Bush is evolutionist

  • Thread starter leopard
  • Start date

Do you believe in evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 96.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Only micro evolution

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
648
3
I do not "believe" in evolution in the same way Mr. Bush "believes" in his religion. I simply accept the fact of evolution due the the massive amount of converging evidence for evolution as a general conclusion.

Would you ask someone if they "believe" in the atomic theory, for instance? Its not a belief, its knowledge, really. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Would you call someone who accepts the atomic theory or Newtonian mechanics as an atomist, a Newtonist or a gravitationalist? Naturally, there is no fundamental difference in mechanism between the so-called "microevolution" and the so-called "macroevolution" other than time.

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Bush for finally coming to terms with that particular aspect of biology.
 

Chi Meson

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,767
10
I believe that the Theory of Evolution is valid.

I also believe Bush when he says that he is "way out of my lane, here." That goes for just about anything, right?
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,992
5,146
I agree with Moridin that the poll question is poorly stated.
 
120
0
I do not "believe" in evolution in the same way Mr. Bush "believes" in his religion. I simply accept the fact of evolution due the the massive amount of converging evidence for evolution as a general conclusion.
Have you studied the evidence yourself, or are you just assuming that the scientists know?

It's perfectly OK IMO to say evolutionist. Yes, you could also use the term 'gravitationalist'.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
I do not "believe" in evolution in the same way Mr. Bush "believes" in his religion. I simply accept the fact of evolution due the the massive amount of converging evidence for evolution as a general conclusion.

Would you ask someone if they "believe" in the atomic theory, for instance? Its not a belief, its knowledge, really. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Would you call someone who accepts the atomic theory or Newtonian mechanics as an atomist, a Newtonist or a gravitationalist? Naturally, there is no fundamental difference in mechanism between the so-called "microevolution" and the so-called "macroevolution" other than time.

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Bush for finally coming to terms with that particular aspect of biology.
Well stated!

And, yes, there is a problem with using the term evolutionist, especially in context of a poll asking about belief.

With regard to evolutionary theory, I am convinced that the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented are valid with regard to the overall conclusion that evolution does occur. There is wonderfully exciting work happening in genetics, specifically the field of epigenetics, that might provide new insight into the mechanisms of HOW evolution happens, and how quickly it can happen.
 
120
0
"Do you have faith in evolution?" would have been a bad way to put it. Faith is belief without evidence. We cannot know anythihg for sure, can we? So ultimately everything comes down to belief. There is a big difference, however, between beliefs based on observations and beliefs based on nothing.
 
1,464
3
"Do you have faith in evolution?" would have been a bad way to put it. Faith is belief without evidence. We cannot know anythihg for sure, can we? So ultimately everything comes down to belief. There is a big difference, however, between beliefs based on observations and beliefs based on nothing.
We think that evolution is right, not believe. Humans have a tendency to believe in just about anything without taking the time to look at evidence.
 
120
0
What's your definition of 'belief'?
 
120
0
OK, so belief = faith? Then belief is not interesting at all.
 

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,817
0
I accept evolution, gravitation, the germ theory of disease, Mendelian genetics, and special relativity. I accept some basic forms of atomic theory, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, without fully understanding how they interact or over what domains they apply. I am unconvinced (but not hostile) toward human-driven climate change. I am deeply skeptical about M-theory. I doubt that many traditional herbal remedies are effective. I reject astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, distance healing, and other pseudosciences.
 

WarPhalange

I don't need to believe.
 
i believe in intelligent evolutional design
 
2,903
13
i believe in intelligent evolutional design
That's an oxymoron.

Well, technically you're right. You "believe" in intelligent evolutional design, because that's NOT evolution. So you'd have to believe in it.
 
That's an oxymoron.

Well, technically you're right. You "believe" in intelligent evolutional design, because that's NOT evolution. So you'd have to believe in it.
so you think evolution is not intelligent, but stupid?
 
1,354
4
so you think evolution is not intelligent, but stupid?
I think that anthropomorphizing an essentially stochastic process is either intellectually lazy, dishonest, or foolish. Take your pick.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Bush said:
He also said that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not connected to his religious believes.

"I did it based upon the need to protect the American people from harm," Bush said.
link in the op

Bush said:
President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

When are people going to realize that one can't believe anything the man says?

I'll bet the fundamentalists are grabbing their sick bags.
 
I think that anthropomorphizing an essentially stochastic process is either intellectually lazy, dishonest, or foolish. Take your pick.
for a stochastic process, it sure has a lot of determinism
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Irony: For most of us, the theory of evolution is taken completely on faith. I might be able to defend the theory to a point, but all in all, my knowledge is based on hearsay, Scientific American articles, PBS, and a couple of classes. And I'm sure this is true for almost anyone who's not a biologist or geneticist.

For most, "belief" in evolution is really based on "faith" in science.
 
Last edited:
Really, how is that?
it's influenced by living organisms. either life is deterministic, or it's random. personally, i believe i have a bit of influence in my own outcome, so it's not entirely random.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,875
2,350
it's influenced by living organisms. either life is deterministic, or it's random. personally, i believe i have a bit of influence in my own outcome, so it's not entirely random.
That has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, which is not science. Perhaps you weren't refering to ID? This also isn't Philosophy.
 
That has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, which is not science. Perhaps you weren't refering to ID? This also isn't Philosophy.
nope, it's a poll. i'm not sure why you people want to debate.

i'm also not convinced that ID has nothing to offer in terms of science.
 
1,354
4
it's influenced by living organisms. either life is deterministic, or it's random. personally, i believe i have a bit of influence in my own outcome, so it's not entirely random.
Stochastic processes are the sum of the large set of individually deterministic processes.

Ex: Diffusion--the motion of individual particles in a a gas is essentially deterministic. Take two rooms, each filled with a unique gas. Remove the barrier between them and the gases will diffuse and mix. That is a stochastic process driven by the deterministic motion of the individual gas particles.

Evolution isn't much different. Read up on evolutionary game theory. If you have a population of individuals with varying strategy vectors, fitness is a function of the strategy vector. The portion of the total population posessing each strategy vector will change as certain strategy vectors lend themselves to higher reproductive rates. This is a stochastic process.

You are confusing determinism, with systems where probabilities overwhelmingly favor a particular outcome (certainly not the case in general with evolution. Look up genetic drift and founders effect for more information on that). In the case of the diffusion example, there is no reason why the particles must diffuse. It is perfectly possible that the particles in each room could have a set of velocity vectors that would prevent them from mixing extensively. It is however insanely unlikely. Look up statistical mechanics for more information on that.
 

Related Threads for: Bush is evolutionist

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Top