On the origin of ignorance

(If I seem to quote Pieret a lot, it’s because he finds this stuff faster than my Google News traps.)

Unfortunately, you're both wrong. People who are religious and/or stupid tend to breed at much higher rates than those who are neither. When is the last time you heard of a scientist with 8+ children?

Since western societies have more-or-less stopped natural selection in it's tracks, the only criteria for genetic propagation is how many children you're able/willing to pump out.

As I said here just recently, we *are* losing the "Cultural Wars". If you hold your nose just right, you can almost smell it in the air. And while killing and eating them might be the "natural selection" correct thing to do, I suspect they have a very flat, musty taste and no nutritional value...

When is the last time you heard of a scientist with 8+ children?

Gloves have to be removed..all this nonsense about respecting religious sensitivities has got to be deep sixed.

This starts in school...that is where the separation of reality and myth must be enforced with a crow bar of rationality.

Because it is getting ridiculous this pandering to this delusion or that...is it not time this liberalness doctrine was ditched...in 100years it will be a mute point that we were religiously diverse enough to indulge fantasies as facts in this age...when science will be the only front line bulwark against global warming or pollution or disease or any challenge that occurs in the 21st century let alone the 22nd!

We are slowly allowing society to be strangled and the victim to be buried will eventually be science...that has always been the anti-christ in some quarters!

As the man said, natural selection in action.

Call me an optimist for sure...but I see a glimmer of hope in the Information Age.

Surely there must be a natural selection process for thought and ideas. Rational thought has floated to the top over the past five or six centuries...slower than we may have wished...but still, the direction is correct and inevitable, yes?

Well, obviously having 8+ children kicks your publication record in the hole, but I personally know quite notable scientist with 5 kids (alas, I don't know anyone with 8 kids, religiously inspired or otherwise), Anyway, this whole 'stupid people are breeding' elitist please can't we bring eugenics back nonsense is being espoused far to readily by otherwise well meaning people and it needs to be stopped now.

Seriously, I thought fears of the impending apocalypse were the exclusive purview of the boozed up street preachers. Since when did rational people start worrying that the hoi polloi were going to storm the castle and smear shit on ethereally beautiful scientific do-dads?

I know that it is hard to remember with the intelligent design movement constantly spewing anti-scientific garbage into the media, but honestly, people are remarkably intelligent, and predisposed to compassion, empathy and curiosity. I think that the scientific world view is compelling enough to win the world over through the slow accumulation of converts, and does not need to resort to compulsory re-education of the opposition.

Horizontal cultural transition is an extraordinary powerful thing, and from my personal knowledge I can tell you that a very large percentage of those kids growing up in the 7+ children families will grow up to be good agnostic intellectuals with strong liberal western values. Remember, the abhorrent actions of deranged religious parents tends to sour the message of Christian love and tolerance that they wish to propagate.

Poets, writers and musicians will continue to secularize culture to the detriment of irrational and damaging cults.

Take it for what it is worth.

With these various surveys about people "believing" evolution and such I do wonder how the results would come out if the possible replies were more nuanced to allow a broader span of belief (regardless of the illogic of the potential responese.)

For example, if an included potential response was along the lines of "Evolution exists, but only applies to everything but mankind, which was a special creation" would that produce a noticable split in the 3/4 "no natural selection" reported above.

The simplistic black/white options are one reason I think most surveys are relatively useless for really learning opinions. Complicated by many of them being poorly worded and often therefore carrying considerable bias into the question.

With these various surveys about people “believing” evolution and such I do wonder how the results would come out if the possible replies were more nuanced to allow a broader span of belief (regardless of the illogic of the potential responses.)

According to a survey conducted recently, 75% of British people don’t get Charles Darwin.

http://www.icecap.us/ This is a group of global warming denialists who happen to be meteorologists, but are obviously clueless when it comes to chemistry. First, please review my earlier blog entry: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/those-terrible-twins-of-climate-change-co2-and-h2o/ Now, what do these “experts” say about the matter? They list this on bold as a “myth”, not a fact, and attempt to refute it: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#5 CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

stevaroni said: I suspect the honest response would be "This evolution stuff seems to have a lot of scientific support, but it's complicated and I don't understand it, and I'm not comfortable giving up the simple explanation I was taught".

raven said: Not quite sure what this means. What percentage would get quantum mechanics, general relativity, or string theory? How many would have even heard of all three?

Well lets see, the origin of ignorance ??????

The origins of the current YEC movement in the UK (even here in Norn Iron) is the US. The current upsurge in YEC activity in the UK is largely due to Ham's AiG (and it's various offshoots i.e. CMI, Biblical foundations etc.) Certainly when I was young in the 70'/80's I don't ever remember an anti-evolution sentiment in Christian circles. Neither do I remember flood geology or nonsensical ideas such as dinosaurs living alongside humans in the Garden of Eden being preached from the pulpit.

There's an old saying in this country. "Only in America" i.e. you can be sure anything wacky has it's origins in the US. Pet rocks are a typical example (apparently they're making a comeback as well). YECism is just another crazy idea coming from the US. I suppose you could argue that Ham is Australian, but then there where the Morris' before him.

Still, wasn't there a survey carried out in the US a few years ago in which around 30% of the respondents believed the Sun went around the Earth ?

I submit that it is harder to determine the origin of ingnorance than it is to determine the speed of dark. If light is the fastest thing there is, then how come dark always gets there first? Of course creationists want to keep everyone ignorant by keeping them in the dark. Coincidence?

Peter Henderson said: ... Certainly when I was young in the 70'/80's I don't ever remember an anti-evolution sentiment in Christian circles. Neither do I remember flood geology or nonsensical ideas such as dinosaurs living alongside humans in the Garden of Eden being preached from the pulpit...

Larry_boy said: Well, obviously having 8+ children kicks your publication record in the hole, but I personally know quite notable scientist with 5 kids (alas, I don't know anyone with 8 kids, religiously inspired or otherwise), Anyway, this whole 'stupid people are breeding' elitist please can't we bring eugenics back nonsense is being espoused far to readily by otherwise well meaning people and it needs to be stopped now. X...snip...X Horizontal cultural transition is an extraordinary powerful thing, and from my personal knowledge I can tell you that a very large percentage of those kids growing up in the 7+ children families will grow up to be good agnostic intellectuals with strong liberal western values. Remember, the abhorrent actions of deranged religious parents tends to sour the message of Christian love and tolerance that they wish to propagate. Poets, writers and musicians will continue to secularize culture to the detriment of irrational and damaging cults. Take it for what it is worth.

YECism is just another crazy idea coming from the US. I suppose you could argue that Ham is Australian, but then there where the Morris’ before him. Still, wasn’t there a survey carried out in the US a few years ago in which around 30% of the respondents believed the Sun went around the Earth ?

Peter Henderson said: There's an old saying in this country. "Only in America" i.e. you can be sure anything wacky has it's origins in the US.

llanitedave said: I have to agree with this, especially the quoted points. Ignorance, superstition, and religiosity is not inherited genetically, and what's more, children are socialized far more by their peer groups than by their parents.

The bell curve is alive and well, perhaps skewed towards the lower end? People prefer comfort food fed to them rather than have to work to understand it.

...or maybe 75% of the Brits are right. Maybe the Darwinists are being "naturally unselected". Isnt that how eveolution works ;)

Dolly Sheriff said: ...or maybe 75% of the Brits are right. Maybe the Darwinists are being "naturally unselected". Isnt that how eveolution works ;)

Dolly Sheriff said: ...or maybe 75% of the Brits are right. Maybe the Darwinists are being "naturally unselected". Isnt that how eveolution works ;)

Unfortunately, you're both wrong. People who are religious and/or stupid tend to breed at much higher rates than those who are neither. When is the last time you heard of a scientist with 8+ children?

For those that haven't seen it, I recommend Mike Judge's "Idiocracy":

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

as to the origins of anti-science behavior... Didn't we actually discuss this paper on this very site when it was originally published?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996

50% - More Conservatives Now Say Churches Should Stay Out of Politics Wed Sep 24, 12:00 AM ET Half of self-described conservatives now express the view that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics; four years ago, only 30% of conservatives expressed this view. Overall, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds a narrow majority of the public (52%) now says that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues. The survey also finds that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. As a result, conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared. There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

And so we would enter a new Dark Ages.

Again with the false dichotomy. Either or, fundamentalism or biology with nothing in between. And you have to ask why so many people then choose to reject science.

How can you say that people reject evolution because it's difficult to understand? Evolution is supposed to be so obvious that you must immediately accept it. All you have to do is look at a drawing of monkeys slowly turning into men (a drawing is just an opinion) and a water-colour painting of primitive people sitting around looking miserable. (Again, just an opinion, just like a painting of Adam & Eve doesn't prove they existed).

novparl said: How can you say that people reject evolution because it's difficult to understand?

novparl said: Evolution is supposed to be so obvious that you must immediately accept it. All you have to do is look at a drawing of monkeys slowly turning into men (a drawing is just an opinion) and a water-colour painting of primitive people sitting around looking miserable. (Again, just an opinion, just like a painting of Adam & Eve doesn't prove they existed).

novparl said: How can you say that people reject evolution because it's difficult to understand? Evolution is supposed to be so obvious that you must immediately accept it. All you have to do is look at a drawing of monkeys slowly turning into men (a drawing is just an opinion) and a water-colour painting of primitive people sitting around looking miserable. (Again, just an opinion, just like a painting of Adam & Eve doesn't prove they existed).

Congratulations, novparl, you've just made FL look intelligent AND honest.

novparl said: How can you say that people reject evolution because it's difficult to understand? Evolution is supposed to be so obvious that you must immediately accept it. All you have to do is look at a drawing of monkeys slowly turning into men (a drawing is just an opinion) and a water-colour painting of primitive people sitting around looking miserable. (Again, just an opinion, just like a painting of Adam & Eve doesn't prove they existed).

But they tell me, while approving miracles, canonising the extra-holy, opposing stem cell research, and abortion, and birth control, and gay people, and bad words, and the simple ability to think independently, that natural selection is only a theory. Only.

Raging Bee said: Congratulations, novparl, you've just made FL look intelligent AND honest.

mike lost in space: Again with the false dichotomy. Either or, fundamentalism or biology with nothing in between. And you have to ask why so many people then choose to reject science.

Hoppe wrote:

"According to a survey conducted recently, 75% of British people don’t get Charles Darwin. Astounding. [...] It should come as no surprise, however. Reportedly, these folk harbour “doubts” as to natural selection."

This doesn't follow. Not "getting" Darwin does NOT connote a direct parallel to "doubting" Natural Selection as a process for evolution, or even a strength of it, as there are enough "evolutionists" who doubt Natural Selection as a process of any weight in evolution, versus other natural, not "mythic" processes (and I'm not referring to ID or anything relating to religion).

Peter Henderson said: I suppose you could argue that Ham is Australian

Fear conquers all reasoning.

There is nothing between dinner and science or daylight and science either.

We all know where the basis of our civilization comes from. Not much of rejection there.

mike: Both are a part of our culture, and both are a part of the lives of the majority. The concept that one must reject one or the other is loudly and senselessly asserted by two extremes.

You can make use of technology, memorize a bucket of disconnected facts, become the chief executive of the country, and not have the faintest inkling of what science is.

Ken Ham hails originally from Gympie, a small town in Queensland, where he claims to have been born in a stable. Uh-huh.

Rural Queensland is difficult to describe. "Redneck" doesn't cut it. It's sort of like "Deliverance" without decent banjo picking. For generations, Australia sent its misanthropes and morons there, bidding them populate or perish. Regrettably, many of them did the former rather than the latter, usually with the assistance of close relatives.

Ken's the predictable result of this environment. The only thing to be said in its defence, or his, is that he left in 1987 (after a sectarian scandal, involving charges of devil worship and necrophilia, no less) and hasn't been back. I have no idea of who or how much the Australian government pays to maintain this state of affairs, but it's worth every penny.

@ phantom-

I've produced plenty of evidence. You're too dishonest & foul-mouthed to look at it. You're scared you'll lose your blind faith. Don't worry, you won't against your will.

I look forward to some more of your hysterical abuse.

novparl said: @ phantom- I've produced plenty of evidence. You're too dishonest & foul-mouthed to look at it. You're scared you'll lose your blind faith. Don't worry, you won't against your will. I look forward to some more of your hysterical abuse.

novparl said: @ phantom- I've produced plenty of evidence. You're too dishonest & foul-mouthed to look at it. You're scared you'll lose your blind faith. Don't worry, you won't against your will. I look forward to some more of your hysterical abuse.

Yeah, right -- in novparl's laughable little mind, saying "I thought evolution was supposed to be simple!" is "plenty of evidence." Does your mom know you're posting here, boy?

At least FL sometimes tries to sound 'sciencey.' Novparl just throws up the condescending one liners claiming persecution.

Novparl rants... I’ve produced plenty of evidence. You’re too dishonest & foul-mouthed to look at it.

Rural Queensland is difficult to describe. ... For generations, Australia sent its misanthropes and morons there, bidding them populate or perish.

stevaroni said: So if Britain sent it's misanthropes to Australia, and Australia sent its misanthropes to Queensland...

Reminds me of the old gag about the Pommy tourist visiting Oz and being given a hard time by a customs woman. She asks: "Have you ever been arrested?" Pause. "I didn't realize it was still a requirement."

we got the convicts and you got the Puritans, and hence we did better out of the deal.

Dave Luckett said: There may be something in that, after all.

Incidentally, up to the Revolution the British were shipping their convicts to the American colonies. It was one of the grievances that helped lead to the Revolution. With the pipeline across the Atlantic shut off, the Crown had to figure out where to dump the convicts ... and so the American Revolution helped lead to the settlement of Australia. What ironies might be extracted from this historial factoid are
of no concern to me.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

FL said: At least FL sometimes tries to sound 'sciencey.' Novparl just throws up the condescending one liners claiming persecution.

novparl said: @ phantom- I've produced plenty of evidence. You're too dishonest & foul-mouthed to look at it. You're scared you'll lose your blind faith. Don't worry, you won't against your will.

Of course, in the current milieu, poor human beings have more children than rich human beings.

In many areas, although not all, childhood mortality for poor children is low enough that this means that poor human beings could be said to have a selective advantage.

Darwin himself made this point, years ago, when the trend was less pronounced.

Poor people often have less educational opportunity, so an epiphenomenon of "ignorance" correlating with family size may be observed.

However, contrary to popular right wing belief, there is little evidence that poverty is strongly correlated with any particular combination of alleles. Children of poor parents often become less poor.

The impact of this "selection" is almost certainly trivial or completely neutral with respect to any particular allele, especially in the long term. Thus, this particular phenomenon has little impact on human evolution.

Furthermore, there is a massive, positive correlation between childhood mortality rate and family size. Thus, anyone who wants poorer populations to "reproduce less" would be advised to become a strong advocate for childrens' health.

I am quite sick of polls showing that X percent of such and such a population misunderstands or "rejects" evolution.

A high percentage of all national populations on earth misunderstand evolution, as well as all other scientific and mathematical topics that are above a certain level of complexity.

I've also noted before (repeatedly) that any poll that discusses HUMAN evolution, any poll that phrases scientifically correct choices in any way that could be perceived as "outright denial of all traditional religious beliefs", or of course, any poll that does both, is hopelessly biased.

Polls in the US actually show that most people strongly agree that life evolves WHEN they are presented with emotionally neutral examples like plants or bacteria. Of course they don't understand evolution at a sophisticated level. They can't. They don't have the background in genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, basic physics, basic chemistry, basic math and statistics (by basic I mean very advanced high school or college undergraduate), etc, that they would need.

And of course, most humans have always liked to believe in magic, and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Most people hold the correct belief that scientists are experts and authorities in their fields, and also believe in a variety of things that are either non-disprovable magical thinking or even outright irrational superstitions.

This starts in school…that is where the separation of reality and myth must be enforced with a crow bar of rationality.

harold said: In public school, accurate science must and can be taught. There is no role for specifically targeting one or more religions and teaching that they are "wrong".

In public school, accurate science must and can be taught. There is no role for specifically targeting one or more religions and teaching that they are “wrong”. To advance reason and science, live in a way that exemplifies the adjoining of true rationality with respect for the rights of others.

— harold

I don’t think you’re going to assuage fundamentalist fears and concerns by simply not targeting their beliefs, because you are teaching their kids a way of knowing that disagrees with the way of knowing their parents want them to have.

I’ll also quibble with you and say that while targeting a specific religion is wrong, its also wrong to not teach science out of fear it might impact someone’s religion.

Science and science teachers should not back down from teaching the germ theory of disease, heliocentrism, that the earth is billions of years old, that life evolves, or any of the other myriad conclusions of modern science simply because some student may hold a religious belief that disputes one of them.

Larry said:

Peter Henderson said: I suppose you could argue that Ham is Australian

NO! NO! He's a Queenslander! It's like the bible belt of Australia.

Schools or universities can't make people believe anything.

Nor should they, they are there to teach knowledge, not the thought police.

However, in a class in biology or other science, the students are expected to know the material. So they should know what scientists have discovered about the age of the universe, evolution, and geology. Whether they believe it or not is another matter all together and their problem.

I know personally the kinds of situations in which creationists attempt to provoke a war over the teaching of evolution.

One thing I've always wondered about. Why don't the schools just give opt out waivers to the families who are afraid their kids might gasp, horrors, learn modern science?

Little suzy doesn't have to learn evolution or astronomy and the rest of the class doesn't have to miss the last 100 years of science.

When we had sex ed back in the Dark Ages (with a competent teacher no less), all the kids had to take a permission document home, get it signed, and bring it back. Everyone did, really, the parents were all ecstatic that they didn't have to do it themselves.

raven said: The real guiding principles in secondary schools is, "don't make waves."

harold said: It would be the height of bigoted discrimination in any country, and a most egregious constitutional violation of the US constitution, for a teacher to say something like "thus, we know that the earth revolves around the sun, and therefore the religion that Billy's family follows is nonsense".

Eric -

You and I agree with each other.

I'm obviously in favor of teaching complete and accurate science, whatever the "implications".

What I'm not in favor of is commanding everyone to proclaim belief in a uniform philosophical or ideological position - not even if it's one I agree with.

Creationists obviously disagree with me there.

However, they aren't the only ones.

@ the phantom & Stevaroni

I've asked a number of questions in the last few months which have been avoided by saying "everyone knows that" or (in Stanton's case, among others) giving weblinks which are irrelevant.

The last : which came first, the sperm or the ovum? Stanton suggested reading Wikip's "Evolution of Human Reproduction", without even reading the 1st line of it!

novpari,

How appropriate that you should post this on a thread about the origin of ignorance. As you have been told repeatedly, your ignorance is not evidence of anything, let alone the incompleteness of the theory of evolution.

The "how could all of this have evolved simultaneously" argument is worthless. There are many paths to the current state that you have not considered. Have you managed to read "The Evolution of Sex" yet? What is your analysis of the argument put forth by Smith? Do you agree with the mathematics or not?

Of course all of your naysaying is pointless unless you provide an alternative explanation that is more predictive and explanatory that the theory of evolution. Since you have not even attempted to to do so, all of your protestations can be safely ingnored.

The "you don't have all of the answers so I don't have to believe anything your say" routine is not going to work either, so you might as well give it up.

Yours in Darwin

Actually, he doesn't. Evolution will continue to happen, whether benighted souls like novparl accept it or not.

The last : which came first, the sperm or the ovum?

Henry J - certainly does. There must've been a 1st sperm & a 1st ovum. Unless you're arguing that sperms & ova don't exist? So you believe in magic?

DS - I have already dealt with your claim that a dogma cannot be questioned until replaced by a complete system. You've obviously never heard of the Theory of Everything, as yet incomplete.

Also, my name is Novparl (newspeak), not Novpari, which wd be Newbet. Evidently ya have reading problems. See ya on another thread.

"Newspeak". How a propos.

Novparl,

So your answer is no, you haven't bothered to read even the oldest relevant literature yet. Until you become acquainted with the current theory you really don't have any place to criticize it.

Also, I didn't claim that you had to have a complete explanation in order to overthrow an existing theory, I simply pointed out that you had to have a better one. Well? Do you have any scientific alternative at all? Do you have any evidence at all?

Until you know what you are rejecting and until you have some viable alternative, any reasonable person would be justified in ignoring you. You can question dogma all you want, no one can stop you. But if you hope to convince anyone of anything you had better at least know what you are talking about.

DS said: Novparl, So your answer is no, you haven't bothered to read even the oldest relevant literature yet. Until you become acquainted with the current theory you really don't have any place to criticize it. Also, I didn't claim that you had to have a complete explanation in order to overthrow an existing theory, I simply pointed out that you had to have a better one. Well? Do you have any scientific alternative at all? Do you have any evidence at all? Until you know what you are rejecting and until you have some viable alternative, any reasonable person would be justified in ignoring you. You can question dogma all you want, no one can stop you. But if you hope to convince anyone of anything you had better at least know what you are talking about.

@ Stanton

Did you even make the effort to read the 1st sentence of the article on Wikipedia you recommended? Yes or no. Please.

novparl said: @ Stanton Did you even make the effort to read the 1st sentence of the article on Wikipedia you recommended? Yes or no. Please.

HA ha ha ha ha. This guy is demanding that other people read something because he is ignorant and refuses to do the research for himself. Amazing. First read the book that is in your own eye, isn't that what the pretty good book says? Or didn't you read that one either?

For anyone who is actually interested in the "evolution of anisogamy", a quick google search on that phrase gives 11,600 hits. The first hit has a free link to the paper:

Evolutionary Ecology 1(2):95-105 (1987)

The fifth hit give another good reference:

Journal of Theoretical Biology 238(1):98-210 (2005)

Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg. I admit that getting hold of a thirty year old book can be difficult, but that certainly is no excuse for remaining ignorant of an entire field of science. Of course none of this will be sufficient to convince someone who refuses to be convinced, that is not the point. The point is that someone who refuses to be convinced will no doubt also refuse to examine that which he refuses to be convinced of. Fortunately, that isn't going to fool anyone.

raven said: One thing I've always wondered about. Why don't the schools just give opt out waivers to the families who are afraid their kids might gasp, horrors, learn modern science? Little suzy doesn't have to learn evolution or astronomy and the rest of the class doesn't have to miss the last 100 years of science. When we had sex ed back in the Dark Ages (with a competent teacher no less), all the kids had to take a permission document home, get it signed, and bring it back. Everyone did, really, the parents were all ecstatic that they didn't have to do it themselves.

phantomreader42 said:

novparl said: @ Stanton Did you even make the effort to read the 1st sentence of the article on Wikipedia you recommended? Yes or no. Please.

Are you physically capable of reading anything at all? Or, like your fellow cultists, would you rather die than learn anything? Do you have the slightest speck of evidence to support whatever IDiotic bullshit you're pushing? No, you don't, because if you did you would have posted it by now. You're as credible as a street preacher. But since you seem to be working from the IDiotic assumption that because not every imaginable question is answered to your satisfaction in ten seconds, all of science must be a vast conspiracy against yur imaginary friend, let's see if you can survive your own bullshit standards. MAKE A LIVING HUMAN OUT OF DIRT AND MAGIC! YOU HAVE THIRTY SECONDS! Put up or shut up, asshole. If your next post doesn't link to a video of you magically animating the dust of the earth, then fuck off, you've obviously got nothing.

Why does it bother Richard Hoppe so much that we have Freedom of Speech, which implies Freedom of thought? As we do have these freedoms guaranteed, why do people like Richard Hoppe feel threatened by others who believe differently from him? I claim he feels threatened because he resorts to name calling people as ignorant, fundamentalists, and other names simply because they are not convinced by the incomplete evidence of macro-evolution. Thoughtful people debate. Hoppe is threatened, so he attacks. He is no conservative. All the conservatives I know love to debate and don't stoop to name calling those who disagree with them. Micro-evolution has indeed been proven. But macro-evoution was doubted even by Darwin himself and has never been proven. We share 98% of genes with apes, but also share the same amount with many other species. So why didn't that mean ape, Travis, evolve?

Margo in VIrginia said: Why does it bother Richard Hoppe so much that we have Freedom of Speech, which implies Freedom of thought?

Margo in VIrginia said: We share 98% of genes with apes, but also share the same amount with many other species.