More fodder for the ID-Evolution debate

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

but American society has fully embraced social Darwinism with no problem at all.

405342[/snapback]

 

Otherwise known as unintelligent design.

[Ghost of BiB]

I always saw the Darwin fish as just a rather amusing joke.  I had no idea people took it so seriously.

405328[/snapback]

 

You sort of look like a fish.

 

Maybe that's your problem.

 

Never meant to diss fish. Sorry, my bad.

 

Sorry.

[Chilly]

Otherwise known as unintelligent design.

405344[/snapback]

 

Unintelligent's connotation seems to imply that there was at least some intelligence involved in the design. I know this isn't the exact definition of the word, but lots of people who are of a lower intellect are called unintelligent.

 

Therefore, I propose an alternate name: random non-design creationism (just to mess with the ID folks).

[OGTEleven]

I always saw the Darwin fish as just a rather amusing joke.  I had no idea people took it so seriously.

405328[/snapback]

Personally I do not take it very seriously at all. I find it laughable. I have faith. It is too strong to be swayed by some moron with a superior attitude and a piece of aluminum that has glue on the back of it.

 

I think some people (note I said some) that have the Jesus fish on their cars have weak faith that they perceive to be strong. I think some Darwin sticker people like to mock others because of thier own superior "grip on reality" which in actuality is also quite weak.

[OGTEleven]

I see the darwin fish phenomena as something else: many people who believe in evolution feel that science -specifically evolution - is under assault by organized religion. And under organized assault. The darwin fish phenomona is their way of fighting back as a group. They are not saying no to God as much as they are saying (to what they see as organized activist religion) "stay out of science."

 

I'm guessing that the way to test this would be to survey those who had the darwin fish to find out whether they were primarily motivated by athiesm or the integrity of science.

405287[/snapback]

IMHO you have the assaultor and the assaultee flip flopped. What does a fish on a car say about Darwinism? Nothing whatsoever. It is a reference to a story about Jesus from the Bible. This story has zero to do with evolution or even creation. The Darwin fish is a direct mockery of Jesus and his believers. There can be no denying that.

 

Evolution class can and does create doubts about the very existence of God (not just creation) even though evolution itself creates no such doubts about God and only limited doubts about how the story of creation is described. The schools must see these results, but they do nothing to change them. Religious teachings of any kind are completely banned from public schools. Who is under assault?

 

Warning: The next paragraph will make some participants in this thread roll their eyes and laugh.

 

I consider myself completely objective in this whole matter. Why? Because I have faith that does not depend on an aluminum fish of either variety. Although I admire things both religious and scientific and would ideally love to learn everything about both, I do not feel required to pit them against each other. As far as I can see an avowed atheist and science geek should have the same opinion. So should a truly and wholly religious person that cares nothing for science. Both science and religion, at their core, are in search of truth.

 

If you ask me whether I think ID should be taught in scince class my answer is limited to one word. No.

 

I do however feel that the "scientific" community seems reluctant to apply their own standards on themselves. If a scientist does not want to measure results and improve a process, then they are either a bad scientist or just someone disguised as a scientist.

[finknottle]

IMHO you have the assaultor and the assaultee flip flopped.  What does a fish on a car say about Darwinism?  Nothing whatsoever.  It is a reference to a story about Jesus from the Bible.  This story has zero to do with evolution or even creation.  The Darwin fish is a direct mockery of Jesus and his believers.  There can be no denying that. 

405385[/snapback]

 

I probably didn't make my point clear. A bunch of people feel the integrity of this science is under organized assualt by organized religion. They flail about with a variety of responses - writing rebuttals in academic journals, writing op-ed pieces and letters to the editor, speaking at school boards, calling their congressman, talking to their preachers... but these responses are personally unsatisfying because they take effort and have not seemed to work. Then one day somebody sticks feet on a Jesus fish and slaps it on his car. As a protest it isn't any more effective than the other things, but it doesn't take any work, it is amusing, and it is a way of voicing protest against what is going on. In short, it is a more satisfying form of personal protest. And before you know it, lots of people are doing it. (How's that for Natural Selection?)

 

So the point is that it has nothing to do with the meaning of the fish. Rather, the fish is a visible symbol of grass-roots religion, the evangelical movement seen to be the power behind if not identical with the organized assault (that's loaded language, I know...). To ridicule and use a movements own symbols against it as a protest is an everyday technique; when I chant 'Squish the Fish' at a Dolphins game it is a way of voicing my protest of the efforts of the Dolphin franchise against the Bills. It is not my zoological ideology.

[finknottle]

The real American paradox is that Darwinism is framed as antithetical to creationism, but American society has fully embraced social Darwinism with no problem at all.

405342[/snapback]

 

Nowhere more so than in business.

 

A thousand years from now when central planning communists run the world their economic historians will revive the theory of Intelligent Design. They'll look at the bricks-and-morter businesses of the 80's and 90's, and notice the sudden appearance of huge cyber-only businesses in the 00's like amazon, ebay, yahoo, and google. Where are the transitional businesses, they'll ask? (History will show that Borders.com, like the missing link, didn't stick around long enough to leave much in the fossil record.) And how could Google possibly have survived untill there was 'enough' internet to make it a viable business?

 

Simple. Al Gore - the Intelligent Designer of the new millenium.

[OGTEleven]

  when I chant 'Squish the Fish' at a Dolphins game it is a way of voicing my protest of the efforts of the Dolphin franchise against the Bills. It is not my zoological ideology.

405437[/snapback]

 

If you don't hate the dolphins enough, that is your problem, not mine. Personally, I don't eat tuna unless it's caught in a net that also kills dolphins, and hopefully a lot of them.

 

As for the other stuff, we'll have to agree to disagree. In my view, christians and other groups have without question reacted irrationally to evolution and other ideas infringing on religion (at least in the way they are taught). But in my view, it is a reaction, the inertia has come from the other direction.

 

The Darwin fish (and other things btw, this was just one example), may be an equal and opposite irrational reaction ( or re-reaction) but it looks more like taunting to me.

[Mickey]

You are misunderstanding item #2.

 

It should read:

 

There are many people leaving class thinking evolution disproves God.

 

The bumper sticker thingy clearly states:  I believe in Darwin's theory therefore God does not exist.  That message is as plain as day.

405276[/snapback]

1. Science teachers teach evolution.

2. There are atheists who believe in evolution.

3. Therefore science teachers are creating atheists

 

In my example, I think 1 and 2 are widely accepted. However, your assertion that "There are many people leaving class thinking evolution disproves God" is a contention on your part that I don't think is correct and this is why I have asked for sources, studies, something. Your response has been basically to tell me about bumper stickers. Now I am not asking you to design a 10 year study on the issue but certainly, I don't think I am being too exacting to ask for something more than your personal observations of bumper stickers and assumptions about the persons who placed them there.

 

What research I have done, does not support your contention. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue (2004) shows that 48% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form only 10,000 years ago. Another 38% accept evolution but believe that it was directed by God. Only 13% believe that God played no role in the development of the species. Gallup

 

Here is a link to a column that discusses a whole list of polls on the issue which, to summarize, conclude that about 95% of Americans believe in God. In fact, one poll showed that 36% of Americans believe that they have personally witnessed a miracle. Americans and Religion

 

It seems to me that these polls, apart from your bumper sticker study, indicate that teaching evolution in science class is not creating atheists in droves. Inserting religion into science class is not a remedy to the problem because in fact, there is no problem.

[Mickey]

Where is evolution taught primarily?  High school.  There are thousands and thousands of those stickers all over the roads, yet there is no connection to the schools where Darwin is taught?  By that logic, why teach anything at all?  Kids will just pick up calculus on the street.

 

Certainly some of the stickers are from people just being wise-@$$es, some are from people that have done independent study and feel superior enough to mock others, but certainly at least a decent proportion must have picked up an impression that God/Darwin are mutually exclusive from their evolution class. 

 

If there is nothing done in schools to offset this incorrect impression, isn't there something wrong with that?  For years, nothing has been done but heel digging.  Now, some believers are trying to combat this in a foolish way.  I don't support the idea but understand its origin.  The "scientists" simply refuse to look at the results of their teachings and try to adjust in any way at all.  That is not what scientists are supposed to do.

 

I don't see how someone can say it is imperative that something be taught, but not care if it is being taught in a way that leads to true understanding.  I don't want my kids thinking that since 2 + 2 = 4, all gorillas can fly.  If kids came out of math class thinking this, the math teachers would probably try to correct it.

405257[/snapback]

See the polls that I cited in my other reply. Your contention that science classes are being taught in such a way that they are creating atheists is simply not true despite the bumper sticker evidence.

[Chilly]

What research I have done, does not support your contention.  The most recent Gallup poll on the issue (2004) shows that 48% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form only 10,000 years ago.  Another 38% accept evolution but believe that it was directed by God.  Only 13% believe that God played no role in the development of the species.  Gallup

405521[/snapback]

 

I agree with you Mickey. And to take this point even further, 8 out of 10 College Freshman believe in God, according to a Washington Times poll in April.

 

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200504...24752-6368r.htm

 

This is right after high school (ie right after they've had the evolution teaching we are talking about). The evidence doesn't show that teaching evolution in high school affects belief in God.

[Mickey]

IMHO you have the assaultor and the assaultee flip flopped.  What does a fish on a car say about Darwinism?  Nothing whatsoever.  It is a reference to a story about Jesus from the Bible.  This story has zero to do with evolution or even creation.  The Darwin fish is a direct mockery of Jesus and his believers.  There can be no denying that. 

 

Evolution class can and does create doubts about the very existence of God (not just creation) even though evolution itself creates no such doubts about God and only limited doubts about how the story of creation is described.  The schools must see these results, but they do nothing to change them.  Religious teachings of any kind are completely banned from public schools.  Who is under assault?

 

Warning:  The next paragraph will make some participants in this thread roll their eyes and laugh.

 

I consider myself completely objective in this whole matter.  Why?  Because I have faith that does not depend on an aluminum fish of either variety.  Although I admire things both religious and scientific and would ideally love to learn everything about both, I do not feel required to pit them against each other.  As far as I can see an avowed atheist and science geek should have the same opinion.  So should a truly and wholly religious person that cares nothing for science.  Both science and religion, at their core, are in search of truth. 

 

If you ask me whether I think ID should be taught in scince class my answer is limited to one word.  No.

 

I do however feel that the "scientific" community seems reluctant to apply their own standards on themselves.  If a scientist does not want to measure results and improve a process, then they are either a bad scientist or just someone disguised as a scientist.

405385[/snapback]

C'mon OG, you are not going to sit there and pretend that science hasn't been under attack by religion for the better part of the last 10 centuries are you?

If that were not the case, we wouldn't have to be fighting this same fight over and over about teaching Genesis in science classes nor would we have had to worry about laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Fact is, we have and we are. Read the Creationists "Wedge Document", it pretty much says it all. Their goal is to replace current science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Its practically a manifesto against science. Wedge Document

 

 

Their fish bumper sticker isn't the problem. Enough with the stickers already. Joining the school board to change the curriculum to force the teaching of Genesis in science class is what I object to and I don't care what kind of bumper sticker the person doing it has on their car.

[Mickey]

I agree with you Mickey.  And to take this point even further, 8 out of 10 College Freshman believe in God, according to a Washington Times poll in April.

 

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200504...24752-6368r.htm

 

This is right after high school (ie right after they've had the evolution teaching we are talking about).  The evidence doesn't show that teaching evolution in high school affects belief in God.

405532[/snapback]

Stupid kids, aren't they listening?

[Chilly]

Stupid kids, aren't they listening?   

405540[/snapback]

 

Agreed

[OGTEleven]

1. Science teachers teach evolution.

2. There are atheists who believe in evolution.

3. Therefore science teachers are creating atheists

 

In my example, I think 1 and 2 are widely accepted.  However, your assertion that "There are many people leaving class thinking evolution disproves God" is a contention on your part that I don't think is correct and this is why I have asked for sources, studies, something.  Your response has been basically to tell me about bumper stickers.  Now I am not asking you to design a 10 year study on the issue but certainly, I don't think I am being too exacting to ask for something more than your personal observations of bumper stickers and assumptions about the persons who placed them there.

 

What research I have done, does not support your contention.  The most recent Gallup poll on the issue (2004) shows that 48% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form only 10,000 years ago.  Another 38% accept evolution but believe that it was directed by God.  Only 13% believe that God played no role in the development of the species.  Gallup

 

Here is a link to a column that discusses a whole list of polls on the issue which, to summarize, conclude that about 95% of Americans believe in God.  In fact, one poll showed that 36% of Americans believe that they have personally witnessed a miracle.  Americans and Religion

 

It seems to me that these polls, apart from your bumper sticker study, indicate that teaching evolution in science class is not creating atheists in droves.  Inserting religion into science class is not a remedy to the problem because in fact, there is no problem.

405521[/snapback]

Mickey,

 

No offense, but I stopped reading after the part where you asked for sources, studies, etc.....

 

You always ask for that crap but never provide it yourself. You call your beliefs widely accepted and leave it at that.

 

While writing this response I decided to read the rest of your post......

 

Your Gallup poll is completely irrelevant because it offers no comparison to the population before classes were being taught ( among other reasons).

 

I know what I see with my eyes every day, and I have zero ax to grind with Darwin or God, so you can call me stupid all you want, I don't care.

 

Your 1,2,3 example puts words in my mouth in such an incredibly arrogant fashion, I can't believe you have the gaul to parade around this thread calling other people arrogant. I explain what I mean and you call that dumb and ask for studies. So I guess I get my choice of being

 

A - A bible thumping paranoid

 

or

 

B - Stupid

 

I'll take B.

 

Did you ever at any point in this conversation allow for the remote possibility that the way evolution is being taught is in some small way imperfect?

 

You may want to actually give some thought to what other people post here before you respond to them telling them how they're stupid. I have several other personal observations I could make that would back my assertion, but if I had 100, it seems to me that you'd try to pick them apart one by one rather than open your mind. I'll spare myself the picking.

 

You may also want to make some observations rather than citing those of other people. It's the scientific thing to do.

[OGTEleven]

C'mon OG, you are not going to sit there and pretend that science hasn't been under attack by religion for the better part of the last 10 centuries are you?

If that were not the case, we wouldn't have to be fighting this same fight over and over about teaching Genesis in science classes nor would we have had to worry about laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution.  Fact is, we have and we are.  Read the Creationists "Wedge Document", it pretty much says it all.  Their goal is to replace current science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."  Its practically a manifesto against science. Wedge Document

Their fish bumper sticker isn't the problem.  Enough with the stickers already.  Joining the school board to change the curriculum to force the teaching of Genesis in science class is what I object to and I don't care what kind of bumper sticker the person doing it has on their car.

405538[/snapback]

Have you or have you not read my opinion about whether ID or any of this stuff should be taught in science class? It shouldn't. Many/most advocating it are whack jobs. I'm not even arguing about that.

 

I love religion and science.

 

I have no argument with you about 23 friggin centuries ago.

 

What I am specifically saying is that ID is a response to the results of how evolution is being taught in schools. Is it a poor response? YUP. But it's a response. You won't even allow for that possibility to enter your thought process.

[Mickey]

Mickey,

 

No offense, but I stopped reading after the part where you asked for sources, studies, etc.....

 

You always ask for that crap but never provide it yourself.  You call your beliefs widely accepted and leave it at that. 

 

While writing this response I decided to read the rest of your post......

 

Your Gallup poll is completely irrelevant because it offers no comparison to the population before classes were being taught ( among other reasons). 

 

I know what I see with my eyes every day, and I have zero ax to grind with  Darwin or God, so you can call me stupid all you want, I don't care.

 

Your 1,2,3 example puts words in my mouth in such an incredibly arrogant fashion, I can't believe you have the gaul to parade around this thread calling other people arrogant.  I explain what I mean and you call that dumb and ask for studies.  So I guess I get my choice of being

 

A  - A bible thumping paranoid

 

or

 

B  -  Stupid

 

I'll take B.

 

Did you ever at any point in this conversation allow for the remote possibility that the way evolution is being taught is in some small way imperfect?

 

You may want to actually give some thought to what other people post here before you respond to them telling them how they're stupid.  I have several other personal observations I could make that would back my assertion, but if I had 100, it seems to me that you'd try to pick them apart one by one rather than open your mind.  I'll spare myself the picking. 

 

You may also want to make some observations rather than citing those of other people.  It's the scientific thing to do.

405554[/snapback]

Where is it that I called you stupid? We simply disagree over the idea that the way evolution is being taught in schools is somehow causing an increase in the number of atheists. When people disagree, it is not unusual for them to examine the basis for their relative positions. To support your position, you offered this stuff about bumper stickers. I offered links to actual polls showing that there are hardly any atheists. In trying to understand your argument, I reduced it to a syllogism, a common method used to try and understand another's reasoning and in presenting it, I clearly stated that it was only how I understood your argument. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was simply trying to understand your logic.

 

I ask you to go back and read again the polls I presented, especially the column with the surveys of numerous polls going back to the 1970's. What they show is that belief in God has increased over time, not decreased. For example, in 1987, 60% of Americans agreed that they "never doubted the existence of God". Thirteen years later, that number rose to 69%. In 1973, 77% believed in life after death but by 1998, that number grew to 82%. Before you pronounce a 5% rise to be insignificant, recall that you declared a study showing that 95% of people in the US believe in God to be "completely irrelevant" because of no comparison with a poll taken before evolution was taught. If you are right, under a worst case scenario for my argument, 100% of Americans would have been believers before evolution was taught and after 50 or 60 years of such teaching, the number of true believers has plummeted a whopping 5%. That is if I give you the benefit of every doubt and assume, to help your argument, that there wasn't a single atheist alive in the US before the teaching of evolution in American schools became widespread. If you are right, why is the number of true believers increasing the longer evolution is being taught? If your hypothesis is correct, wouldn't the numbers being going the other way?

 

Another huge survey done in 2001 covering over 14,000 congregations in the United States found that about half of those congregations were founded after 1945. If teaching evolution creates atheists, why did the nation experience a doubling of its religious organizations during the time when teaching evolution became prevalent in the nation's schools?

 

On a list of 50 nations, the US was ranked 43rd in the proportion of atheists as it has only 3-9% of its people who are either agnostic or atheist. Italy has more atheist for goodness sakes. This was a 2005 study by the way (Stats on American Athesists).

 

It is ironic that you are lecturing on the scientific method at the same time you pronounce a poll showing that 95% of Americans believe in God to be irrelevant to the question of whether we have a national problem of science teachers using evolution to create atheists while at the same time relying on your personal observations of bumper stickers to support your position.

 

If personal observation is your preference, my observations indicate to me that far from experiencing an outbreak of atheism, religion and the religious have grown in numbers and influence at an amazing rate over the last 20 years. The political clout of the religious right is a pretty clear indicator of that development. In my lifetime, religious passion and its involvment in every aspect of daily life has been on a steady rise. Prayer in schools may be down but it is up everywhere else. I even saw a bunch of Bills players huddling for a prayer after practice the other day. You wouldn't have seen that in 1975 but today that kind of thing is so common it is hardly even noticed.

 

In the internet age, would it really be all that tough for you to dig up something objective that shows first that atheism is on the rise and second that there is a causal link between teaching evolution and this alleged rise in atheism?

[Mickey]

Have you or have you not read my opinion about whether ID or any of this stuff should be taught in science class?  It shouldn't.  Many/most advocating it are whack jobs.  I'm not even arguing about that.

 

I love religion and science. 

 

I have no argument with you about 23 friggin centuries ago.

 

What I am specifically saying is that ID is a response to the results of how evolution is being taught in schools.  Is it a poor response? YUP.  But it's a response.  You won't even allow for that possibility to enter your thought process.

405557[/snapback]

Respectfully, I disagree and I apologize if anything I said seemed to you to be a personal assualt on your intellect.

 

I did see where you don't think ID should be taught in science class and on that we agree. I don't however agree that it is a response to something scientists have done. Recall that at one point it was illegal to teach evolution and periodically, some have tried to resurrect that type of prohibition. Certainly, the intial outlawing of evolution wasn't a response to the way it was being taught, it was a preemptive strike to keep it from ever being taught.

 

Having read the wedge document setting out the strategy of the leading proponents of ID, who previously were the leading proponents of creationism, who were previously the leading proponents of teaching Genesis, and who were previously the leading proponents of outlawing evolution, I believe the motivation is not a response to proplems in the curriculum but a planned attack on evolution.

 

When I read that the majority of Americans and certainly the majority of people who want ID in the schools, believe in a "young earth", ie one that is only about 10,000 years old even though we know it is 4.3 billion years old, I can't help suspecting that people want ID taught for reasons other than the ones you cite.

 

Perhaps we can simply agree that with 95% of Americans believing in God, atheism is not really a national problem and further, that teaching ID in science class is a bad idea?

[OGTEleven]

Respectfully, I disagree and I apologize if anything I said seemed to you to be a personal assualt on your intellect.

 

I did see where you don't think ID should be taught in science class and on that we agree.  I don't however agree that it is a response to something scientists have done.  Recall that at one point it was illegal to teach evolution and periodically, some have tried to resurrect that type of prohibition.  Certainly, the intial outlawing of evolution wasn't a response to the way it was being taught, it was a preemptive strike to keep it from ever being taught.

 

Having read the wedge document setting out the strategy of the leading proponents of ID, who previously were the leading proponents of creationism, who were previously the leading proponents of teaching Genesis, and who were previously the leading proponents of outlawing evolution, I believe the motivation is not a response to proplems in the curriculum but a planned attack on evolution.

 

When I read that the majority of Americans and certainly the majority of people who want ID in the schools, believe in a "young earth", ie one that is only about 10,000 years old even though we know it is 4.3 billion years old, I can't help suspecting that people want ID taught for reasons other than the ones you cite.

 

Perhaps we can simply agree that with 95% of Americans believing in God, atheism is not really a national problem and further, that teaching ID in science class is a bad idea?

405605[/snapback]

I agree that teaching ID is a bad idea. I agree that some advocating it are whack jobs with nefarious intent.

 

But I see thousands (I've seen 1,000 and assume that there are some out there that haven't driven by me yet) of bumper stiickers which directly equate Darwin and God. I've also spoken with several atheists who cite Darwin's studies as one of their main "proofs" that God is a myth. It is certainly not their only argument, but it is prominent. The conclusions these people have reached are incorrect with respect to Darwin. I am merely suggesting that a science teacher should be concerned with this and open to changing teaching methods. I am not in favor of removing Darwin from schools. I have seen no evidence of willingness to make any changes. With all due respect, you do not even seem to acknowledge the possibility that something is being done incorrectly.

 

Whether or not religion or atheism are rising or falling is not the point. The point is that people see a direct correlation between evolution and God. There is none. Some of this (maybe even more than half) is the fault of religious fanatics. Some of it is the fault of "science". You can acknowledge that or not.

 

If "science" and "religion" are seeking truth, they should both be willing to examine their methods of search on a continuing basis.

[Johnny Coli]

I agree that teaching ID is a bad idea.  I agree that some advocating it are whack jobs with nefarious intent.

 

But I see thousands (I've seen 1,000 and assume that there are some out there that haven't driven by me yet) of bumper stiickers which directly equate Darwin and God.  I've also spoken with several atheists who cite Darwin's studies as one of their main "proofs" that God is a myth.  It is certainly not their only argument, but it is prominent.  The conclusions these people have reached are incorrect with respect to Darwin.  I am merely suggesting that a science teacher should be concerned with this and open to changing teaching methods.  I am not in favor of removing Darwin from schools.  I have seen no evidence of willingness to make any changes.  With all due respect, you do not even seem to acknowledge the possibility that something is being done incorrectly. 

 

Whether or not religion or atheism are rising or falling is not the point.  The point is that people see a direct correlation between evolution and God.  There is none.  Some of this (maybe even more than half) is the fault of religious fanatics.  Some of it is the fault of "science".  You can acknowledge that or not.

 

If "science" and "religion" are seeking truth, they should both be willing to examine their methods of search on a continuing basis.

405662[/snapback]

It is not a public (or secular private) HS science teacher’s job to bolster a student’s faith in a higher power. It is their job to teach science and the scientific method. There is nothing to fix or examine with the way they are teaching science, because in my mind teaching a student evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and other than 1001 bumper stickers in upstate NY there isn't any evidence that says otherwise. You say above that there is no direct correlation between evolution and god. Then why should a science teacher address it? If that child’s faith is that fragile and that easily shaken, how the hell is that the teacher’s fault? Should all science lessons begin with the caveat "This lesson in no way has any bearing on the existence of God/Allah/Zeus"?

 

I am surrounded by scientists, scientists that studied evolution in HS, college and grad school. By your assumptions I should be surrounded by atheists. I’m not. I don’t see any Darwin fish in the parking lot either. Maybe they all migrated to upstate NY?