Level of bio education and view on evolution

Page 2 of 4 [ 52 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

How much bio have you had and do you accept evolution?

I've had highschool biology--I accept evolution.	22%	[ 7 ]
I've had highschool biology--I reject evolution.	0%	[ 0 ]
I've had undergrad bio courses--I accept evolution.	38%	[ 12 ]
I've had undergrad bio courses--I reject evolution.	0%	[ 0 ]
I've had graduate bio courses--I accept evolution.	19%	[ 6 ]
I've had graduate bio courses--I reject evolution.	0%	[ 0 ]
I'm self informed--I accept evolution.	22%	[ 7 ]
I'm self informed--I reject evolution.	0%	[ 0 ]

Total votes : 32

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

13 May 2008, 9:25 am

Ragtime wrote:

So, in other words, those who have been taught evolution for longer periods of time believe it more.

:roll:

Big surprise.

What if I said that people who have seminary educations are more likely to believe in God?

That wouldn't be much of a shocker either.

Well yes, unfortunately this poll is not scientific and does not account for various factors like the probability of someone who doesn't believe the theory of evolution to attain higher education in itas another one that pops in my head. Causation etc. cannot be addressed herein.

On the other hand, it gives us massive gloating rights :mrgreen:

j/k

*EDIT: I also note the mother of all selection bias as we still lack a single skeptic in the poll...*

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Last edited by twoshots on 13 May 2008, 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Escuerd
Raven
Raven

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

13 May 2008, 9:33 am

D1nk0 wrote:

I would say that I *accept* evolution as much as I say that I acknowledge evolution as a fact supported by Physical evidence. Those of you who question evolution have about as much merit as the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY :!:

Actual questioning is a good thing. But too many people like to use "I question X," as a euphemism for "I think X is false." I question things in physics and math all the time, but try to think about the answers available and to defer judgment until I think I've understood them well enough.

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

13 May 2008, 9:47 am

Ragtime wrote:

So, in other words, those who have been taught evolution for longer periods of time believe it more.

:roll:

Big surprise.

What if I said that people who have seminary educations are more likely to believe in God?

That wouldn't be much of a shocker either.

you're being onesided.......

_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 May 2008, 9:55 am

twoshots wrote:

*EDIT: I also note the mother of all selection bias as we still lack a single skeptic in the poll...*

True. Many more people find evolution questionable than find it absolutely true or absolutely false.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

13 May 2008, 10:00 am

Ragtime wrote:

twoshots wrote:

*EDIT: I also note the mother of all selection bias as we still lack a single skeptic in the poll...*

True. Many more people find evolution questionable than find it absolutely true or absolutely false.

well if you would have a competent conversation about these complicated aspects... maybe we wouldn't have such blanket-statement poles.

what's your bio education, ragtime? how'd you do in bio classes?

_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 May 2008, 10:08 am

Sedaka wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

twoshots wrote:

*EDIT: I also note the mother of all selection bias as we still lack a single skeptic in the poll...*

True. Many more people find evolution questionable than find it absolutely true or absolutely false.

well if you would have a competent conversation about these complicated aspects... maybe we wouldn't have such blanket-statement poles.

My premise is along the lines of Ben Stein's movie: that evolutionists are getting ever more militant, and firing scientists who even question evolution. And some of these scientists have found that their lifelong careers born out of their love for science have been trashed when they try to apply for new positions.

A shaky theory doesn't bother me. In fact, it's been a great source of humor among my friends and I.
But professionals who trash religious people in the name of that theory does bother me.
How about you?

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

13 May 2008, 10:16 am

Ragtime wrote:

But that's what science is. Trashing other people's theories. If ID wants to be considered a science, it must go through the peer-review gaultlet that every other form of science is asked to go through to acheive legitimacy. It's not being mean and picky on ID, it's respecting it as a science and treating it accordingly.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 May 2008, 10:45 am

Speckles wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

But that's what science is. Trashing other people's theories.

Um, no... unless you're using the word "trashing" to move from scientists making
wild, emotional, anger-filled outburst-insults against creationists,
to logically and unbiasedly testing theories.

But just to be safe,
let's refresh your memory as to what science actually is:

The Scientific Method

1. Ask a question
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
6. Report your results

That's what true science is. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is certainly not bloviating dramatically against those with whom,
for your own personal reasons, you disagree.
True science is not political. It certainly doesn't angrily take sides.
That would be called "having an emotional outburst", i.e. Dawkins and company, not "science".
Science is the unbiased process of methodically reaching a conclusion,
not the bashing and slandering of people with new theories.
"Science" is not the same as "having a conniption".

Okay, are we clear now as to what science is and is not?

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Belfast
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,802
Location: Windham County, VT

13 May 2008, 1:49 pm

In high school one was required to take 3 years of science. I took "earth science" in 9th grade, had to move to another state, then took chemistry & physics in 10th & 11th grades. Took no science classes in college unless you count social ones (psychology, sociology, anthropology).

Intentionally avoided signing up for biology class (most other students took bio., it was expected of me & I had to argue strenuously to get out of having to take it) for single reason-not philosophical but visceral/sensory. Squeamishness. Biology is interesting for me to read about, but I absolutely cannot be around, let alone participate in, dissection or the like. Revolting-I just can't stomach anatomy, unless it's through a non-photorealistic looking drawing. Isn't worth subjecting myself to vomiting or fainting (my reactions) in order to experience an academic biology course.

Voted that evolution makes sense to me as concept & that I'm self-informed, since technically I didn't enroll in any bio classes beyond 7th or 8th grade (as they were mandatory then). Of course, "self-informed" in my case means I've watched a ton of PBS shows, read oodles of related books, and conversed with learned friends. Haven't any religious or spiritual belief, so there's no conflict for me.

_________________
*"I don't know what it is, but I know what it isn't."*

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

13 May 2008, 2:07 pm

Ragtime wrote:

My premise is that movies are not always factual - there is no inquisition of scientists that are evolutionary skeptics. There aren't many to start with.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 May 2008, 2:32 pm

monty wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

My premise is that movies are not always factual

DUH... WEAWY??!

:roll:

Baby Monty say...

monty wrote:

there is no inquisition of scientists that are evolutionary skeptics.

So Ben Stein lied in his movie, and his filmed, sit-down interviewed with fired and professionally
persecuted scientists were fake?

Tell us what you're saying, monty.

monty wrote:

There aren't many to start with

It's obvious that they're told to shut up by the scientific establishment,
so that you're actually counting fewer heads than there are.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Last edited by Ragtime on 13 May 2008, 3:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 May 2008, 3:07 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Odd. Professor Behe still has a job despite not only rejecting evolution, but also being an arrogant jerk about it and publishing some really embarrassing research on the Krebs cycle that proved him to be either dishonest or incompetent. Frankly, a professor of Behe's caliber I would be hesitant to hire regardless of his beliefs, as he's been around for quite a while and not really published any impressive research.

Quote:

A shaky theory doesn't bother me. In fact, it's been a great source of humor among my friends and I.

Glad to know that you are able to derive as much amusement from me as I am from you.

Quote:

But professionals who trash religious people in the name of that theory does bother me.
How about you?

I don't like bashing of religious people, since I am one of them. I haven't seen that from any established scientist other than Dawkins, who IMO likes to play philosopher a little too much, considering he doesn't really have much credentials in that field. I am also disturbed at the bashing of all rational people that Stein partakes in. "Science makes you kill people." "Scientists are responsible for the Holocaust." Stein's an idiot.

Quote:

It's obvious that they're told to shut up by the scientific establishment,
so that you're counting fewer than there actually are.

I sense a conspiracy theorist in our midst.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

13 May 2008, 3:10 pm

Ragtime wrote:

But just to be safe,
let's refresh your memory as to what science actually is:

The Scientific Method

1. Ask a question
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
6. Report your results

That's what true science is. Nothing more, nothing less.

And the Theory of Evolution pretty much meets that criteria, and one of the things that it makes it a valid scientific theory is that it is correctable, subjected to changes if new discoveries are made, it also admits to not be entirely correct and does not claim certainty.

And the real question is, does Creationism meets that criteria?

Quote:

It is certainly not bloviating dramatically against those with whom,
for your own personal reasons, you disagree.
True science is not political. It certainly doesn't angrily take sides.
That would be called "having an emotional outburst", i.e. Dawkins and company, not "science".
Science is the unbiased process of methodically reaching a conclusion,
not the bashing and slandering of people with new theories.
"Science" is not the same as "having a conniption".

Funny thing is that Creationism pretty much appears to be what you describe what science is not.

Quote:

Okay, are we clear now as to what science is and is not?

Yes.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 May 2008, 3:16 pm

Orwell wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Quote:

A shaky theory doesn't bother me. In fact, it's been a great source of humor among my friends and I.

Glad to know that you are able to derive as much amusement from me as I am from you.

Quote:

But professionals who trash religious people in the name of that theory does bother me.
How about you?

I don't like bashing of religious people, since I am one of them. I haven't seen that from any established scientist other than Dawkins...

Uh, look around. He's the only one?? How absurd to even think that could be true! :lol:

Dawkins is the one-and-only scientist who criticizes religious people? :lmao:

Orwell wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

It's obvious that they're told to shut up by the scientific establishment,
so that you're counting fewer than there actually are.

I sense a conspiracy theorist in our midst.

What I claimed is true, and it's quite obvious.
You are either uninformed or dishonest.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

13 May 2008, 3:20 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Ben Stein is a manipulative LIAR.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

13 May 2008, 3:22 pm

greenblue wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

That man came from apes has been tested by the scientific method? Surely you jest.

"4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment"
How has this step been followed to determine whether "man came from apes",
a claim which is stated in science textbooks and by teachers as facts?

Many evolutionists claim absolute certainty,
and furthermore they disrespectfully and angrily
trash and slander those who simply professionally disagree with them.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Page 2 of 4 [ 52 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Level of bio education and view on evolution Post Reply New Topic

Level of bio education and view on evolution