A common misconception from the religious propaganda 'against' evolution is that humans evolved from apes. That is not true, as the apes have evolved over the same period of time that we have. We have similar ancestors, which makes apes and humans more like cousins.

True point, but the naysayers would argue that is semantics.  

I would suggest that 'intelligent designers' get over their science envy- stick with the religion which is really their big thing- and spend their time trying to make their religions worth respecting and somehow relevant to people, rather than putting themselves in the untenable and ridiculous position of 'denying' the evidentiary science available (which most of them don't really understand or know thoroughly anyway).

I have no problem with "intelligent designers."  To me, the scientific and the religious are not necessarily exclusive.  Science explains what happens and maybe how it happens, but religion explains why things happen.  Science attaches no morality, no right or wrong. The leopard kills and eats the antelope.  Snow slides down a mountain and kills people. Science observes this and analyzes this without attaching a moral judgement. Religion attempts to interject morality into daily life. Whether the avalanche was "punishment" for an "evil" village, or simply "God works in mysterious ways," the avalanche now becomes part of an overall plan.

What I am writing is that the two are not mutually exclusive.  Science can show why the snow tumbled down the mountain and explains the shear, ductile, and tensile strength within the snow pack that resulted in the slide. Whether a supreme being had a hand in it or not does not affect the science of the avalanche.

I do have a problem with traditional creationists. The scientific evidence is just too overwhelming to accept the 6,000 year-old earth, and the example I gave earlier of the Creation Museum is simply silly rational.

On the other hand, I also have a problem with science trying to disprove the existence of God. I have never seen any convincing proof of this.  The existence of a god cannot be proved or disproved with today's science.

If "intelligent designers" want to believe that a supreme being had a hand in evolution, well, that does not contravene scientific evidence. It is simply a theory, one explanation on what might have happened. I have no proof for or against that. So I can't say it isn't true.

Take a look at this guy:

Now for me, what this guy is saying about Banana's actually re-enforces the evolution theory. It is a very simple argument that the Banana evolved to be the way it is now to encourage us, and other animals, to eat it so that we ingest and then spread the seeds... simple right.

But the absolute blind faith that this guy has tells him that Banana's PROVE that evolution does not exist

Many also argue against evolution because of some missing links, as though the absence of these links again PROVES

that evolution does not exist. Whereas of course it could just be a matter of us not having yet found these links.

Why can they not compromise a little, why can it not be a case of God creating evolution, for example.

As for half Of Britons not believing in Evolution, well that surprises me very much. I wonder if it is more a case of many of them simply not understanding evolution.

^^Thanks for the tip, quicksilva, I *am* interested- and I am a very strong proponent of evolution. But I am a 'soft' theorist of science- which is to say I am not a positivist; I don't necessarily believe that our models and understandings of things correlate directly to things 'out there', but rather that they are a 'best fit.' That means I'm rather gunshy to say that anything is 'proven,' though I am very quick to say that a certain model is the 'best available.'

^Bonobo, my objection to the intelligent designers is not that they want to have this theory- provided that it takes place in a time period too early for much evidence when the 'real science' itself is primarily speculative, though certainly less baroque. It is their attempt to put this speculation on par with the REAL (i.e., evidence-based) research and modelling done according to scientific procedures, in which a true scientific hypothesis must be DISPROVABLE- and to compete to use valuable science class time to offer this as an 'alternative' model, when there are any number of alternative scientific models of evolution itself that could be discussed to much better scientific purpose in science education.

As for half Of Britons not believing in Evolution, well that surprises me very much. I wonder if it is more a case of many of them simply not understanding evolution.

Or even more simply, not being bothered.

^Bonobo, my objection to the intelligent designers is not that they want to have this theory- provided that it takes place in a time period too early for much evidence when the 'real science' itself is primarily speculative, though certainly less baroque. It is their attempt to put this speculation on par with the REAL (i.e., evidence-based) research and modelling done according to scientific procedures, in which a true scientific hypothesis must be DISPROVABLE- and to compete to use valuable science class time to offer this as an 'alternative' model, when there are any number of alternative scientific models of evolution itself that could be discussed to much better scientific purpose in science education.

Oh I agree that this should not be taught in public schools. Schools should be taught the best available science, except in comparative philosophy-type classes.

But if people want to write books on it ors organize conferences, well, have at it.

I am not 100% familiar with Intelligent Design.  I have only conversed about it casually or gleaned from fora such as this.  So I am not sure what you write about the time frame of it.  Doesn't Intelligent Design also include the more modern eras such as the Pleistocene?

No doubt some of them do- there are probably a plurality of 'intelligent designs,' too. My personal favourite is the flying spaghetti monster with a penchant for pirate costumes, who created the world with his noodly appendage.

However, I would be pretty sure that none of them put themselves at risk of having a testable component.

As for half Of Britons not believing in Evolution, well that surprises me very much. I wonder if it is more a case of many of them simply not understanding evolution.

Or even more simply, not being bothered.

I wonder how many Britons believe in God? Or more simply, are even bothered?

ps please people, youtube is not the most reliable place for info on evolution v creation!!! Check this nut case! And also please don't think he's typical of all Christians. It's so bad I thought it was a joke. Hmmmn, maybe it is...

Some of the Britons I run into every day don't seem to have climbed the first step on the evolutionary ladder, let alone understand it

Some Britons ARE the missing link!

I wonder how many Britons believe in God? Or more simply, are even bothered?

According to The Times; one in three. The article is over a year old, so I suspect it's even less now.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle2843386.ece

And here's an article from last year that puts the figure at 38%.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/only38ofbrito...lieveingod.html

The church is finished in the UK; The sooner their influence is completely eroded the better.

I remember reading an article suggesting that some non-trival percentage of young people within the UK were unaware that there was a connection between Cheese and Milk or that Milk came from cows.

IJWT I really can not recommend the Genius of Charles Darwin series enough.

Watch that and you will see that there is proof.

Its called the Human Genome project.

If you like that then I recommend the book Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells, the director (I think, but involved in anyway) the Genographic project. It is a fascinating look into human genes and early man's migrations.

The church is finished in the UK; The sooner their influence is completely eroded the better.

Why? To make room for Mosques and with the sound of call to prayer?

Why? To make room for Mosques and with the sound of call to prayer?

The Church has hardly prevented this phenomenon. Personally, I'd be happy to see the lot of them gone; religion should be a private matter for those still deluded enough to believe in fairy tales; it should have no bearing whatsoever on government, law, science, freedom of speech..................................................

^It's one thing to be atheist or agnostic; it's a totally different thing to insult people for their genuinely held beliefs, no matter how you see it. Especially in Bedlam...

I agree ping, I find it insulting to be told I am delude enough to believe in fairy tales. Especially as I show respect for other views, even those I don't agree with. How easy it would be to something like: "all non-believers are uneducated idiots!" And what good would it do? None?

We have the (God given) right to believe what we want, let's respect each other in our differences.

^It's one thing to be atheist or agnostic; it's a totally different thing to insult people for their genuinely held beliefs, no matter how you see it. Especially in Bedlam...

Well, I'm sorry if it insults people, but I treat The Bible as I would an Enid Blyton book - that's just my opinion of course.

If people feel the need for such beliefs then fine; but don't allow it to interfere with the lives of those who don't.

Well I personally never interfere with the lives of those who don't share my beliefs. My beliefs are sacrosanct to me and I believe that in due course thay will be proven to be true. However, please continue to believe what you want if that’s makes you happy...

I'm very happy with my beliefs.

Albert Einstein a believer in a creator and creation wrote:

I don't think Einstein ever actually said he believed in a creator. He said things like:

"I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?"

and

"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."

At best, he seemed to be a fuzzy agnostic who was awed by the cosmos and the physical laws that control it.

Which surely we all should?

I wonder if it is more a case of many of them simply not understanding evolution.

It's a case of many of them simply not understanding the question.

I wonder if it is more a case of many of them simply not understanding evolution.

It's a case of many of them simply not understanding the question.

This is a bit of a patronising viewpoint. Evolution does not answer all of the questions. And to add that it’s half of Britons would be doubly patronising. Is it just the stupid half of the population?

The church is finished in the UK; The sooner their influence is completely eroded the better.

Why? To make room for Mosques and with the sound of call to prayer?

...which quite often is better tolerable than half a dozen bells ringing for 15 minutes

Some Britons ARE the missing link!

you mean those germanic tribes my ancestors expelled from northern Germany because of using foul language and disgusting eating habits such as "fish and chips, bangers and mashers and kidney pie"?

evolution does not necessarily rule out the existence of a "creator" and vice versa. but this story sounds a bit fishy to me:

the LORD asked Adam whether he'd sacrifice an arm and a leg in exchange for a nekkid woman with only positive attributes and qualities and Adam asked "what do i get for a rib?" and settled for it. and that's the reason why our women folks are not perfect.

Some Britons ARE the missing link!

you mean those germanic tribes my ancestors expelled from northern Germany because of using foul language and disgusting eating habits such as "fish and chips, bangers and mashers and kidney pie"?

At least we managed to get rid of the tribes who thought that mayonnaise is a suitable condiment for fish and chips

And then deep fried mars bars or invented mushy peas

A saucer full of mushy peas liberally sprinkled with mint sauce is the food of the Gods.

Mushy peas may well be a lot of things, but one thing it is not and that is Ambrosia

I thought Ambrosia was rice pudding?