Republicans on Evolution

>The bible says that man was created by God 6,000 years ago
hmmm...Do I believe this book that was written by jews in 2500 years ago, or do I believe the observable biological facts of the world presented before me? Tough choice, tough choice.

America was founded by puritans, and Puritans are basically Christian Salafists.

>Deists
FTFY

>tfw atheist and constantly reading creationist criticisms of evolution and starting to believe them

help I am of feeble mind

A sizable portion of the country thinks being informed is a negative thing.

Alright I'll bite. Can you give me an example?

You see, there is no reason to privilege one explanation for events over another if there is no evidence for either one.

Evolution is the theory of events that integrates the most factual evidence.

You can believe anything you want, but if you don't integrate evidence, your belief is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

I mean colonial America, not the USA.

Oh. Yeah, Puritans then.

This is what they think of "secular" science. This is in a Christian school textbook. Kids are being taugh this.

>christian school textbook
Are there seriously no standards or regulations for textbooks in the US? Can you simply print whatever you want as long as the schools accept it?

I don't think those are actually used in us public schools. Some deep red state Republicans were trying to shoehorn them in but failed.

My memory is shit and I may be wrong though.

As long as you meet the minimum standards for education, you can do whatever you want to your kid.

In California, you don't even have to do that. I have a friend who lived in California and was "homeschooled" for a year while he just played Donkey Kong and did literally nothing else.

>implying any of this is wrong in it's description

no such thing as cosmic evolution
no such thing as chemical evolution. If they mean how non-living chemicals become what's known as life that's ABIOGENESIS and it's NOT EVOLUTION
biological evolution is the only one that's actually evolution
"caveman subhumans" means what exactly in this context. This shit is extremely poorly phrased

now be a good ol' boy and fuck off

evolution in its most general sense merely means gradual change over time

alright fine, read this and THEN fuck off
foo.ca/wp/chick-tract-satire/whos-your-daddy/

listen fella, just because christcucks treat the word "evilooshun" as Satan incarnate doesn't mean the definition of the word has changed

If Muslims could accept evolution why can't Christians

95% of the curriculum in the Gulf states is study of the Koran, they have to import all of their engineers and regularly encourage students who have promise to study abroad if they want a degree worth anything, I very much doubt they are not teaching their own brand of creationism

Reveled truth isn't the same category as empirical truth.

>"One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and to reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends." [1]

what exactly am I reading here?

anecdotally related, all muslim kids in my HS became exempt from taking bio and zoology 101 classes on religious grounds and took chemistry classes instead

FUCK YOU FOR STEALING MY DUBS

The works of Khaldun and Tusi is not far off from actual "Darwin" evolution we accept today. Islamic scholar Tusi in the 13th century discussed hereditary variability and how it was an important factor for biological evolution of living things. They're no where near as delusional as Christians when it comes to science.

>then what does he think he is
A descendant of the first man, who was created by God 6000 years ago.

I'd do that too, it sounds sweet.

But then again half of the population of Muslims still live in tribal villages with no internet. When I was in University, this Muslim guy was arguing about evolution and how we don't know it's real because it's nothing but a theory. It's ironic because Muslims are responsible for most of the math, science, astronomy, etc. we follow today. Algebra is named by a Muslim. Half of the stars are Arab names. Medicine. Algorithms, etc. All from shit skins. A Muslim that argues against science has never studied their own history.

It's niggers

>It's ironic because Muslims are responsible for most of the math, science, astronomy, etc. we follow today. Algebra is named by a Muslim. Half of the stars are Arab names. Medicine. Algorithms, etc. All from shit skins. A Muslim that argues against science has never studied their own history.
Islamic golden age of science is a meme
pushed in high schools after 9/11 to push the narrative that they weren't always goat fucking barbarians.

...

Yes all non-white history is a meme

If I told you that most of the scholars in the House of Wisdom were Christians, would that change your mind /pol/?

...

t. gaea worshiping pagan

What does 9/11 have to do with the term Islamic Golden Age? I remember studying it in high school World History in the early 90s.

Not sure if shitposting or too young to remember a good education.

>isn't even a comic

A drawing attempting to cause laughter is a comic.

who ever said I was trying to cause laughter?

Who ever said your pic didn't? Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sonny.

>descendants of a primate
we are primates. wtf.

>and most of South America
I'm from argentina and i haven't met an evolution denier in my entire life. I didn't even know they existed when i was a kid until i read americans talking about it on the internet.

Yes it does.
What evidence is there that the Bible is more accurate than Norse, Islamic, Hindu, and Aztec creation stories?

>your biology class is replaced by a world creation mythology class
And nothing of value was lost

Satan has spoken

Bump with truth.

I'm more interested in Liberal Atheists on evolution. Who believe that race and class is merely a social construct, disregarding the inheritence of traits which is the very basis of all life and how evolution works.

The Concept itself(not the term) originated in the 1700's to explain why Europe was less advanced than the Mid East(And Eastern Roman Empire) during the "Dark Ages"

>leftists believes in evolution
>thinks everyone is 100% equal in all ways corners and shapes

>I don't know how science works

No, I don't think everyone is equal, I think there's a genetic component to intelligence. I just think that I've seen some really stupid rednecks that were stupider than niggers and I don't see a reason to judge intelligence by a person's race unless they're a Jew or an Asian.

The left denies evolution too whenever it says or implies, even remotely, something that goes against their principles.

>i don't judge people based on their inherent characteristics except these types of people

/decadent leftist doublethink general/

This is a genuine page from a texas textbook.
Science 4.

Bump

i live in the deep south and i havent even met one either, the ones that hold these beleive usually dont flaunt it and bring it up alot

what year?

I think Appalachia is where most of them reside, given this fucktard has taken up residence there.

Thanks for introducing me to Ibn Khaldun.
He seems like a genius.

Transitional forms.

Where is the fossil records of all these transitional stages that evolution must have thrown up? For a particular trait to be evolutionary advantageous requires it propagating throughout the species but of course we would have to see large peak-trough patterns of every species in that instance where it takes time for the 'advantaged' to replace the 'disadvantaged'. There would of course be a smaller number of 'advantaged' in a species at first whilst those others would die off more quickly before population stabilised and shifted to the advantaged ones.

Why is this only a problem in shitholes and America?

Probable source:
11points.com/Books/11_Eye-Opening_Highlights_From_a_Creationist_Science_Textbook

>95% of the curriculum in the Gulf states is study of the Koran

You going to provide actual sources for that or is 'something obvious we take as fact'?

>they have to import all of their engineers

Again, sources?

>regularly encourage students who have promise to study abroad if they want a degree worth anything

That's simply because there are better resources available in advanced institutions in the UK/USA etc such as Cambridge, Oxford, MIT and so on. Lots of countries irrespective of being Islamic or not do this - a government encouraged sponsorship program so the best can learn at the best institutes. These gulf countries do actually invest in their own education infrastructure though and are seeking to draw in global students as well in the near future. This is more tactical and on globalist economical levels though and nothing to do with religion.

Virginians weren't puritans and they did a fuckton more historically than the actual puritan colonies did.

>Ibn Khaldun

>Abdurahman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin Jabir bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Abdurahman bin Ibn Khaldun, generally known as "Ibn Khaldūn"

What a name!

More importantly, the party recently elected into power doesn't believe in global warming, either. That might be a problem.

Not him, but:
a) creating(pun intended) fossils is really hard.
You need some "flash burial" to turn them from degradable flesh and bone to fossil rocks.

b) a lot of evolutionists go aboard on the whole random darwinian mutation thing. It seems environmental factors also influence genes a lot.
aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories
There are some other debates in the field about some other stuff that are too incomplete for evolution to happen as the theory says, but those are brushed under the rug to not feed the creationists, and to keep the image of darwinism as this largely figured out science that may not know fully how it's theory works.

I personally find your atheism more debatable than these creationist arguments.

>evolution in its most general sense merely means gradual change over time
doesn't even have to be gradual

>son of Mohamed son of Mohamed son of Mohamed son of Al-Hasan(the beautiful one), son of Jabir son of Mohamed son of Abraham son of Abdurahman son of Ibm Khaldun

>In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.[1] Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation,[2] although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.

>Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.[3][4]

>although Catholics are free not to believe in any part of evolutionary theory.
>Adam and Eve were real people
Yet they still look down on Prods.

>Transitional forms

The chances of good fossilization aren't that common.
Even if a specific form is present for a few million years it's not too unlikely for it to simply not be present in the fossil record.

Natural selection is also hardly the only force acting on a population.

Strong fundamentalist movement, poor education, a large population of idiots, etc. Also, I'm sure creationists exist in other countries.

How is evolution revelevant to politics? It's the cienticists fault by putting their stupid beliefs in culturally christian nations.

cientificists, I mean

>Republicans on evolution
Why not liberals on Darwinian evolution? They cling to humanism and it's constructs just as bad as Christians, ignoring evolution when applied to humanity or society.

Even though you sound like a butthurt conservative, you do raise a good point.

What would a political system based entirely on evolutionary theory look like? (Bonus: no eugenics or nazis)

social-darwinism as been discredited a long time ago

>ignoring evolution when applied to humanity or society.
Virtually the consensus of professionals in the field agree that all humans are %99.9 genetically identical, to the point where many hypothesize a genetic bottleneck at some point in the distant past which reduced the human race to as few as 10,000 breeding pairs, and that the differences between the "races" are completely cosmetic.
This forms the foundation of the belief that race is a social construct and it's not that they have a "liberal" bias, it's because this is what the data is telling them to be the case.

Because America was where England sent its religious extremists.

Source?

>Jews are mad they don't come out on top of everything like they feel like they should

Actually most of the catholics (like 95% of them) believe in evolution. The problems are the conservative protestants that I don't know why believe in adam and eve or some shit like that.

I was raised baptists. Protestants are definitely the problem as most Catholics I know are indeed pro-evolution

You act as if culture/religion isn't an extension of the evolutionary process. Humans being genetically similar is a useless truism. There are inferior cultures and you can see that just by looking at sub-saharan africa. Colonialism and "white people" had nothing to do with it.

I share 50% of my DNA with a banana and 98% with a chimpanzee. What you describe as "cosmetic differences" can in fact become extremely significant.

More importantly why is it constantly discussed in Veeky Forums instead of /x/?

IIRC, we share, what, 96% of our DNA is monkies? .1% difference between us can lead to some heavy results.

What are the results? I don't know - I'm not a fucking scientist.

/thread

>“I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations,” said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small.”

>culture/religion is an extension of the evolutionary process

literally wat

I think this guy is saying that we differentiate and adapt in more ways than by standard biological means.