On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

On February 11, 2009, Gallup released a poll about belief in evolution.  On the 12th (Darwin's actual birthday), it was discussed on a message board:

On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

I responded with:

I think the problem is that the issue has become very politicized and this website is directly in response to that. I also think there is an arrogance among some atheists that evolution absolutely proves that God does not exist. I'm glad there are scientists like Kenneth Miller out there. I think there needs to be a concerted effort by Theists to address questions that people have about their faith and try to show them that there is a common ground. I agree with MisterD that everyone "believes" things even if they don't like the interpretation of the word.

Edge asked several thinkers: "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"

Here is the response from atheist Richard Dawkins:

I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

To me his last sentence doesn't make sense, but perhaps it does if you don't believe in God.

Someone responded:

The "design before evolution" premise leads to the inevitable question, "Who (or what) designed the designer?". All evidence suggests that the only process that can bring beings capable of design into existence is evolution. To speculate beyond that is to enter the realm of woo.

I responded with:

I agree that it is a provocative question.  There were laws and processes operating before evolution lead to intelligent life, correct? Does the term "evolution" only become relevant once life is available or does it also refer to the process of non-life turning into life?

Another person responded with:

The ToE only applies to existing life. It doesn't address the origin of life.

ToE means Theory of Evolution.  In response to my first question someone said:

processes, yes.

laws, no.

a scientific law is a descriptive approximation, usually using math, of an observed (or requisite) consistency of action and result that applies to all examples of a given type of phenomenon when very specific (even "ideal" and seldom extant in reality) governing conditions are met.
the behavior of gases, described in the Ideal Gas Laws, for example.

as such, laws require formulation by an intelligent agent, even though the consistency they describe does not.

Someone said:

I believe the human race will find a way to travel faster than light. I have no proof or evidence for this belief and contemporary science says it really isn't possible -- I acknowledge and accept that.

That's a belief.

Don't mention wormholes. Please.

Another person responded with:

That's a good example of a non-religious belief that you wouldn't want to, and couldn't, also use the 'know' word with.

Then I said:

Perhaps I misunderstand what you guys are discussing. It seems that saying the ToE does not tell us how life originated, it only tells us how DNA adapts, would be less controversial.

Do you mean provable? What is wrong with saying "I know we will achieve faster than light travel?" I am currently reading the Ender's books and I hope we do achieve fast travel, at least near the speed of light and a way to safely accelerate. It would also be cool to have what Card calls an ansible, instant communication across space.

Then he responded with:

That is currently the case. the ToE does not tell us how life originated. That is currently beyond the scope of the ToE.

Because you don't "know" that in any scientific or rational sense of the word. How do you "know" this? You cannot provide any factual evidence and rational argument that supports your "knowledge" on this.

A gun for a rose?

On February 14, 2009, the Associated Press had an article about a gun buy back program.  The original link for Google Hosted News doesn't work, but I found the same article on Fox News:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Police in South Carolina gave away roses on Valentine's Day. All you had to do to get one for your sweetie was turn in a gun.

Hoping to get the weapons off the streets with the "Guns for Roses" program, authorities in two central South Carolina cities set up a program where anyone who turned in a gun received a free rose and a Best Buy gift card.

At a Columbia church, five cars lined up to give away guns before the exchange had even started. At the end of the day, Columbia area police had collected 191 weapons and police in Sumter collected 32.

I posted the article to a message board and said:

This sounds like a dangerous precedent.

Someone wrote:

Me thinks this 'turn in' program is more for PC show, than something that will amount to anything in terms of reduced crime due to guns.

To me, this whole gun control idea is BS: it's like trying to put The Genie back into the bottle. Waste of time. But if someone commits a crime with a gun - then the courts should hang 'em high.

I responded with:

Liberals tend to believe that it will reduce crime. Now I might be a little paranoid, but this seems like a very subtle way to take guns away from people. Perhaps the small number won't make the difference, but it is the act itself that bothers me.

It seems like in Freakonomics the authors claim that more freedom or more restriction would cause problems and that the status quo is the best option.