urban blue collars who, in not necessarily all communists, had experience with that philosophy through the heavily communist European labor movement in the German, French, and British textile industries, and Communism really couldn't have existed in the form Marx argued it without evolutionary theory. Its also important to remember that asking someone if they self-identify as Jewish will typically pull in a goodly number of atheists who identify as such for ethnic reasons, though perhaps this study controlled for that.
I'd be interested to see a blunter breakdown among immigrant communities in the U.S. I do agree with you that the focus on education as a social later placed by present-day East and South Asian immigrants, and the Jewish immigrants off the past, is definitely at work here, but even then, it would be important o remember that traditional Chinese, Japanese, Laotian and Vietnamese belief systems don't dogmatically preclude evolution as a biological mechanism the way that evangelical Christianity, with its staunch biblical literalism and association with white supremacist and chauvinist thought throughout its American history, does.
Posted by: Julian | February 21, 2009 10:43 PM
:/ that should be 'social ladder'. As always, I assert my blamelessness and curse my keyboard.
Posted by: Julian | February 21, 2009 10:46 PM
Cheddar: Though an unbeliever, I consider the approach you describe to be the only honest one to take towards faith. One must the desire for sure knowledge and accept, its mysteriousness, its uniqueness, and one's responsibility for that faith. Have you read Kierkegaard? If not, you should think about it.
Posted by: Julian | February 21, 2009 10:54 PM
'reject' should be before 'desire' and 'accept' shouldn't have a ',' after it. Ok, that's enough errors for me in one night, I quit.
Posted by: Julian | February 21, 2009 10:58 PM
tomh,
I don't recall ever hearing of a person of faith making a claim that God directly created the first replicator and then after that unguided evolution took over. Of course some may, or millions may without my having been aware of it. If so, I'd like to read more about it. So, a source, please?
Posted by: JuliaL | February 21, 2009 11:05 PM
Only in the sense that it incorporates reality into the theology.
As to evolution being a proof disproof of God it isn't, but it surely can make a particular version less likely or the narrative far less compelling.
Likewise those that blend evolution into Christianity create far more problems then they solve. In this regard I find run of the mill creationism more logical as a narrative although obviously incorrect.
I suspect many who say evolution is the method God used really haven't counted the turtles all the way down. It makes a mess of Christian theology and essentially forces one to reinvent parts of the religion. Which is ok I suppose but the creationists have a reasonable case when they say evolution is a threat to their religion and on this front I think they may be correct.
Posted by: JimC | February 21, 2009 11:30 PM
Sastra,
If one views God as a separate something (as in, you are over there, I am here at my keyboard, the live oaks my grandfather planted are out there in my yard, and God is - well - somewhere else), then I agree with you.
Just a reminder, though, that are those of us who do not consider God to be a separate entity over there someplace, but the one, complete, sum of all - a totality, an unfragmented wholeness, customarily personified to a small or much greater extent for convenience in thinking about God.
In this view, Occam's razor requires God, for eliminating God as the ultimate wholeness would require the invention of an arbitrary line across the top as we go up in our scientific descriptions noticing connections and seeing the universe(s) as capable of being described in a sort of theory of everything. To avoid the concept of God, at that line the drawing together of connections would have to stop so as to prevent us from ever reaching the concept of single wholeness. And then we must decide on the location of the line, and invent reasons for that. Science, of course, has drawn no such line.
At the moment, there is, I think, no scientific barrier at all to viewing the universe(s) as substructures/subsystems of a single wholeness, with emergent properties, including at least integrity in its broadest sense and perhaps others we do, or can, not grasp. The notion is abstract, but not anti-scientific. Nor is it an attempt to "reconcile" anything.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 21, 2009 11:41 PM
JuliaL wrote: I don't recall ever hearing of a person of faith making a claim that God directly created the first replicator and then after that unguided evolution took over...So, a source, please?
Sure, and it's not too far away.
Cheddar wrote: My view (and the view of many other people of faith) is that evolution is the method God used to create various forms of life.
It seems that Cheddar, and many other people of faith, have the view that evolution is the method God used to create life. What else could this mean than that God started it all? You don't really think that he meant that life began as a natural process and then God just interfered as things evolved, do you? If one accepts evolution, then there's no alternative but to trace life back to the beginning, call it common ancestor, replicator, spark of life, whatever you want. If one is intent on God using evolution, then that's where He has to kick-start it.
Posted by: tomh | February 22, 2009 12:55 AM
See also: http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/02/which_religious_groups_are_cre.php (including correspondences against education, political party, etc.)
Posted by: Heraclides | February 22, 2009 3:56 AM
Mormons at 22%: Fascinating how this survey demonstrates that religious people do not know the views of their own religion, "official" in some cases.
There once was a great controversy among the top leaders of the LDS church. After serious debate, thorough study, and a great deal of prayer (according to their records), the presiding prophet of the church announced that God had offered no revelation on the subject, and that evolution was not to be contested by church members. Mormons are rather touchy about "false doctrine," which is essentially preaching what the church does not officially hold.
How is it, then, that 78% of Mormons miss the message?
If they took a biology course at Brigham Young University, they'd get evolution.
Gee, do you think lack of education might be the problem, even among one of America's most educated religious sects ("Knowledge is the glory of God")?
Similarly, it has irked me for some time that Southern Methodist University was the place where the current intelligent design creationist sect got started, and that they still have a hive of support there. It's contrary to the views of the Methodist church, which urges that we teach science, including evolution, in science classes in public schools.
Many sects tolerate this heresy, but do the creationists ever acknowledge that there apostasy is freely allowed? No, they complain about a "lack of tolerance."
Where's John Calvin when you need him?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 22, 2009 6:44 AM
Re neal
I was not aware that Dr. Berlinski accepted common descent as a valid scientific theory supported by the evidence. As for natural selection, there are a number of biologists (Prof. Larry Moran of the Un. of Toronto for instance) who are quite dubious about adaptationism which is the basis for natural selection.
Posted by: SLC | February 22, 2009 8:10 AM
"tom sheepandgoats" -- evolution has not equipped us well for handling modern life situations - to be expected as we are not "redesigned" on the situational spot. Instincts and sensory responses that worked well for a hunter-gatherer (most of our evolutionary life) can and are counter-productive for the civilized world era (a minor blip on the evolutionary time line).
One of education's main objectives is to instill the means to overcome the instincts of our primitive natures now not so useful in a modern world.
However instincts are strong, and even intelligent and educated people succumb to the urges to make a "killing" (for example an outrageous return on investment even when they know intellectually something is not kosher - greed is a term used - but the "sin" is really giving into the strong instincts we all might carry). These instincts are hard to overcome - grifters take advantage of this fact and so do gamblers like Ed I suspect.
We have instincts to make a killing when we think we can.. and we have instincts to have clear immediate answers that we can get our heads around easily for even complicated things and to self-preserve. The former makes for a lot of bad money decisions -- the latter for a lot of religious woo-woo.
And even the well-heeled, the highly intelligent and educated need extensive therapy sometimes to overcome their fears and predilections.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 22, 2009 8:53 AM
SLC nice try at a characterization deception but Prof. Moran in NO way thinks or proposes that evolution theory or one of it mechanisms (i.e., natural selection) are wrong. And he additionally does not subscribe to any creationist mechanism.
Prof. Moran simply thinks that natural selection is not always necessary for a favorable (or unfavorable) mutation to persist in the gene pool of a population. He totally agrees with natural selection as a major mechanism of persistence ...he just does not see it as wholly and absolutely always essential to the evolutionary process. A Dawkins may disagree with Prof. Moran's premise -- but I am sure Prof. Moran and he agree on the ToE totally putting aside nuanced debates on specific mechanisms.
Further when Prof. Moran supports things like "punctuated equilibria" and species sorting he never wavers in his support of evolution through natural selection .. rather he is expressing his opinion that is does not have to be AS gradual as some "adaptationists" claim. he could be right or wrong - but he is not outside the evolution through natural selection camp (saying it can go faster or it is not ALWAYS the only physical mechanism at work is not that radical nor outside of the ToE camp).
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 22, 2009 9:23 AM
JuliaL wrote:
Yes, I know. :)
We are coming down, of course, to definitions of God. As you describe it here, I see no reason to label this "ultimate wholeness" God. I would think the word "cosmos" would fit just fine. Or "reality," or "existence." They could even be capitalized -- and everyone would be happy, and scientists would relax and sheath their razors.
Does your God have a mind? Is it an agent? Does it have attitudes and feelings? Does it have goals and intentions? Is it living? Is it a Person? Is it aware? Is it 'Awareness?' Is it the gradual unfolding of spiritual progress? Is it a vibrating field of consciousness set up for maximum diversity? Is it Love Manifested?
If it's only those things to the same extent that one could say that those things could be considered "substructures/subsystems of a single wholeness, with emergent properties" of Existence -- aspects of the universe we live in -- then your use of the term God is what I would call "poetic." And it's what most people who believe in a more robust version of God would probably call "atheism."
Posted by: Sastra | February 22, 2009 10:16 AM
I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek version of my view of God. I do think, though, we must be disagreeing somewhat on the meanings of "poetic" and "robust."
I think that all human understandings of the world are models, not direct apprehension of reality, because I see no reason to believe that the human brain has any particular ability to grasp reality directly. Like the animals around us whose survival-biased views of the world seem to us to be so limited, I think our own brains have similar limitations, just with the added ability to create multiple models of our environment, which allows us enormous adaptability. Science forms models of the world, judged by us primarily by their usefulness. In this sense, we can accuse all descriptions of the world as being "poetic."
As for robust, a God who includes everything is to me more robust than a God who is only one item in a universe of items. Does God have awareness? Well, Sastra has awareness because Sastra is a system that includes a brain with that quality. As God includes Sastra, then I suppose God must of necessity have awareness, though I should think of a kind derived from far more complex sources than just a collection of brains belonging to one quite recently evolved animal on one little planet.
However, we must remain as we are, I suppose, with you thinking I am an atheist without knowing it and me thinking you are a theist without knowing it. :)
And now I can never again say honestly that I have never in my life typed a smiley face.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 22, 2009 11:17 AM
JuliaL wrote:
:) :) :)
There isn't much I disagree with in your most recent comment -- just that part with "God," of course. At least you know that, when I call you an atheist, I mean it as a most sincere compliment. And take your 'rebuttal' in the same spirit ... ;)
Posted by: Sastra | February 22, 2009 12:10 PM
I think that rather than "robust", a phrase that better captures more traditional beliefs might be "discrete and personal".
Your description of God sounds like Pantheism. What Sastra is wondering about sounds like the debate between Classical as opposed to Naturalistic Pantheism. Citing the Wikipedia article on the topic:
God may include the awareness of Sastra (and JuliaL), but does God have an awareness of its own?
Reading through the Wikipedia article, it occurs to me that some theists may have some vague awareness of naturalistic pantheism (even if they are not aware that that is what it is called), and when they accuse atheists of having evolution as a religion, naturalistic pantheism might be what they are thinking of, and occasionally confusing with classical pantheism.
Naturalistic Pantheism does indeed seem like atheism to me, though... with an inarticulate sense of wonder and some of the language of theology and religion added on.
As I have said before when the topic comes up, I have no problem with sense of wonder, but I find the theological/religious language to be not particularly useful.
Posted by: Owlmirror | February 22, 2009 1:47 PM
Totally off topic...I don't know what everyone's beef with smileys is. Obviously there are inappropriate times to use them, but in casual conversations like this they can be very helpful. There are times when comments just sound a lot harsher then you mean them. If you were face to face, you'd be smiling as you say to give it context.
Posted by: Leni | February 22, 2009 2:39 PM
:(
Posted by: tom sheepandgoats | February 22, 2009 3:39 PM
Oops, I thought that would come across as a frownie or whatever. Sorry to waste pixels.
Posted by: tom sheepandgoats | February 22, 2009 3:41 PM
Re concernedjoe
Obviously, I did not make myself clear. In no way, shape, form, or regard did I mean to imply that Prof. Moran is a creationist. He is nothing of the sort, quite the contrary. What I meant to say is that he is very much a critic of adaptationism (just read his criticisms of biologists like Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Sean Carroll, etc.). He considers that the adaptationists have a tendency to disregard the contribution of genetic drift as a mechanism for evolution/speciation, and he has stated on his blog that adaptationism sounds very much like a set of just so stories (his words). I would refer Mr. concernedjoe to the book, "Why Darwin Matters," by Michael Shermer where the divide between adaptationists and non-adaptationists is discussed in one of the chapters.
Posted by: SLC | February 22, 2009 3:53 PM
Concerned Joe:
It's a respectful answer, and I appreciate that. But I'm not quite so sure about the field of evolutionary psychology. Granted, if I question evolution, I would doubly question a direct derivative of it. Does the derivative have any evidence in itself to support it, or is it all extrapolation from an already accepted evolution theory?
I mean (and I'm sure some on this blog will hate the analogy) it seems roughly parallel to trying to prove the flood. You can't. Yes, you can offer up a few intriguing tidbits, but don't think for a moment it's provable. In the end, you say "because the Bible says so."
This is different from trying to prove creation. You can't do that either, directly, but you can (in our view) demonstrate that the alternative is absurd. But that can't be done with a flood. The alternative of a flood - no flood - is not absurd.
So it seems to me with evolutionary psychology: in the end, doesn't it only stand 'because evolutionists say so?' Any quirk of nature can be explained (but not proven) via that model. For example, (I'm not sure if smileys are permitted here, and I don't dare use one without permission) boisterous flatulance. Didn't evolution equip us with that proclivity since our ancesters who failed to adapt in such a way were not successful in scaring away predators and thus all got eaten?
Posted by: tom sheepandgoats | February 22, 2009 4:02 PM
Last comments of the day:
Owlmirror,
Neither do I, though the only occasions in my life when I've really experienced that have been at the births of my children and grandchildren. It must be delightful to be a person who feels, for example, a sense of wonder at the view from an open spot on a mountainside. I'm afraid I'm the sort of person who stands there wondering exactly where one would locate a good vegetable garden in such a landscape, or maybe how much more expensive gas costs are to drive a mile there vs. a mile on flat land. I will admit that a good blackwater swamp does bring a happy smile to my face, though wonder isn't what I'm feeling.
Leni,
Sorry, I didn't know there were such widespread objections to smileys. I don't have any such objections myself. I just so rarely type anything tongue-in-cheek or with the deliberate intention of being cute or funny that I almost never have any need for them. Face to face, I laugh at other people's jokes, and smile with pleasure at seeing my friends or at seeing someone I care about succeed, etc. But those don't somehow seem to me to be connected with typing a smiley. At any rate, please don't count me in the anti-smiley group. I wasn't intending to criticize them.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 22, 2009 7:02 PM
I don't know about widespread objections. Mostly it's just a lot of curmudgeonly, geriatric complaining.
Posted by: Leni | February 22, 2009 7:57 PM
"I was not aware that Dr. Berlinski accepted common descent as a valid scientific theory supported by the evidence."
SLC, Berlinski corrects one of the creationists who denies that there are transitional forms:
"RESPONDING TO KENT GORDIS, I find myself in the lunatic position of offering a few words in defense of Darwin's doctrine. To speak of the "total absence" of intermediate fossil forms is to speak too strongly. There are plenty of intermediate forms, as I point out in my response to Randy Wadkins. "
http://www.2think.org/letters.shtml
Posted by: Neal | February 22, 2009 8:13 PM
The high numbers for Hindus and Buddhists isn't surprising not because of their educational levels, but because of their traditions - eincarnation, the avatar stories of Vishnu in Hinduism, the Bodhisattva stories of Buddhism (in turn inspired by the Hindu stories of Vishnu's avatars). Incidentally the Christian missionaries of yore used these self-same stories to mock Hindu traditions, and still do.
Posted by: rimpal | February 22, 2009 9:03 PM
SLC - I accept I might have read too much into your statement. And yes Moran is upset that certain segments of profession are too disdainful of Gould for instance. However I stand by my statement: Moran is as you seem to agree an evolutionist, and I add he is also very explicit that he is arguing for the possibility other scientifically based mechanisms but not at the exclusion of any main mechanism that has withstood the rigor of investigation and then acceptance. "Moran use" hits a raw nerve because he is often quoted by creationists as a source of "the controversy" when those that are objective and indeed are the players themselves know "the controversy" is nothing more than normal scientific (sometimes heated and emotional) discussions of mechanisms science can and does deal with in its rational and object way. Have a good one.
"tom sheepandgoats" just for the record I do not accept nor do professional rational scientists accept anything scientifically speaking just because someone (even an expert) says so. For instance the thing to which I alluded (you called it psychological evolution) is an adaption mechanism that remains hypothesis but is not without evidence and support, and to date is not officially falsified (but it is falsifiable) and is not outside of scientific bounds. What creationists (of which I suspect you are one - and I say that person to person respectfully) fail to recognize is that science is really the process of proposals and falsifications -- not PROOFS. What remains unfalsified after being tested rigorously via direct physical experiments and/or indirectly via evidence and/or prediction, and that works usefully (e.g., for further predictions) is deemed accepted for the time being. Creationists have yet to come even light years close to falsifying ToE let alone to showing its scientific absurdity.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 23, 2009 11:26 AM
Re ConcernedJoe
Mr. ConcernedJoe makes a strong point relative to the notion of proof. In science, there is no such thing as proof. Science is not mathematics where one has postulate and axioms and proves theorems from them (e.g. in plane geometry, SAS and ASA as necessary and sufficient for the congruence of two triangles). Theories in science are subject to confirmation and falsification. However, no theory is ever "proven"; thus, the theory of evolution, like the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity will never be "proven."
I have posted the link to the following excerpt from a presentation by Biologist Ken Miller were he discussed genetic evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees (evidence, not proof).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Posted by: SLC | February 23, 2009 5:52 PM
I want to second that I am surprised 8% of Jehovah's Witnesses accept evolution -- however, one interesting point I noticed from looking at the numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses baptized compared to the growth of active publishers (those that go door to door, their favorite measure of members) is that there are probably just as many former members as current (or maybe 50%, I didn't do an exhaustive study). There's probably a large subset of that group that still identifies themselves as a Jehovah's Witness, believes most of their doctrines, but really are not JWs.
But on the plus side of things: JWs don't vote. That's about a million fewer votes for creationism than there otherwise might be.
(But on the OTHER side of things, while JWs are socially conservative about their own behaviors, their "not of this world" viewpoint makes them often fairly.... not necessarily tolerant, but at least non-interfering towards others. )
/ex-JW
Posted by: Matthew | February 24, 2009 1:24 AM
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE:
PROVE /pruv/ [proov]
verb, proved, proved or prov-en, prov-ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.
2. Law. to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.
3. to give demonstration of by action.
4. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.
5. to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, esp. through one's actions.
6. Mathematics. to verify the correctness or validity of by mathematical demonstration or arithmetical proof.
7. Also, proof. Printing. to take a trial impression of (type, a cut, etc.).
8. to cause (dough) to rise to the necessary lightness.
9. Archaic. to experience.
–verb (used without object)
10. to turn out: The experiment proved to be successful.
11. to be found by trial or experience to be: His story proved false.
12. (of dough) to rise to a specified lightness: Leave covered until it has proved.
------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1125–75; ME proven Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Note a mathmatical proof is def 6., and note defs 1,3 & especially 4
So science can't test anything eh? Try again -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2009 7:57 AM
Re dingojack
I don't quite get the point Mr. dingojack is trying to make. If he is claiming that the theory of evolution (or the theory or relativity or the theory of quantum mechanics for that matter) has been proven, he has joined the 100% wrong club. For example, the link to the presentation by Ken Miller presents evidence that supports common descent of apes and humans. In no way, shape, form, or regard does it prove this theory.
Let's put this another way. There is no possibility that the SAS or ASA theorems of plain geometry will ever be falsified. However, there is always a possibility (a very small one) that the theories of evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics will be falsified. That is why scientific theories are never consider to be proven.
Posted by: SLC | February 24, 2009 8:40 AM
DJ --- wow that Aussie coffee must be powwwwerrrrfffuulllll
I think my point (and SLC's too if I can be so bold) is that since all valid things for science to consider scientifically are falsifiable ... then it implies that that these things are never proven (proven in the sense of "can never be shown to be wrong")
Of course science tests things ... but if those things withstand tests to falsify that only means they haven't yet been falsified. I hope my words were clear in that that does not mean things do not at some point after withstanding all attempts to falsiify become accepted as useful or like ToE as the most likely and most useful and for all practical purposes most truthful fook to hang your hat on.
I am sorry if I am not clear. I think you and I are on same team though.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 24, 2009 9:10 AM
Sorry if I was unclear.
Ever hear of the saying "exceptions prove the rule"?. 'Prove' in this case means to try or test. Science can prove theories, indeed science must do so*.
I realise that America is a realm divided from the civilised world by a common language, but sheesh. :)
Concerned - Nope the 1,3,7 Trimethylpurine 2,6 dione is much the same here as anywhere, thus I tend to avoid it at this time of night (you forget I'm 16 or so hours in your future). - DJ
*'prove' in the mathematical sense is the 6th definition. Everyone just assumes that is the only meaning possible but it ain't so (as can be seen). Excuse my intemperance, but I have explained again and again to people and they still don't get it. Sorry to blow up like that.
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2009 9:54 AM
Re dingojack
I am afraid that Mr. dingojack and I will have to agree to disagree as to what proof means in science/mathematics, hopefully not disagreeably.
Posted by: SLC | February 24, 2009 10:07 AM
Certainly not! :) I just wanted to show that words sometime have two meanings (damn Led Zep Mp3 file!) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2009 10:16 AM
DJ -- I know we are dancing around same flag pole ... and although SLC thinks you all disagree I think it is just blog imprecision.
But let me ask you this .. for my own edification - not as a challenge: would it be ok to say that the ToE is proven but that however unlikely it seems now it may still be false (just no need to worry about it far as we can tell).
Get my drift? Again -- really want to be sure I don't mislead the little children that listen to the batty old neighbor next door. Peace out!!
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 24, 2009 10:24 AM
"[T]he batty old neighbor next door" in this scenario, is that you or me? ;)
I'd say the ToE is probably 98% certain, however it's certainly possible that a new piece of evidence will come along and change the whole ball game. ToE makes predictions('Transitional forms' or 'common ancestors' for example) that have been tested and found to support the theory. Can we ever say ToE is absolutely true? Probably not. But the evidence in support is sure stacking up, the evidence against it, well, not so much (or at all really). That still doesn't mean we sould stop trying to falsify it (ie 'prove' it)- DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2009 10:47 AM
Dj - thanks -- yup - got you and agreed
As for B O N ... well that was me but I am sure that I am not unique in that regard when it comes to posters on this site ;)
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | February 24, 2009 11:55 AM