Obw has already published in a parallel thread statistical information regarding the acceptance of evolution in 34 countries world-wide.
Froberg, in the named thread, remarked how the presence of undecided electors in, say, Bulgaria, indicates the intellectual backwardness of the country. While I am not publicly opposed to this opinion, I do not think that avoiding a response in this case is a negative thing in itself. I hold this is a stance that originates in lack of knowledge and, as expressed, a social indifference towards the subject of evolution. It seems to me that, in such matters, when one extreme is lax the other will remain logically unemployed, thus paving the way for mass ignorance.
It also happens that the percentage of people who consider evolution true is considerably higher in economically prosperous states (exception being the USA), while countries that remain vassal to former regimes or are socially insecure are found on the bottom of the list. One could also invoke cthe roles of culture and traditions, but that is a slippery and windy path, and a separate discussion altogether.
So I thought it would be interesting to probe the community of ILP in relation to evolution. We can see what 5000+ philosophy buffs, thinkers, philosophers and legends think, and then draw our own conclusions.
I would vote but by doing so I’m saying macroevolution is true which I’m unsure of, and microevolution is true. A better poll would be Macroevolution since duh microevolution is true.
This seriously bothers me. Deceiving for motives, lets make them think since we have proof that creatures have evolutionized that we throw that into the same category that a pool of goop created a cell that soon became man they say. Ridiculous.
I think the main thing evolution has going for it is that religion itself is a part of evolutions. Religions evolve, just like anything else. Christianity is no different. At one time religion took the place of science as an explanatory model, but as I said… things have evolved.
Conversely, the main thing religion has going for it is that as a part of evolution, it is a required aspect and since it hasn’t been flushed out yet, some would claim we still need it, or that it is is socially ‘true’ in a certain sense, to certain individuals, as regarded by the third person.
Whether we think it true or not is largely irrelevant. Evolutionary theory explains certain natural and laboratory phenomena. Therefore it is a useful framework to understand how biological systems work and develop.
The real issue is whether it should be taught to kids in public schools. Given it’s value, I can’t see why not.
I agree with Ned’s word-for-word commentary in his first paragraph. At the end of the day, I couldn’t care less about what people believed … Be happy, I always said.
Surely one’s answer depends on what one thinks evolution is.
If “evolution” means the scientific facts about the age of the earth, the development of species via natural selction, etc, then it is not really a matter of belief. One accepts the best results of current science. Give evolution a tick.
But if “evolution” includes a belief in the cause of that process, whether it be a god (a philosophical statement, not a scientific one), or no god but random chance (also a philosophical statement), or something else, then my answers are tick, cross, how would I know?.
Random mutation is the theoretical means to an end, today, within the theory, though I personally know that it has more to do with morphic resonance and the spirits still connected to the living… Not all is lost. Not all is consciously known before it is actuated.