<p>What do you guys think?</p>
<p>A friend of mine commented that the debaters are the single best argument against intelligent design. I responded that I wasn't sure they were what Darwin had in mind either.</p>
<p>It seems that all the believing - of various extreme sorts - is the root of most of the problems in our politics - nay worldwide - today. Of course here the "not believing" is all about believing.</p>
<p>I don't believe in it.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for them. I can't vote for narrowmindedness.</p>
<p>What I find most amusing - is that apparently, many digg users (and people elsewhere) ONLY cared about this question (they didn't care about other parts of the debate). That's why it got so many diggs today. Even I must admit that it's the only part of the debate I would have cared apart - I didn't watch it of course.</p>
<p>Evolution (and global warming) aren't even debated right now in the scientific community. They are both just heavily politicized issues by the right.</p>
<p>global cooling used to be a popular opinion in the scientific community too.</p>
<p>Be wary of ad populum arguments, and dont be afria dto think for yourself.</p>
<p>The title sucks. You can't believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, it happens constantly.</p>
<p>What was mean is probably intelligent design vs. design of randomness.
I find second theory laughable but accept evolution.</p>
<p>Hint: Most religions believe in creationism.</p>
<p>Vyse, it's true that no theory in science can be proven. But why don't politicians question about the theory of gravity? The reason why the right is trying to make people think that global warming is still an issue under debate is that there is a lot of money being made by oil companies. Look at how much gas costs in the US right now.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that you shouldn't question the status quo. I'm saying politics shouldn't be entangled in an issue such as global warming because it only deters progress.</p>
<p>Questioning the validity of evolution is as clever as questioning the validity of atomic theory-- sure, you can do it, but it's pretty silly to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Easy with your terminology, the scietific community doesn't view anything as "fact" or "law" anymore. Evolution is known as a theory, as is Gravity, as is all other aspects of physics, chemistry, etc. I'm not saying whether i believe it is true or not, I'm just saying you shouldn't call it a law.</p>
<p>I quote the late, great Gould:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
<p>What was mean is probably intelligent design vs. design of randomness. I find second theory laughable but accept evolution.
</p>
<p>That about summarizes my beliefs :)</p>
<p>Why is this question even important?</p>
<p>Even if we all agree that evolution is cold hard fact and anyone who disagrees is severely misguided, why are we asking this of our presidential candidates?</p>
<p>If Im interviewing 2 accountants for my accounting firm, should I ask them whether they think that the variable specific impulse magneto plasma rocket is the future of space travel?</p>
<p>Well your example about interviewing for the consulting firm is a little bit different from interviewing US presidential candidates, just a tad. Anyway, these questions are important because you really want to elect a president whose values reflect that of the country.</p>
<p>I believe in evolution, but calling it "fact" is irresponsible. Other common beliefs that were once "facts" is the flat nature of earth, the stars which revolve around earth, and the Gods which cause the winds to blow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
3 GOP presidential candidates don't believe in evolution
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't necessarily treat that as absolute fact.</p>
<p>Republican politicians need to say they don't believe in evolution in order to get the conservative vote. They're not necessarily telling the truth. Some of them may be, but there's a distinct possibility that they're lying.</p>
<p>The problem lies with definitions.</p>
<p>If you ask a proponent of creationism to define "theory," she will tell you what an honest scientist calls a "hypothesis." The Campbell and Reece Biology textbook mentioned this distinction in their evolution section far before Mr. Michael Behe publicly embarrassed himself and his movement in the Dover case.</p>
<p>One cannot deny that natural selection exists. Before the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom, white moths were more common than black moths. As the trees became covered with soot, the situation reversed. Half a century ago, penicillin was perhaps <em>the</em> most effective anti-biotic available. Now, it is not strong enough to sufficiently handle today's resistant strains.</p>
<p>Is this the work of a divine interventionist or chance?</p>