BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: BrendanB
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:09 PM

Well at least that is better than catamites of nature - I think.....

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 02:31 PM

Had a Freudian slip there, Tia. Thought I'd read "Calamites of nature". :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 11:00 AM

All is not hopeless in Louisiana (but it is on shaky ground when Creationists think they can vote bad thinking into schools)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:06 AM

my speeling is also anmololous...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:05 AM

Yup, USA is definitely aomalous:

http://calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=559

click


And Song of the Dodo was written by David Quammen, and it is a brilliant recounting of the Darwin-Wallace race to publish a theory of evolution, and highlights many modern examples of evolution. Great book.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mr Happy
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 08:57 AM

Louisiana Senator's understanding of evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQObhb3veQA

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 09:59 AM

Stringsinger said, (quite correctly):

Here's the problem. Evolution is a scientific fact. (All reputable scientists unanimously agree).

But that's confusing to some, because they don't understand the difference between "evolution" and (usually Darwin's) "theory of evolution".

A theory is an attempt at a systematic rational explanation of a complicated set of facts.   As in "the theory of torts" in the law, or "nuclear theory", or "music theory". No one conversant with those fields has any doubt of the existence of the underlying facts, but there's varying amounts of room for elaboration or fine tuning of the theories relating to those sets of facts.

To say "theory" does not mean "speculation", as is often used in the phrase "a mere theory" as so many creationists are fond of dismissively phrasing it.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:49 PM

Here's the problem. Evolution is a scientific fact. (All reputable scientists unanimously agree). Christianity is not a scientific fact.

Irreconcilable difference here?

When did the world begin? Were Adam and Eve really dinosaurs?

You see the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:05 PM

Robo, I wasn't sure either, but youtube brought up a follow-up video that sure seems to indicate that the one you linked was meant in all seriousness.

I wonder if the guy has thought about anything else that's perfectly shaped to fit into the human mouth?...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:45 PM

Worth watching for the insanity- I'm not convinced it's serious, maybe it's planted by an environmentalist 'false flag' operation:

the banana of God.









-Praise Bob-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 04:37 PM

I feel it is safe to say that a film distributor is going to be concerned first and foremost with profit potential.

There are plenty of Darwinians to go around, and I think there'd be a way to market the film to pretty much everybody (like getting Mel Gibson to narrate, for one thing).

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 03:51 PM

Thanks, V. Tam. My first laugh of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 03:10 PM

for a bit of fun, best viewed in full screen

http://www.youtube.com/user/wordweaver58#play/all/uploads-all/0/9_5VpIISMRQ

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

Bee-Dubya-Ell asked, in part

imagine you were given copies of both "Jonah and the Whale" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" to read. Now imagine that, after reading them, you were told that one tale was part of a religious belief system and was considered by millions to be literally true, while the other was a made up story intended for children. Would you be able to tell which was which?

While I follow your drift, and agree, the actual answer to your question is "Yes".

One story expressly ties the action to a god; the only departure from worldly reality is the existence and power of the god. The other one does not, and its hero is a child (or at least a teenager), and it is filled with multiple free-floating marvels, such as the overnight bean "tree", the giant and giantess, the self-playing-and-singing harp, the gold-laying hen. Given the alternative choices, of connections to either a religious belief system or a children's story, the answer is obvious.

Your real point, though, is that the departure from experiential reality is great in each instance, and you are of course right in that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 10:44 PM

I love it when creationists attempt to couch their beliefs in logic. Why bother? If you have a story whose foundations are based entirely upon magic, why attempt to use logic to explain away its inconsistencies? Just pull in a little more magic! Adam and Eve's boys need wives? No problem! Just change a couple of nanny goats into women! Anyone who could make a woman out of a man's rib can pull that trick of easily!

To paraphrase Bill Maher in Religulous: Imagine you were to grow up without any exposure to either the Bible or fairy tales. Now, imagine you were given copies of both "Jonah and the Whale" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" to read. Now imagine that, after reading them, you were told that one tale was part of a religious belief system and was considered by millions to be literally true, while the other was a made up story intended for children. Would you be able to tell which was which?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:53 AM

Three years of bible institute, and I never heard those particular rationalizations about reproduction in the earliest generations. We mostly just scorned those who were unspiritual enough to raise the question. We "realized" that "there are some things we just aren't able to understand"
I wonder whether I'm the only one hanging out here who has committed intellectual suicide and lived to tell about.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,Penny S.(elsewhere)
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM

Sinsull, the creationist writings I have seen on website discussions will answer the incest question about A & E's children as follows. 1. God had not yet forbidden incest so it was permissible. 2. Because they were so close to the perfection of creation, arguments about the harm of close kin breeding are invalid.

Boggle, if you will.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:10 AM

In Britain, the term is not brainiac, but boff, from boffin, once a term of respect, if amused respect, for what we owed the eccentric and clever. It isn't just the States.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 08:41 AM

They were wrong.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 09:44 PM

I did an essay on evolution in the 8th grade and was sent to the Principal's office for punishment and my parents had to have a meeting at school.

One criticism is that I said " Man and other mamalian animals..."
\I was told man is not an animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 07:04 PM

Remember the time when Dr Borlaug was working on the increase in yields and resistance to disease - the use of chemicals was the way of the future, once the primary problems were overcome the resulting high yeilds were protected by the use of weedkillers and artificial fertilisers.

Looking back knowing what we know now, it might seem controvertial, but back then it was the cutting edge of technology.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:56 PM

Evolution as not envisioned by Darwin-

Lehman Brothers goes bust, and Barclay Capital (UK) and a Japanese investment company quickly grab the assets and become large players in the capital investment field, the former launching 'Enhanced FX Algorithmic Trading'. A successful mutation for them, extinction for Lehman.

Seeking cheaper cost, Michelin Tire moves most of its production to China, but sees the U. S. apply a 35% tax on Chinese-made tires. One step forward, two steps back, on the evolutionary tree.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: longboat (inactive)
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:14 PM

AS Richard Bridge says IE are closely tied to the petrochemical industry.
They have an agenda and that agenda isn't eco-friendly.

China Russia India Italy and Brazil
They aren't going to be super-enthusiastic about Evolution because, Italy and Brazil are Catholic countries and the church is extremely powerful in both of those countries. The Russiian Orthodox Church's power is growing again and they have similar ideas to the Catholic Church, China is officially aetheist and look upon Darwin as reactionary. India, I admit, I have no idea how they would react, mind you their film industry makes Hollywood look like a Mom and Pop operation

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Alice
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:10 PM

As one Sarah Palin supporter said, "She talks down to our level".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:46 AM

Swipe me thats a hot topic.

For a nation that once prided itself on academic achievement and scientific progress, the vision we now get of America is of redneck hicks digging themselves back to the 16th Century. Its pretty bad publicity, but a worse outlook - if the USA abandons science we're all going to feel the shock.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:39 AM

Many of my fellow Americans are very scarily ignorant of reality and even more scarily wedded to biblical literalness. It is really, really scary. Only here, that I know of, is knowledge so denigrated. Is "brainiac" (someone who gets good grades) an insult in any other culture?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:38 AM

"The pace of human evolution has been increasing at a stunning rate since our ancestors began spreading through Europe, Asia and Africa 40,000 years ago, quickening to 100 times historical levels after agriculture became widespread, according to a study published today.

By examining more than 3 million variants of DNA in 269 people, researchers identified about 1,800 genes that have been widely adopted in relatively recent times because they offer some evolutionary benefit.

Until recently, anthropologists believed that evolutionary pressure on humans eased after the transition to a more stable agrarian lifestyle. But in the last few years, they realized the opposite was true -- diseases swept through societies in which large groups lived in close quarters for a long time.

Altogether, the recent genetic changes account for 7% of the human genome, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The advantage of all but about 100 of the genes remains a mystery, said University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks, who led the study. But the research team was able to conclude that infectious diseases and the introduction of new foods were the primary reasons that some genes swept through populations with such speed.

"If there were not a mismatch between the population and the environment, there wouldn't be any selection," Hawks said. "Dietary changes, disease changes -- those create circumstances where selection can happen."

One of the most famous examples is the spread of a gene that allows adults to digest milk.

Though children were able to drink milk, they typically developed lactose intolerance as they grew up. But after cattle and goats were domesticated in Europe and yaks and mares were domesticated in Asia, adults with a mutation that allowed them to digest milk had a nutritional advantage over those without.

As a result, they were more likely to have healthy offspring, prompting the mutation to spread, Hawks said.

The mechanism also explains why genetic resistance to malaria has spread among Africans -- who live where disease-carrying mosquitoes are prevalent -- but not among Europeans or Asians.

Most of the genetic changes the researchers identified were found in only one geographic group or another. Races as we know them today didn't exist until fewer than 20,000 years ago, when genes involved in skin pigmentation emerged, Hawks said. Paler skin allowed people in northern latitudes to absorb more sunlight to make vitamin D.

"As populations expanded into new environments, the pressures faced in those environments would have been different," said Noah Rosenberg, a human geneticist at the University of Michigan, who wasn't involved in the study. "So it stands to reason that in different parts of the world, different genes will appear to have experienced natural selection."..."LA Times

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 10:41 AM

Charles Darwin was one of the great scientists and minds of the last century.
Richard Dawkins is a modern interpreter of Darwin.
Dawkins is trying to reason with religios who have forced their ideas down
the public's throat. Dawkins is a tree of reason in a desert of religious aridity.

It's another example as to how religion holds back enlightenment and clings to
ignorance.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 10:37 AM

From a NY Times article on the situation at the Toronto Film Festival - the "Creation" movie was not suffering alone:

The festival began with a gala screening of "Creation," an ambitious, awards-type film from Britain about Charles Darwin that arrived without a United States distributor and on Monday still had none.

At the halfway mark in the 10-day gathering, the vast majority of more than 140 films that showed up in search of American distribution were in the same boat, according to a count by the Indiewire news service.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 05:53 AM

Borlaug's developments of wheat with high yields is also controversial in that the strains he develped require intense weedkillers intense pestkillers intense fertilisation and high-power harvesting machinery - IE are closely tied to the petrochemical industry and accordingly are adversely implicated in loss of biodiversity and global warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 05:28 AM

"anything and everything that might possibly attract an audience."

indeed ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 04:38 AM

China Russia India Italy Brazil -

If they are not interested they should be.

There should be information on Dr Norman E. Borlaug around on the net, as he is recently deceased.

He used the principles of Evolutionary theory to interbreed and refine strains of wheat resistant to rust, to develop the short growing grain crops grown today to feed the populations of such countries as China Russia etc. and I believe many states within the USA are somewhat involved with the production of grain.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,astro
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 01:34 AM

One thing I find interesting, is that most who mention films like the teenage whatevers and the like do so dismissively...most of my American friends and I do...so who watches them to make them so famously popular...it is the demographic that advertisers like...the very young. So, isn't it likely the "popular" films are the ones that the advertisers would like to be popular and thus they are.

Most folks go to a film to meet an expectation for that night. If it's been a particularly tough day or week, give me the action film. If I am feeling romantic, well, give me that. If I am curious, then give me a film that addresses that moment, which this film might do. Then, again, maybe it would not. I would want to see if it has too much of an agenda and has lost its story telling ability.

Our folkie friends overseas need to take what the "popular" media says over here with a certain amount of caution. Don't believe everything the 24 hour news says over here...they have an agenda. People over here are of many stripes. Some shallow, some very deep. Guess who will be shown on the popular media!

Astro...getting ready to see some mindless entertainment since I am tired of thinking...today has been long!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 10:56 PM

PBS had an excellent mini-series on (possibly from the Beeb side of the pond) a bunch of years ago: "The Voyage Of Charles Darwin". It may pre-date Reagan and his salutary effects on the American soap opera believe-o-sphere. Anyhow, it was good, no one screamed bloody murder, and I'd happily watch it again.

Since that time there are a lot of fundys who have stunk up the air with their pseudo intellecks, and possibly this tale of controversy is an attempt to make them get even with the movie by buying tickets but not going in.

Most Americans are slightly smarter than Europeans credit.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: longboat (inactive)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 07:56 PM

everywhere else , the rest of the world, you just never know where a film might be popular.
Amazing Grace, the film about the anti slavery advocate William Wilberforce did suprisingly well...I don't mean bazillions of bucks like..umm... Teenage Ninja Cheerleaders, bit it did better than expected, I'm sure the ticket sales figures are out there on the net

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 07:44 PM

Where is "everywhere else"? I can't see the film attracting audiences outside of the UK and the Christian portion of its commonwealth. China? Russia? India? Italy? Brazil?

And I think the 'fierce debate' in the U. S. mostly is on the part of the sky is falling school of broadcasting which shouts about anything and everything that might possibly attract an audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 06:21 PM

If there's some reason the film can't get a US distributor, it probably doen't have anything to do with the attitudes of US religious conservatives. Michael Moore's films get distributed. Bill Mahr's Religulous got distributed. Kevin Smith's Dogma got distributed. Those films made money, and I doubt a single person who would call himself a religious conservative sat through a single one of them.

Most deeply religious Americans probably shun 80%+ of the films shown at their local multiplex anyway. There's enough they find offensive in most movies to cause them to stay away in droves. Most moviemakers and distributors don't look at them as part of their potential audience, so why would a distributor turn down a chance to make money off of this film just because the subject matter might offend people who don't buy movie tickets anyway?

If the film isn't being distributed, it's because no US distributor thinks the more secular, open-minded people who do buy movie tickets will pay to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 06:21 PM

I had never heard of any controversy here, but then I don't pay much attention to movies. I expect that it will eventually hit some of the art houses and cable channels. Unfortunately, having an opening at one of the major film festivals - even Toronto - is often the kiss of death for a movie.   I really feel that it is much less the topic and much more the prospect of loosing buckets of money that is keeping the major distributors away. The presence of religiously-based controversy doesn't keep movies from coming out in first-run theaters...look at the success of The DaVinci Code, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 05:20 PM

Ok - I was thinking of Kansas and knew that a challenge had been made and about the stroke of Genius that was "the church of the flying spaghetti monster" but I was under the impression that it had been unsuccesful.

However, a cursory glance at
this page suggests that the issue is a sleeping dog that could do without a kick ...


Not that I am ignoring this for a second, but there appears to be no controversy over here about screening the film.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 05:11 PM

Lox, I don't think that any public schools in the US are "teaching creationism alongside evolution as an alternative 'theory'". There were a couple of school boards (in Kansas and Texas, I think) in which fundamentalists temporarily captured the majority and tried such a thing, but they were stopped in the courts and turned out in the next election.   Of course, what is taught in private schools and to children who are home-schooled is something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Lox
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:54 PM

I agree with Art that this film would not be able to compete with the likes of Ninja Cheerleaders in Waynes world etc and that that is what the marketplace is currently saturated with and what the consumer is buying.

However, I don't make the jump from that point to this one:

"The subject is more suited to a BBC drama program and/or limited distribution."

The fact is that the issues and debates surounding Darwin, evolution, creationism, intelligent design etc are big news these days, especially in America, but also in the rest of the world.

The debate is fierce in the USA and it isn't entirely unrealistic to consider that if some schools in America insist on teaching creationism alongside evolution as an alternative 'theory' (regardless of what the word theory means) and if this is sanctioned by government, then there is a realistic possibility that a film like this could run up against plenty of opposition, especially as, unlike "origin of species", it includes his loss of faith in religion and the idea of a personal God.

So if the theory if evolution is blasphemy, what is this film.

In America this film is relevant and may well be a hit despite the best efforts of those so allegedly against it.

As an aside - I enjoyed the term "american taliban" used to describe the religious right wing in the USA and it amuses me that islamist extremists and those who are so dedicated to defending the world from them hold such similar views.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: longboat (inactive)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:45 PM

The only place this film is having a hard time with distribution is the USA (I wonder why...?), everywhere else doesn't seem to have a problem with the film.
The Daily Telegraph of the UK has producer Jeremy Thomas on the record as saying, "It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about."
Exactly, THAT and it's a film you actually have to think about,
much like the film Amazing Grace, about the life of anti-slavery advocate, William Wilberforce

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:31 PM

I tend to agree with artbrooks on the reason a distributor has not stepped forward.
The subject is more suited to a BBC drama program and/or limited distribution.

For much of my working life, I was a paleontologist for a major oil company; our interpretations were based on the evolutionary succession preserved in the rocks.
Outside of the exploration groups which used our work, more interest was shown in ancient Greek (i. e., none) among the majority of employees.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:14 PM

"Teenage Ninja Cheerleaders"? Man, I gotta rent that!!; does it have good shower room scenes??!!.
I suspect artbrooks has it pegged right, if they are really having that much trouble finding a distributer.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 04:06 PM

60% believe in creationism? Now, I didn't see that poll, and I'm not all that interested in looking it up, but I did read the entire link - which says that a quarter of Americans say they don't believe in evolution and 36% don't give a shit. That is a fer piece from "60% believe in creationism". One can always find a poll to prove just about anything. For example, the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey said that the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as "Christian" (all types) had declined from 86% to 71% since 1990, while the number of absolute nonbelievers had increased from 9% to 15%. A lot of those Christians are true Bible literalists, but a lot are also what we tend to call "Christmas and Easter Christians" - that's the only time they go to church, and it is much more of a social thing for them than anything else. The fastest growing religious identification, according to this survey, was Wiccan.

I was struck by this quote from the director of the film: "It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.   It does? Not in any part of the US that I've ever lived, and I've been all over. No, I'd suggest that the reason they can't find a distributer is that, first, most Americans could care less about Darwin and, second, most people who go to movies prefer such high-class fare as The X-Men and Teenage Ninja Cheerleaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 03:45 PM

The movie is based on the book, "Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter, and Human Evolution", written by a great-great-grandson of Darwin, Randal Keynes (in the U.K. in 2001; it was published in the U.S. in 2002 under the title, "Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution").

From that site's discussion of the book (aboutdarwin.com):

The book "...is unlike any other Darwin biography - the majority of which try to encompass the entire spectrum of Darwin's life. Annie's Box is different in that it focuses on the private life of Charles Darwin. "

"What really makes this book stand out from others on Darwin's life is that nearly all the content is previously unpublished material."

I agree with Amos's points. It seems to me, that in most cases of discussions on this topic where one side entirely negates the validity of the other, either a flawed understanding of science or a flawed understanding of theology is involved.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 03:30 PM

Personal, non-scientific observations from our small town in Michigan:
I don't know of anyone teaching the sciences in our area who holds what is commonly called a "creationist" (young earth, literal Genesis, anti-evolution) position. Neither do I know of any of them who are avowed atheists. I do know of at least a handful of public school teachers and administrators who are "creationists".
We attend a "mainstream" protestant church. There is nothing anti-scientific coming down from the denomination. But a substantial share of our local congregation are absolute Biblical literalists. There are at least thirty churches in town, and the greater part of them are "conservative" enough to be strict literalists. Some of those churchs are very small; I really don't know what percent of the local population attends them.
Our local representative to Lansing came stumping in our church at coffee time awhile back. He personally told me he would be combatting "this evolution nonsense" in Lansing, and asked me to remember him at election time. I assured him I would remember; I didn't elaborate.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 03:16 PM

I always wonder who takes those polls. I am rarely asked for my opinion and the few times I have it has been a telemarketer's lead in to selling some hopeless bit of crap or a magazine subscription.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:23 PM

The quotation from his autobiography at this website- The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online.
Darwin Autobiography

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Sep 09 - 02:20 PM

It is interesting to me how silly those surveys are, pitting a simpleminded form of spiritual theory against a simpleminded version of materialist theory. It is kind of like doing a poll on whether Batman could beat Spiderman, or whether Daisy Duck is better looking than Minnie Mouse.


A