And they politicized it so thoroughly, it worked both ways along the timeline and some religious people started rejecting it before they had done so. How else could one explain the association of creationism with fundamentalism from the 1910s on, a time when most prominent supporters of evolution would still be religious themselves?
6 Likes
If you dig into the study a bit, youâll note that attitudes towards evolution havenât changed. Instead the contraction of the Republican party shows a strong bias towards people who believe in evolution leaving the party in the last few years. Thus a change in the subset, but not because anyone changed their opinion.
The overall US trendline on evolution is flat. Like the Earth, I guess.
10 Likes
This isnât really true, though - evolution generally is not used to attack religion (except biblical literalism, which is easily attacked without it). It is attacked by religious people who have little to no understanding of it, which has led to this popular (and false) belief that evolutionists are naturally anti-religion.
Evolution is actually quite neutral on whether religion is true or not - it is simply a mechanism to explain the complexity of lifeforms, and does not prove or disprove religion any more than astrophysics does.
5 Likes
Didnât the Vatican say that Evolution was cool with them?
2 Likes
They did, and we mapped Genesis to basic evolutionary facts when I was in Catholic school.
Keep in mind that fundamentalists hate Catholics almost as much as they hate atheists, though. I suppose there are Catholic Republicans, but it seems to me they usually get drowned out by the evangelical Protestants.
5 Likes
The Vatican, at least for the past few decades, has accepted current scientific theory in most subjects, with God sort of tacked on. So, for example, the Pope believes in evolution, and has actually soundly rejected Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism, but still believes God is involved in some vague, undefined way. Itâs having it both ways- admitting that evolution doesnât require or show evidence of a higher power, but still claiming that God does something or other, because, you know, gotta have God in there.
4 Likes
Are you fucking kidding us?
Thatâs not a problem with Evolution. It is entirely irrelevant to its truth.
3 Likes
Pope John Paul II basically said there was too much evidence for evolution to dismiss it and it didnât counter the churches teachings to believe in it. Of course the Catholics actually have an academy of science that advises them, and they arenât the ones promoting the concept of a young earth.
Iâve seen it used many times as an arrow in the quiver of militant atheists. But yes, the literalists are the ones who canât seem to reconcile religion and science playing together.
The problem with people accepting evolution is it has been politicized and used to attack religion by some people.
1 Like
You seem like a bit of a crank.
Can I ask you what ideas you espouse so I can call them problematic simply because you support them?
Evolution has been politicized by religious fundamentalists, not scientists. A political reply by thinking persons is necessary to keep science in science classes.
6 Likes
Heâs cranky at times, as am I, but heâs not a crank. He wants to have an honest reasoned discussion, though we donât always see eye to eye. It seems like youâre making a personal attack, which is not a good way to make a reasoned argument.
3 Likes
This is that âreligious people are the REAL victimsâ argument, right?
You need a history book. Stat.
5 Likes
Since youâre repeating this, Iâll try again, less sarcastically this time.
If you care to look at the history, the opposition to evolution began with the fact that it is opposed to certain religions - not all, sure, but the groups which wanted to trust to their particular version of humanityâs origin separate from the animals. Young earth creationism was born from biblical literalists, and theyâre where the politicizing of evolution started, with attacks on it being taught in schools.
Itâs possible that opposition has widened because of people using evolution to attack religion, but then that works in the other direction too. Several people like Dawkins have said they were inspired to promote atheism precisely because they were sick of religious attacks on things like evolution, and decided religion itself was the underlying problem. Iâve never seen anything to show itâs actually lowered how many people believe in evolution, though.
The way you are saying this, itâs as if people like those opponents made evolution a weapon in the first place, and nobody was really concerned about it until that, and Greedo was always the one who shot first. Itâs an inverted account of what happened.
8 Likes
At least it makes more sense to blindly accept the words of the people who develop the technology that makes your modern life possible than it does to blindly accept the words of the patriachs of a militant Bronze Age tribal society living in a desert in the middle of fucking nowhereâŚ
⌠spending centuries repeatedly pissing off - and getting subsequently kicked around by - every single neighboring society and empire in the region, from the Sumerians through to the RomansâŚ
âŚthen writing a revisionist history book about it all born from a massive inferiority complex in which they make out themselves and their obscure, unknown deity as the epitome of Mary Sues everywhere the center of all creation forever and always.
4 Likes
Republicans donât believe in evolution?
Thatâs fair; I donât believe in Republicans.
4 Likes
Of course Republicans are against evolution. Look what it did to the other dinosaurs.
8 Likes
hell⌠next they will say Galileo was wrong.
2 Likes
I wouldnât go that far. But drop the âinâ and Iâm good to go.
2 Likes
I refuse to believe that!
1 Like
Do you think thereâs an upper boundary to the answer?
A logical fallacy. They assume evolution doesnât work for anyone, because it doesnât work for them.
