More Americans Accept Creationism Than Evolution

A new Gallup survey finds that 53% of Americans believe that “creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” is either “definitely true” or “probably true.” A full 68% of Republicans “do not believe in evolution.”

Further 41% believe that creationism is true, and that evolution is false whereas only 28% believe that evolution is true, but that creationism is false. That creationism and evolution, as defined in the survey, are mutually exclusive concepts seems not to trouble the 24% of Americans who “believe that both the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism are probably or definitely true.”

These results continue to stun me. Clearly, despite being rather conservative and having spent most of my life in the South, I’m not associating with typical Americans.

Hat tips: Taegan Goddard and Pollster.com

FILED UNDER: Public Opinion Polls, Religion, Science & Technology, ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Tlaloc says:

    That creationism and evolution, as defined in the survey, are mutually exclusive concepts seems not to trouble the 24% of Americans who “believe that both the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism are probably or definitely true.”

    I’ve known people who believed that man was created as is while the animals have been allowed to evolve, so it isn’t impossible to believe in both even with that fairly extreme definition of creationism.

    That said yes the country is amazingly scientifically illiterate.

  2. M1EK says:

    With the inroads that the nutjobs have made in primary and secondary education, plus the undeserved legitimacy given same nutjobs by the “portray both sides equally even when one is batsh*t insane” media, this is no surprise. And I hope that the Republicans who don’t believe this stuff at some point regret allying themselves with the people who are misinforming a whole generation of young people.

  3. Anderson says:

    Evolution’s *not taught in school* in most of the South, perhaps most of the nation; all that anyone knows about it is what they heard from Pat Robertson on the subject.

    It’s a wonder that so many believe in it as they do.

  4. William d'Inger says:

    That’s a shock, but it’s also unless information. The nature of the origin of the universe has no effect on the way people lead their daily lives. Were the numbers magically reversed at midnight tonight, there would be no measurable difference in the history of the nation.

  5. just me says:

    Anderson I wouldn’t go so far as to say it isn’t taught in the South, I grew up in the South and I learned evolution-granted it wasn’t real in depth in high school-but high school biology is more of an overview of the disciplione of biology rather than anything super specific.

    That said I would be interested to see if they clearly defined creationism and evolution in the study, and how they defined them. There are a lot of people that don’t believe in young earth creationism, but do believe in a God guided and directed evolution-and there doesn’t appear to be a catagory for them, which makes me wonder if those people aren’t lumped into one or the other and which one.

  6. Steve Verdon says:

    William,

    When you come down to a strain of disease that is resistant to the drugs to treat the disease, the information/theory of evolution suddenly becomes very, very important.

    And the fact that there are those who want to make scientific progress and learning subservient to the views of regligion, I think reversing the numbers would be a good thing for the future of the country.

  7. Mark says:

    I too went to public schools in southern Alabama, and they taught evolution in Biology class.

  8. James Joyner says:

    The nature of the origin of the universe has no effect on the way people lead their daily lives.

    True. But these numbers seem like a reasonable proxy for belief in scientific reason vice spiritual voodoo. In that light, these numbers are scary.

    It’s quite possible, of course, to be both scientifically literate and religious. That requires, however, moving away from the literal truth of religious allegories and treating them as mere means of conveying a larger truth.

  9. James Joyner says:

    I too went to public schools in southern Alabama, and they taught evolution in Biology class.

    I graduated high school in north central Alabama over 20 years ago and did grade school mostly in Texas, starting 35 years ago. They taught evolution in those days, despite doing the Lord’s Prayer over the intercom when I was in grade school and later “a moment of silent prayer.”

  10. Anderson says:

    Okay, it’s just Mississippi, then.

  11. Wayne says:

    I hesitate to put my input in again since both sides seem to be entrench in their believes. First of all, one can be scientifically literate and not agree with the science. Look at the history of science and one will see that many great minds disagree with establish science and was later proven right. Assuming someone is scientifically illiterate because they disagree with you says more about you than them.

    As I have posted before, if someone asks me if I believe in the theory of evolution, I could not accurately answer yes or no. I believe part of it is probably correct but much of it is inaccurate at best. In the end it comes down to personal belief on either side and please don’t assume that I haven’t heard the argument from the different sides. Yes, I know many from both sides assume that anyone that disagrees with them must be an idiot. Give all sides their say and the truth given enough time will usually prevail although what the truth is and/or was may never be known.

  12. Tlaloc says:

    First of all, one can be scientifically literate and not agree with the science.

    If we were talking about some forefront of scientific theory, sure. But evolution is right up there with gravity in terms of the sheer volume of supporting data.

    If a person thinks there is some problem with a detail of micro or macroevolution that’s one thing. Believing that humans were created ab initio in their present form despite the thousands of fossile remains of homo habilis, neanderthal, homo erectus, et cetera that we have and despite the DNA evidence that clearly links us to the great apes… well that’s just insane.

  13. Tlaloc says:

    In the end it comes down to personal belief on either side

    No, it doesn’t. It comes down to evidence, and there is a mountain of it in support of evolution, and none in support of young earth creationism.

    You most certailn can be religious and scientifically educated but as Mr. Joyner said above it requires that you view the Bible (or other tract) as parables rather than an actual history text.

  14. Michael says:

    If we were talking about some forefront of scientific theory, sure. But evolution is right up there with gravity in terms of the sheer volume of supporting data.

    That’s not exactly true. For example, we know the mechanism that drives evolution, the same can’t be said for Gravity. In many ways, Evolution has more supporting evidence than any current theory of Gravity.

    As I have posted before, if someone asks me if I believe in the theory of evolution, I could not accurately answer yes or no. I believe part of it is probably correct but much of it is inaccurate at best.

    That is essential a “Yes, I believe in evolution” because you believe that it happens, which is what I believe this survey was asking. It doesn’t matter if you believe the current theories explaining how it happens, only that you believe it does happen.

    For example, I believe that gravity exists, but I don’t think any of the current theories of how gravity works is accurate. The people in this survey as saying the equivalent of “Gravity doesn’t exist”, which we can all agree is batshit insane.

  15. Tlaloc says:

    That’s not exactly true. For example, we know the mechanism that drives evolution, the same can’t be said for Gravity. In many ways, Evolution has more supporting evidence than any current theory of Gravity.

    Actually it’s a better match than you think. In both cases we have reams of supporting evidence. In both cases we have an incomplete understanding of the mechanic. With gravity we understand how it works in relativity just fine but when it comes to a quantum theory of gravity (i.e. a theory of gravity that works with quantum mechanics) then we’re still at sea. Meanwhile we understand microevolution (variations within a species) just fine. But the mechanics of macroevolution (the change from one species to a new one) gives us some problems.

  16. >In the end it comes down to personal belief on
    >either side

    To answer William d’Inger’s early comment, this is why the poll is such a big deal. The origina of the universe may not effect most people’s daily lives, but the massive failure of reason that leads them to believe in creationism also makes them susceptible to faulty conclusions in areas that do matter greatly.

    Most people no longer believe that there is a such thing as objective truth. To most of the public, reality is this infinitely malleable blob of schmoo where the truth of a particular claim is determined purely by how strongly they feel about it.

  17. Michael says:

    Tlaloc,
    See, I would argue that Einstein didn’t explain the reason gravity works any more than Newton did. Newton described the mathematics behind the effects of gravity, and Einstein simply merged them into his relativistic transformations of space and time. Neither one of them explained what caused gravity, which is what quantum mechanics is trying and failing at right now.

  18. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Just what was it modern man evolved from James? Science cannot seem to find a missing link. Since modern man appeared about 100k years ago, there must be a specie that formed the basis for mutation. Where is it? You have things that are similar but there is no bridge over this river. I was watching the Discovery Science channel last night. The profess that a few seconds after the big bang, all of the universe would have fit in a ball you could put in the palm of your hand. Quit it. If anyone is gullible enough to believe in a theory that all the matter in the universe could have been compressed down to the size indicated, there are several other questions that need answering. Like who lit the fuse? Talk about blind faith. Or rather faith of the blind scientist who puts faith in theories. I have my beliefs that are age old, not the stupidity of believing in chemical accidents.

  19. Dennis says:

    I am a scientist. I am also a Christian. Your comment that the twp theories are mutually exclusive is wrong. I believe in theistic evolution. Evolution was God’s method for the creation.

  20. James Joyner says:

    I believe in theistic evolution. Evolution was God’s method for the creation.

    Lots of people believe that. But the poll gave a very specific definition of “creation” that excludes that: “the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”

  21. Michael says:

    I believe in theistic evolution. Evolution was God’s method for the creation.

    That would put you firmly in the “Believes in Evolution, doesn’t believe in Creationism” category.

    You don’t actually believe in both, you just credit God for the process of evolution. Technically a religious person should credit God for every natural process, shouldn’t he?

  22. floyd says:

    James;
    Be careful, “not associating with typical Americans” is what destroyed Rush limbaugh’s compass and common sense.

    Steve;
    I know how bad it hurts you, but the fact is there are millions who are as well educated as you who disagree with you. More Christians have read Pfeiffer,Wells etc. than atheists have read the Moses, Paul etc.
    Remember, knowing clockwork is not the same as knowing what time it is.

  23. Steve Verdon says:

    floyd,

    Denying the rather obvious implications of all the evidence that Tlaloc has been talking about is…well insane isn’t a bad word. The evidence is staggeringly large…so much so that nobody can grasp all of it.

    So, I don’t think these people are making rational decisions when they reject the theory of evolution. In fact, I’d say they are being dogmatic.

  24. floyd says:

    One more thing, “Dogma is dangerous,truth is immutable,and objective study reveals the difference.”FC
    Too much dogma will destroy the scientist first and the theologian second.
    Whether it’s Eureka!! or Revelation, many on both sides are in for an epiphany!

  25. Michael says:

    Steve is right, people who deny the process of evolution don’t do so for rational reasons. The truth of the matter is that there is too large a body of evidence to deny that the process of evolution did and does take place.

  26. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Why have not chimpanzees evolved further? Evolution, to some degree is scientific fact but it cannot answer several questions. Like the one above. Theories are on thing, hard evidence is another.

  27. carpeicthus says:

    I think polls make people stupid. You get a giant margin of error of people picking mutually exclusive answers. It’s not that Americans are that batshit crazy, we just don’t read the freaking manual.

  28. hln says:

    We humans are funny creatures. How little we actually know. And we puff our chests and claim we’ve figured out the universe or at least our corner of it. Well, in 300 years, the human race will be doing the same puffing, assuming it still exists. And the people living then will be LAUGHING about our lack of scientific and, actually, general knowledge. Look at how much has changed both in knowledge and application in just our lifetimes.

    That being said, here’s what won’t change. There’s a God, or there’s no God. What we THINK, reason, pontificate, debate – all completely irrelevant.

    If you’re raised religious, you likely believe in a higer power, whom I’ll call God…because that’s what I call Him. There are things you just KNOW – the knowledge of the soul – like the perfection of a newborn baby is just not some random flitting of cells from a sperm and an egg from beings evolved from primates. The interaction of all of nature, in spite of all of man’s (mostly inadvertent or inattentive) misuse of this Earth. The amazingly complex fine tuning of the universe and the fact that even though we’re so stinking enlightened – come on, pat ourselves on the back, scientists – we can manipulate embryonic stem cells and for our efforts make a bunch of cancer – that we cannot disprove the existence of God or how/why humans arrived on the Earth and continue to exist.

    At risk of this becoming way too long, here’s the point. Christians should be studying evolution and corresponding apologetics to be able to defend the basics of their belief. Evolution is what all of us are taught, and certainly we can see that some things evolve and/or mutate. The American media loves to portray Christians as being more flawed than the general secular public or stupid. Or, on a good news day, Christians display both tendencies, and, woo, boy, we have news. Oh how the mighty (and stupid) have fallen.

    Polls like this accomplish that agenda. “Belief” in anything requires a leap of faith. From belief in your spouse’s love for you to belief in government control. If you poll someone about his or her belief, at least a PART of that belief is founded on something that’s not purely rational.

    hln

  29. LaurenceB says:

    I am proud to say that my fellow Independents were the least likely to believe that man was placed on earth by God within the last 10,000 years.

    Well done Independents!

    For those keeping score:

    Independents: Mostly not stupid
    Dems: A little bit stupider
    Repubs: Stupid

  30. brainy435 says:

    I recieved all of my K-12 education in private, Catholic schools in Ohio and evolution was taught in depth. No one threw a fit, no one screamed blasphemy.

    My point is that it’s not necessarily the religion, it’s how it’s practiced.

  31. Wayne says:

    Where to start? First gravity and evolution is not on the same level of science. I can drop a ball and directly observe gravity. Macroevolution has never been directly observed.

    Macroevolution, which is what most people are talking about when they talk evolution, only has circumstantial evidence. Gravity has much more. Having similar DNA does not prove evolution. My car is similar with my brothers yet they did not come from the same factory or engineer. A similarity does make one wonder what they have in common but to make a conclusion of what it is would be a leap of faith.

    Also when one ask these surveys, the questions are often not clear even if they give definitions. Questions in general often depend on what a person whether being the questioner or the answerer we think is being asked. When they ask if you believe in evolution many believe they are asking if one believe in the current “Theory of Evolution”. They will also disregard definitions given since they know this is a method for people to manipulate polls.

    One more thing, many now believe that Neanderthals were not are ancestors but simply another offshoot. Theories have a tendency to change.

  32. LaurenceB says:

    Wayne,

    Let’s assume the Theory of Evolution is utter nonsense. OK?

    Now explain why I should believe that man was placed on earth by God less than 10,000 years ago.

    Thanks!

  33. Michael says:

    Well, in 300 years, the human race will be doing the same puffing, assuming it still exists. And the people living then will be LAUGHING about our lack of scientific and, actually, general knowledge.

    I don’t see why they would be laughing at us, we don’t laugh at the science of 300 years ago. We laugh at the mysticism and pseudo-science yes, but not the actual science, even when it is disproven.

    The amazingly complex fine tuning of the universe and the fact that even though we’re so stinking enlightened – come on, pat ourselves on the back, scientists – we can manipulate embryonic stem cells and for our efforts make a bunch of cancer – that we cannot disprove the existence of God or how/why humans arrived on the Earth and continue to exist.

    Ok, first, what fine tuning are you talking about? As far as we can tell, the universe is remarkably hostile to human existance.

    Secondly, I don’t know of any instance where the manipulation of stem cells has caused cancer in anybody. There is a long list of known carcinogens, but I don’t think stem cells are on there.

    Finally, the fact that we can’t disprove the existence of God has less to do with his existance than it does the fact that the christian description of God actually requires that there be no means to (scientifically) test for his existance.

  34. Michael says:

    Where to start? First gravity and evolution is not on the same level of science.

    Agreed, infact upthread I even made the point that theories of gravity are much less mature than theories of evolution.

    Macroevolution has never been directly observed.

    You say that like Macroevolution is materially different from microevolution. It’s not a difference in process, it’s a difference in scale. Even speciation does not define a material difference between animals, but a difference in scale between animals.

    That scale we use to separate them is completely defined by scientists as a convenience. To say you believe in Microevolution implies that you believe in Macroevolution, because there is no difference between them other than the scale of the observation. It would be like saying you believe in near-earth gravity but not interplanetary gravity.

  35. Wayne says:

    I bet the pseudo-science of 300 years ago thought their science was actual science. Exactly how much of today’s science will be considered pseudo-science 300 years will only be known 300 years from now.

    LaurenceB

    For one thing I do believe in evolution in one form or other but I recognize it is a believe base on circumstantial evidence.

    As for support for 10,000-year arguments, there are population models, writing analyses, biblical reference, and others. Most seem weak to me. Of course if one doesn’t mind taking leaps of faith and stretching for explanations then one can explain how it could have happen that way. Basically if God can create everything then he can great everything as it is 10,000 year ago. Why he did it that way takes some explaining.

    There are other explanations as well. For example, all creatures were created at the beginning with species go extinct throughout time. Fossils records don’t show this since fossils records are so scarce in the first place. If one can believe that fossils don’t exist for missing links because of this fossils scarcity then why not believe that a small population of a species in early time doesn’t exist in the older fossil records for the same reason.

    Post is getting to long but I think you get the jest.

  36. Steve Verdon says:

    Where to start? First gravity and evolution is not on the same level of science. I can drop a ball and directly observe gravity. Macroevolution has never been directly observed.

    Technically it has. Speciation events have been noted and catalogued. If you mean a cat has dropped out of a dog, then yeah it hasn’t been obsereved.

    Further, I find that last possibility most amusing when Creationists suggest that is what they need to see to believe in evolution. Put another way: for the Creationist to believe evolution they must see evidence AGAINST evolutionary thoery.

    Macroevolution, which is what most people are talking about when they talk evolution, only has circumstantial evidence.

    What is the difference between “Macroevolution” and “Microevolution”? My guess is you don’t know. One is a change at or above the species level, the other is a change below the species level. The processes in both cases are pretty much the same. Thus if you believe one, logic strongly suggests you believe the other.

    Also, Michael’s comments are pretty good. The concept of “species” is a human construct and like all human constructs is more for convenience and also prone to inaccuracy at times. Acting like the notion of species is some God-given concept is just plain silly.

    One more thing, many now believe that Neanderthals were not are ancestors but simply another offshoot. Theories have a tendency to change.

    Yes, which makes the use of the words “faith”, “belief”, and “dogma” as used for religion being applied to science completely and totally intellectually dishonest. And a change in theories is a good thing, it means that when new information comes along we change our minds if the data tells that is what we need to do. Most of us call it progress.

  37. Wayne says:

    Michael
    To say which theory is more mature is subjective at best. Gravity existing is not as debatable as evolution is. There is direct observation of it.

    One type of evolution does not prove another. There is a difference between micro and macro. My body adapts. It gets physically stronger if I do physical work. That change can be call evolution of some sort but it does not prove that a species evolve into another species.

    Near gravity and far gravity is considered by some as not being the same thing. One doesn’t prove the other. Cohesion of water only works when the water molecules are close enough together for that force to work.

  38. Michael says:

    For one thing I do believe in evolution in one form or other but I recognize it is a believe base on circumstantial evidence.

    If you cared to learn more about it, your belief would instead be based on definitive observational evidence. The fact that your belief is based on circumstantial evidence is only because that is the only evidence you know of, not because that is the only evidence there is.

    Of course if one doesn’t mind taking leaps of faith and stretching for explanations then one can explain how it could have happen that way.

    If one is willing to do all that, you can explain anything, even a flat earth. Generally making leaps of faith and stretching explanations beyond their logical implications is considered a bad thing.

    There are other explanations as well. For example, all creatures were created at the beginning with species go extinct throughout time. Fossils records don’t show this since fossils records are so scarce in the first place. If one can believe that fossils don’t exist for missing links because of this fossils scarcity then why not believe that a small population of a species in early time doesn’t exist in the older fossil records for the same reason.

    I don’t see how you can call the enormous amount of unearthed fossils “scarce”. Further more, you completely miss the fact that we do have a large collection of those so-called transitional fossils. Species don’t suddenly appear in the fossil record, there is a very well recorded history of their evolution.

  39. Michael says:

    To say which theory is more mature is subjective at best. Gravity existing is not as debatable as evolution is. There is direct observation of it.

    Again, we have direct observational evidence of evolution as well. But we’re not talking about the facts that they do happen, we’re talking about the mechanisms (aka, theories) that make them happen. In that regard, evolution is more mature.

    One type of evolution does not prove another. There is a difference between micro and macro. My body adapts. It gets physically stronger if I do physical work. That change can be call evolution of some sort but it does not prove that a species evolve into another species.

    Your body changing (adaptation) has nothing at all to do with evolution. You building your muscles will make you stronger, but won’t do a thing for your offspring. Evolution deals only with changes that are passed on to your offspring’s DNA. That process is the same whether you talk about micro or macro evolution.

    Near gravity and far gravity is considered by some as not being the same thing. One doesn’t prove the other. Cohesion of water only works when the water molecules are close enough together for that force to work.

    Ok, there are theories about an additional gravity-like force that operates over larger differences that is being used as an alternative to dark matter theories. But given your level of understanding about evolution, I doubt you understand multi-dimensional physics half as well. Nothing personal, it’s just very heavy stuff.

    Water cohesion operates on a principle that doesn’t change with distance. The reason you only see the effect at close proximities is because there is a threshold where other forces overpower those that cause the cohesion. It’s like the difference between a satellite’s orbital velocity and escape velocity, gravity doesn’t get weaker the faster you go (indeed it gets stronger, but again that’s complex physics), but your inertia becomes strong enough to overcome the force of gravity.

  40. Wayne says:

    Michael
    Cohesive force is not a simple attraction of molecules. Claiming that a water molecule is cohesive with another molecule on the other side the galaxy is ridiculous. Only when they are close enough where the Hydrogen and the Oxygen molecules align does one get cohesive forces in water. They may attract as any molecule does but that not the same force as cohesion.

    A body evolves from physically weak to strong, resistant weak to a virus to strong resistant to a virus and so on. Some may carry over to the off springs and some may not. Surely you do deny that. One form of evolution doesn’t however prove any other form of evolution but only show the tendency of nature.

    You claim that the amounts of fossils are not scarce. I admit there are similarities between some fossils as there are similarities between today living creatures. However can you point to fossils collection that has a chicken like creature with half develop wing or even a snake mostly form leg. Tiny stubs that may have been legs at one time don’t count. If the fossils collection are as extensive as you claim then there should be 1000 fossils showing a gradual development of one of today’s species. They don’t. Instead the have fossils that have similarities but are great leaps in evolution. If I’m wrong point me to one of these collections.

    I’m sure you think that the circumstantial evidence is more than that but you fooling yourself.

    Can you give me one example of observed Macroevolution and don’t give me that all evolution is the same. It is not.

  41. Wayne says:

    Michael
    One more thing, you show how quick you are at jumping to conclusion without facts. We have not gone into any detail or even had that long of a discussion. Yet you have jump to conclusion of my study and understanding of a subject.

    Your smugness doesn’t prove jack about your points.

  42. Michael says:

    Cohesive force is not a simple attraction of molecules. Claiming that a water molecule is cohesive with another molecule on the other side the galaxy is ridiculous.

    The cohesive properties of water is nothing more than electro-magnetic attraction. Like all electromagnetic forces, it’s strength decreases with the square of the distance between two interacting bodies. Regardless of what you might think, two water molecules on opposite sides of the galaxy do still have an electromagnetic force between them. But at that distance the force is so small that all other forces dominate their reactions.

    body evolves from physically weak to strong, resistant weak to a virus to strong resistant to a virus and so on. Some may carry over to the off springs and some may not. Surely you do deny that. One form of evolution doesn’t however prove any other form of evolution but only show the tendency of nature.

    Physical strength achieved through exercise does not get passed to offspring. Antibodies are what give people acquired viral resistance, and are shared between a mother and offspring through shared fluids, not their DNA. Antibodies in the father are NOT passed on to their offspring.

    However can you point to fossils collection that has a chicken like creature with half develop wing or even a snake mostly form leg. Tiny stubs that may have been legs at one time don’t count.

    What is the substantive difference between a “stub” and a half-formed limb? Also, what would be the difference between an “arm” and a “wing”? You seem to be asking for a specific feature, then immediately following with a restriction that the specific feature wouldn’t “count”. It’s like asking for a circle, then saying round objects don’t count.

    Can you give me one example of observed Macroevolution and don’t give me that all evolution is the same. It is not.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation contains several examples of natural and human directed speciation.

    One more thing, you show how quick you are at jumping to conclusion without facts. We have not gone into any detail or even had that long of a discussion. Yet you have jump to conclusion of my study and understanding of a subject.

    Again, it’s nothing personal, but the fact that you tried to use untested multidimensional theories as evidence of a scientific disagreement about whether Newtonian gravity is consistent over large distances was proof enough that you didn’t actually understand them. If you see someone trying to use a hammer to cut plywood, it’s safe to assume they’re not a carpenter.

  43. floyd says:

    Some people seem to have difficulty separating that which is rational from that which is merely rationalization.

  44. Michael says:

    Ok, I had a big long post in reply to Wayne, and it’s not showing up. What gives Dr. Joyner? I can’t even re-post it because it says I’ve already posted a duplicate comment.

  45. Wayne says:

    Michael
    FYI in case you haven’t read the policy, if the post is too long it usually won’t be posted. Also too many hyperlinks will prevent it from being posted. The limit was at three hyperlinks in the past but I haven’t tested that lately. It is a pain on discussion like this but that the way it is.

  46. James Joyner says:

    FYI in case you haven’t read the policy, if the post is too long it usually won’t be posted. Also too many hyperlinks will prevent it from being posted.

    True. Those posts will get screened out by the built-in filters and I will free the legit ones by hand. The only time I dump a post for being too long is if it’s obviously a cut-and-paste being dumped on every blog post about a certain topic.

  47. Michael says:

    Ok, thanks. I knew that too many links will get it screened, but I didn’t know length would get it screened also. I’ll break them up into smaller chunks from now on.

  48. Michael says:

    Zeldorf:

    Why have not chimpanzees evolved further?

    Um, they have evolved further. Just like humans have, and just about every other creature on earth. Just because they haven’t broken into 2 distinct species while we’ve been watching them doesn’t mean they’re done evolving.

  49. Wayne says:

    Michael
    Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring your post. I zip in on occasion for short times. That was why I didn’t want to get into this discursion in first place. Didn’t have time to look some things up to confirm. I never got around to finding some books that either James or Steve recommended either in an earlier post discussion.

    I knew about the wheat but most people won’t acknowledge plant and animals as comparable. Also knew of the fruit flies experiment but most dismiss this as using high amount of radiation that doesn’t generally happen in nature to get flies that generally wouldn’t survive in nature. It doesn’t show that macro evolutiuon has happen but does indicate it is possible. I still say that fossil records are very incomplete.

    The ring observation I was unaware of. Could be another explanation and does bring into question the so call biology breeding requirement but I chalk that up to the over simplication of many classrooms for learning purposes.

    I have bookmark your reference, which I should have been able to find myself. I will find some time to research it so I can have more ammo for belief that evolution happen and yes I still consider most of what I believe in evolution as a belief.

    I will admit that evolution is not a top interest of mine. I study physics and light/energy theory more than evolution. Unconventional warfare and IT technology is were I spend most of my efforts,

    Side note
    H2O+-H -O-H.
    The effect is twofold: The bonding is stronger and is directional. The directional nature of hydrogen bonding requires the two molecules to adopt a specific relative geometry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction

    A related quantity is the energy of cohesion, which is the energy released when two bodies of the same liquid become joined by a boundary of unit area.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

  50. Wayne says:

    Michael
    Looks like my reply has at least been temporary block. In case it doesn’t get ublock, I want thank you for your time.

  51. Michael says:

    Side note
    H2O+-H -O-H.
    The effect is twofold: The bonding is stronger and is directional. The directional nature of hydrogen bonding requires the two molecules to adopt a specific relative geometry.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_attraction

    A related quantity is the energy of cohesion, which is the energy released when two bodies of the same liquid become joined by a boundary of unit area.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

    I’m not entirely sure I get what you’re trying to say here.

  52. Wayne says:

    Only when to two molecules are in close proximity of each other does it have the H2O+-H -O-H which cause a strong cohesive force\surface tension\intermolecular attraction. If they are on the other side of the galaxy then they are both H2O with attractions little difference from any other molecule. Water is not the only substance that has special bonding forces when in close proximately. Therefore my original point that some forces in nature are limited to a certain range is true.

    FYI I do believe Gravitation force is universals but I am open to the possibility that said force may act in a special way when in close proximity or for that matter there could be forces that we are not ware of. Intermolecular forces being one of them depending on the distance that is discussed.

  53. Michael says:

    Only when to two molecules are in close proximity of each other does it have the H2O+-H -O-H which cause a strong cohesive force\surface tension\intermolecular attraction. If they are on the other side of the galaxy then they are both H2O with attractions little difference from any other molecule. Water is not the only substance that has special bonding forces when in close proximately. Therefore my original point that some forces in nature are limited to a certain range is true.

    Ok, yes when in close proximity 2 water molecules will take up this particular configuration. But that doesn’t mean that the principle behind the attraction (electromagnetism) changes over distance, it just means that at a close enough proximity, that inter-molecule attraction has a significant enough force (at that distance) compared to the intra-molecule attraction to change their field orientation and bond the molecules together. But the principles of electromagnetism, like the charge of an electron, does not change with distance.

    FYI I do believe Gravitation force is universals but I am open to the possibility that said force may act in a special way when in close proximity or for that matter there could be forces that we are not ware of. Intermolecular forces being one of them depending on the distance that is discussed.

    Again, the gravitational constant (G) does not change over distance. The theories I mentioned above introduce an additional gravity-like force (or forces) who’s effects are more noticeable at large distances than the effects of traditional gravity.

    Science depends on the fact that these principles do not change over time or distance, which is why we call them constants. If someone believes that they are variable, then everything we know about science (not just physics) must be called into question.

    Generally, it’s better to just admit that you’re probably wrong rather than re-write all of science to fit your beliefs. Evidently 53% of Americans don’t feel the same way.

  54. Wayne says:

    Science has always come with an amount of assumptions. It is hard to make progress without doing so. Often the assumptions are well founded. Sometime they hold up fully, partially or not at all. Science has been rewritten and\or quantify on a regular bases and most probably will again. Constants are nice to work with and most don’t want to deal with the thought that some may not be as constant as the think then again maybe they are.

    Most experiments assume certain constants and if the results are within a certain variance, it is accepted as experimental error.

    There is a study of chaos that state that some constant are not constants but a variable that fall into a define area with an average value. Sounds familiar? Generally this doesn’t matter unless you happen to get enough variances to line up in just the right order to cause a highly unexpected result.

    I work with constants and assumptions but try to remember that they are just that. If one constant is proven wrong does that negate all studies? It doesn’t even negate all studies that use that constant.

    As you first stated, gravity theory is not all that mature. It is hard to study the attraction of multiple objects since it can’t be isolated. Also our observation of the universe is pretty much from one point. One key element is time. Time for the most part is a measurement of an event. Light and atomic clocks are well like because they seem to be most constant observe event between two are more like systems. Keep in mind these are local phenomenon with “assumption” for the most part that it is the same somewhere else in universe. Change this assumption and one can get some interesting models. Another point, assumptions on the basic layer tend to rely on itself for proof of assumption.

    Just like the assumption that the universal expansion must be slowing down but later was found to be increasing, doesn’t call for throwing out all research. Just have to rethink things and yes I know that not the same level as the gravitational constant.