The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
reuters.com — The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God. Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory.
benb24- 144 diggs
- digg it
- hvsahin, on 11/30/2007, -3/+24Not a surprise. We're one of the only civilized nations of the world that tries to pass off creationism in the classroom (a slap in the face to both God and Science if you ask me). Just last month The Council of Europe released Resolution 1580, rejecting the idea that creationism in any form, including "intelligent design", can be considered scientific and that teaching it in the classroom is a civil rights violation. (The more you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolutio ... ).
- WiseWeasel, on 11/30/2007, -5/+7The universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster in a giant pasta press.
- Radar3D, on 11/30/2007, -1/+6RAmen.
- cranium, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2"Intelligent Design" is dead in the US too, thanks to the Dover trial. They got creamed, if you weren't paying attention.
Next up, our idiotic countrymen are repackaging Paley yet again, this time calling it "Sudden Emergence". Of course, they will again want to en-do the whole scientific method because they really, really *believe* in "Sudden Emergence".- hvsahin, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1""Intelligent Design" is dead in the US too, thanks to the Dover trial."
You wouldn't know it by looking at our politicians.
- hvsahin, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1""Intelligent Design" is dead in the US too, thanks to the Dover trial."
- LittleDas, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Wow, that's pretty amazing.
I wish I lived there.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/30/2007, -5/+7The universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster in a giant pasta press.
- BigManOnCampus, on 11/30/2007, -2/+17Darwin gets a bad rap for something that is quite plain and easy to accept.
Natural selection happens people, it's a very rational thing to see.
1) Mutations or genetic diversity in a population means some of animal A have ability Z, and some of animal B have ability Y.
2) Conditions/environment changes, making life easier or reproduction easier for animals with ability Y
3) Hence, animals of animal Y are more successful and more numerous.
4) If animals A and B can inter-breed, animals of the "A" group may die off from being less successful.
What most creationists cannot accept is that all of this started with simple chemicals in a heavy concentration, and it was energetically favorable for them to turn themselves into functioning cells/self-replicating strands, etc... This is very different from natural selection, and should be separated from the argument.
While I personally can accept that, it's perfectly reasonable to me that most people who haven't thought about it would not. I don't fault them. Their life or lifestyle does not lend itself to long hours absorbed in thought about things as mine does. Why should I fault them?- treas, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2You are both right and wrong. That is true for creationists, But those who push Intelligent Design rely on a small pool of talking points, including something called irreducible complexity. They believe that some of the complex mechanisms in early life cannot have come to be through natural selection, as any number of the parts aside from the whole is useless on its own.
What was I talking about again?- ChompTheMan, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Irreducible nonnecessity.
- cranium, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4As shown in the Dover trial, "irreducible complexity" is utter and complete horse *****.
- mydigga, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3So, God had a chemistry set?
- BrewBeau, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3You shouldn't necessarily fault them just for thinking that way, but when they try to sabotage our educational system by presenting intelligent design as science, that's where the real problem lies. Also in the mainstream media. They present what they call a debate between the two sides, creationism and science. They take some wackjob fundamentalist and have them argue with a scientist, making the lay person at home think there is some doubt in the scientific world. It's even worse when they find some "scientist" who supports ID, trying to lend credibility to it.
- treas, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2You are both right and wrong. That is true for creationists, But those who push Intelligent Design rely on a small pool of talking points, including something called irreducible complexity. They believe that some of the complex mechanisms in early life cannot have come to be through natural selection, as any number of the parts aside from the whole is useless on its own.
- Boshow, on 11/30/2007, -3/+12Where did the survey take place? I'm guessing somewhere in the south. No offense to the sane people in the south.
- smoothmedia, on 11/30/2007, -1/+7Where have I seen this before? Oh right! The front page.
- OneHine, on 11/30/2007, -2/+11Well, of course most people don't believe in the theory of evolution! All evolution has to support it are mountains of evidence, decades of research, and tens of thousands of papers published in respected scientific journals. But God has some *real* support--millions of parents indoctrinating their children, telling kids too young to walk, let alone think rationally, that they deserve to be tortured forever unless they believe.
- drvelocity, on 11/30/2007, -1/+4More people believe in the devil than Darwin? Well, duh, how can one Darwin possibly outnumber "people".
(Grammar Nazi rewrite: More people believe in the devil than believe in Darwin) - whorelock, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3I thought Darwin was the devil? -sarcasm-
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2Ok, this was posted on digg not two hours ago.. Buried for the authors failure to look before posting.
- erickssm, on 11/30/2007, -2/+1this is the same article that is already on the front page!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why do people resubmit the same thing over and over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- georgemason01, on 11/30/2007, -1/+5"The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, found that 35 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 31 percent in witches."
31% believe in witches? So if we're not burning them anymore, are we sending them to Gitmo?- lazersailer, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1if one third of americans believe in witches and UFOs then it isn't surprising that others'll believe in god and hell.
- smithfly114, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2How does a person not believe in a fellow human being?
- NikoK, on 11/30/2007, -7/+1The title of this digg suggests that it's a negative thing. Everyone has their own beliefs, the end.
- drum_bum, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3How is the revelation that a majority of Americans are ignorant not a negative thing? Sure, they can have their beliefs, but they're also stupid.
- spectre_25gt, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Of course it's a negative thing. We want to promote truth and knowledge, don't we? Isn't that why there are schools? Evolution is fact. It's not something that you should have to believe in.
- tman84, on 11/30/2007, -3/+3where did they poll this a local baptist church? and what kind of shock is this, they should rewrite the title of the poll. Study finds there are more stupid Americans than intelligent ones capable of logic and reason.
- reverand, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5The Nova episode about Intelligent Design vs Darwin was amazing:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
what really frustrates me is how these morons confuse evolution and creation. Darwin's theory says nothing about how life came to start in the first place, just how once replication with mutation started, natural selection took over. Why can't religious zealots in America buy into evolution, but just say god kicked things off, and god allowed for natural selection? Hell, even the Vatican has acknowledged Darwin's work! - lobsterxcore, on 11/30/2007, -3/+2Even from a scientific standpoint, the universe is too complex to rule out a creator.
- reverand, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2WTF does that statement even mean?
- covertbadger, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2It's the sort of vague unprovable assertion that religion depends on. Let's try rephrasing it:
"Even from a scientific standpoint, the universe contains absolutely no observable evidence of a creator".
- covertbadger, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2It's the sort of vague unprovable assertion that religion depends on. Let's try rephrasing it:
- adnams, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2but surely that would mean the creator must be more complex than the universe, in that case, who created the creator?
- cranium, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Science is not concerned with anything supernatural. You obviously don't know what they hell you're talking about.
- reverand, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2WTF does that statement even mean?
- necbone, on 11/30/2007, -2/+2AMERICA, ***** YEA!!!!
Polling churches FTW!! - lemon67, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5What a sad sad state America is in.
- welliamwallace, on 11/30/2007, -6/+2-Quote by Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications , my theory would absolutely breakdown."
It HAS been demonstrated. Eyes, Wings, Bacterial Flagellum, etc...
So of course I don't believe in Darwin's theory, word for word!
Check this out:
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/therewas ...- covertbadger, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5For pity's sake. It's been shown over and over again how an eye could evolve from a simple light-sensitive patch of cells. The argument in your link is utterly moronic. At no point does it prove that the inverted retina is evidence of creation - all it does is argue clumsily that the inverted retina is not as useless as Dawkins argued in The Blind Watchmaker. Even if we grant that the inverted retina is useful, at no point is it shown that evolution could not have produced it (which would be impossible to show, since evolution DID produce it), and at no point is it shown that the only possible explanation for the inverted retina is a creator. This is typical of most ID garbage - it seeks out the tiniest flaw or uncertainty in genuine scientific theory and then claims that the imperfection is proof of creation, when it is no such thing.
Oh, and wings are evidence of irreducible complexity? My word, you're stupid. A flying squirrel has a pretty clear example of a proto-wing, and should it become a reproductive advantage for a squirrel to remain airborne for longer periods of time, that proto-wing will likely become fully functional.
Irreducible complexity is a debunked and intellectually-vacant strawman that, realistically, even most creationists have abandoned as a serious argument. The fact that you are sticking to it betrays you as backward and ignorant even when judged against your backward and ignorant contemporaries. Congrats.- Viniator3, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Out of curiosity, how did we get from no wings on squirrels to the proto-wing of a flying squirrel? And where are the fully winged squirrels? I mean, we have squirrels without wings, and squirrels with a fully formed flap of skin on which it glides. Thus, a logical progression would yield winged squirrels, and every form of flap wings in between. Do enlighten me.
- Viniator3, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Disregard the "progression to fully winged squirrels" statement. Sorry, I had missed what you had said about that sort of thing becoming advantageous. But if you could explain the transition from no wings at all to *poof*, a gliding flap...
- covertbadger, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2Whoever said it went from no wings at all to *poof*? The wings are just a flap of skin where the legs join the torso. They provide a small amount of air resistance, which slow the animal's fall and provide rudimentary control. Hell, if you want an intermediate between the intermediates (do I sense the old creationist infinite degrees fallacy heading nonchalantly in the direction of this conversation?) it has been shown that the common domestic cat is able to somewhat control a fall by spread-eagling its limbs. Many years ago an ancestor of the squirrel found a reproductive advantage in being able to remain in the air longer. Maybe there was some evolutionary pressure from a ground-based predator, and squirrels with slightly larger flaps of skin found themselves able to cross larger gaps between trees without having to risk crossing the ground, by spread-eagling in flight. Maybe that slight advantage allowed those squirrels to move around more easily, and mate with other squirrels over a wider range of territory. Maybe gliding prowess eventually became an attractive trait to other squirrels, due to the advantages that inheritance of the trait would grant to offspring. Instinct is also evolutionary - if squirrels with larger wing flaps have an advantage, then so do those who choose to mate with the most able gliders.
With these mating advantages, nature would select for larger skin flaps and increasing glide distance. Maybe in the future this will become so pronounced that skeletal structure will develop, leading to fully-fledged wings. Or maybe the ground-based predator has long since died out, and flying squirrels are actually beginning to revert back to normal squirrels, with no particular reproductive advantage granted by the proto-wings.
I don't know how much of this is correct. The point is that there are many ways to explain the evolution of wings that don't invoke irreducible complexity, and there are many examples of 'half-evolved' (not that the phrase is particularly meaningful) wings in nature. - Viniator3, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1Ok, I see what you're saying. But I don't see where the cat fits into the squirrel discussion. Nonetheless, point taken. I can see how flying squirrels with more advantageous wingspans could benefit in the long run.
As far as I have observed (which is finite), either the animal's got wings "or it don't." But what would you consider specific examples of animals with half-formed wings? Alterations of size, color, etc., is a hallmark of natural selection, but what animals out there form gradually "developing" wings through alteration in skeletal structure? - covertbadger, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2Did you not read the posts you are replying to? I am suggesting that a flying squirrel is an animal with a half-formed wing. I do believe I've just presented that argument twice, along with speculation about how it came to be and where it may go in the future. The skeletal structure is an embellishment, not a fundamental requirement. Look at bats for an example of skeletal development - it is clear from looking at a bat's wing that the bones within it are analogous to fingers; a bat's wings are specialisations of the tiny flaps of skin most mammals have between their fingers, including humans. With squirrels, the 'wings' are flaps between the arm and torso - the armpit, effectively - and may or may not have skeletal support in some distant future.
- Viniator3, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Thank you for your insight.
- mlwarrior, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1The problem with a lot of religious people is that they use their ignorance of science as an advantage. For example, here Covert has formed a plausible hypothesis about evolution of a specific animal, however it's not proven. I've been in debates before where they will ask for proof on something like this, and of course this is all speculation, so they think they have won when they get none. They tactfully use their ignorance. The problem is that evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a theory and there are countless molecular and ecological proofs.
I'm just really tired of having to teach people about evolution, and them calling it a debate. I just want to tell them to read a book.
- covertbadger, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2Whoever said it went from no wings at all to *poof*? The wings are just a flap of skin where the legs join the torso. They provide a small amount of air resistance, which slow the animal's fall and provide rudimentary control. Hell, if you want an intermediate between the intermediates (do I sense the old creationist infinite degrees fallacy heading nonchalantly in the direction of this conversation?) it has been shown that the common domestic cat is able to somewhat control a fall by spread-eagling its limbs. Many years ago an ancestor of the squirrel found a reproductive advantage in being able to remain in the air longer. Maybe there was some evolutionary pressure from a ground-based predator, and squirrels with slightly larger flaps of skin found themselves able to cross larger gaps between trees without having to risk crossing the ground, by spread-eagling in flight. Maybe that slight advantage allowed those squirrels to move around more easily, and mate with other squirrels over a wider range of territory. Maybe gliding prowess eventually became an attractive trait to other squirrels, due to the advantages that inheritance of the trait would grant to offspring. Instinct is also evolutionary - if squirrels with larger wing flaps have an advantage, then so do those who choose to mate with the most able gliders.
- Viniator3, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Disregard the "progression to fully winged squirrels" statement. Sorry, I had missed what you had said about that sort of thing becoming advantageous. But if you could explain the transition from no wings at all to *poof*, a gliding flap...
- Viniator3, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Out of curiosity, how did we get from no wings on squirrels to the proto-wing of a flying squirrel? And where are the fully winged squirrels? I mean, we have squirrels without wings, and squirrels with a fully formed flap of skin on which it glides. Thus, a logical progression would yield winged squirrels, and every form of flap wings in between. Do enlighten me.
- covertbadger, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5For pity's sake. It's been shown over and over again how an eye could evolve from a simple light-sensitive patch of cells. The argument in your link is utterly moronic. At no point does it prove that the inverted retina is evidence of creation - all it does is argue clumsily that the inverted retina is not as useless as Dawkins argued in The Blind Watchmaker. Even if we grant that the inverted retina is useful, at no point is it shown that evolution could not have produced it (which would be impossible to show, since evolution DID produce it), and at no point is it shown that the only possible explanation for the inverted retina is a creator. This is typical of most ID garbage - it seeks out the tiniest flaw or uncertainty in genuine scientific theory and then claims that the imperfection is proof of creation, when it is no such thing.
- LittleDas, on 11/30/2007, -1/+4Well...
We did elect Bush
Twice
who didn't see this coming?- evilbob333, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Going for the cheap shot...Well Its not like I didn't think of the same joke
- bsmang, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2I wonder if this is anything like the political straw polls where poll-ees can simply purchase extra votes. I suppose not, but I wish it were so there'd at least be a potential logical explanation other than widespread retardation.
- Minishark, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Kill 4 Metal!!! Hail Satan!!!
- Ph0biA, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2I'm not a master of math, but 82% of people who believe in god and 42% of people who believe in evolution... 82+42=Miracle.... God Wins. /sarcasm
- evilbob333, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Believing in God and evolution is not mutually exclusive.
- srslyfkd, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0So... 82% of America believes in fiction, while only 42% believes in non-fiction.
We are *****. - addictist, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Darwin who???
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is