Home » Culture, Darwinism, News » Coping with the fact that most Americans still don’t believe Darwin

Coping with the fact that most Americans still don’t believe Darwin

Just because they weren’t invited to breakfast at Delmonico’s?

Various communities are digesting the fact (see the comments) that most Americans have not been sold on Darwinism. I

It’s worth noting, foraging through the blameshifting, name calling, and abuse that no Darwinist ever considers that the doubt might arise from the fact that their case is not convincing.

Curiously, they tend to conflate science, the law of gravity, the fact of change over time, etc., with Darwin’s theory that survival of the fittest explains the history of life. In his later years, even Darwin didn’t believe that. But don’t expect these people to know that. They have punk comebacks for everything except the facts, and they do not know the facts that cause people to doubt Darwin.

The legacy mainstream media have done an outstanding job of obscuring key issues. Otherwise, way more people would doubt than do now. Their decline will have consequences we canot now foresee.

See also: There are not any Darwinian natural rights.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Coping with the fact that most Americans still don’t believe Darwin

  1. Not even Darwin today would believe what he said 150+ years ago.

  2. “Darwin’s theory that survival of the fittest explains the history of life” – News

    ‘Survival of the fittest’ was borrowed from the British social thinker Herbert Spencer.

    Probably the title of this thread could also read: “Coping with the fact that most Americans still don’t realize that being religious and accepting biological evolution is possible.” (The author of the Title of the thread, for example, accepts that “Evolution is more than a hypothesis,” if s/he agrees with the heads of the Catholic Church. Note: ‘biological evolution’ is not meant here as a synonym of ‘Darwinism’.) There are some things I wouldn’t ‘believe Darwin’ about, but also quite a few things in natural sciences that would not make sense today without the deep-time theory of evolution and species mutation that Darwin (and Wallace) delivered to us and that others, including Christians, have improved on since Darwin’s time.

  3. Militant atheism must be staffed by total idiots. They are surrounded by super-intelligent design, increasingly understood scientifically to mimic, or rather be mimicked, albeit on a very modest level in comparison, by man’s most sophisticated designs; it has been mathematically proven that the ‘coincidence’ piffle won’t fly by a long chalk, they have zero idea concerning the origin and dynamism of life, yet they continue with their madness.

    As Pauli pointed out, their scientific canons in relation to creation by coincidence are non-existent, never mind lacking in rigour. They couldn’t be bothered to do the mathematics! Convenient. By all accounts, it’s still going strong.

    Indeed, they rabbit on about reason and logic, as if flawless logic were always guaranteed to be based on a sound premise. This distortion of language qua ‘spin’ is a constant ploy of theirs. Their militant homosexual wing casts everyone who does’t accept their own very partisan ‘take’ on heterogeneity (diversity) as bigots or, if it’s a matter of religious belief, as ‘fundies’.

    Pity the Catholic church rather spoils that one, since it would have more of the finest intellects in its numbers than there are comparable atheists. Nor is it in the slightest exercised by the ‘evolution’ dispute; arguably more’s the pity, but it has its reasons for prioritising, for better or worse.

  4. Joe @#1,

    Not even Darwin today would believe what he said 150+ years ago.

    Perhaps he wasn’t Darwinist enough.

  5. Eugene-

    I just get the feeling that Darwin was honest enough to evaluate the evidence against the claims. His main problem was he was fighting a strawman, ie the fixity of species.

  6. 6

    i agree that if more people understood dArwins idea they would be more disbelieving and more of them.
    Many people still think evolution teaches innate biological ability of life to react to natures effects.
    Not the randomness of mutations being selected by a unaffecting nature.

    Alongside creationism they should teach evolution in the schools.
    Gain for the good guys.

  7. Joe,

    Yes, sure. I think that he was a better scientist than a lot of his supporters now.

Leave a Reply