Only two Miss USA contestants believe in evolution

[defrauding]

There is actually a Miss Christian America pageant out there. I couldn't find much about it, though.

How would judging work for the shapeless frumper portion?

[library_youth]

How would judging work for the shapeless frumper portion?

Best calico pattern wins? :D

[Soldier of the One]

There's nothing to 'believe' about evolution: it is empirical theory, supported by empirical fact. Comparing evolution to a belief in a Supreme Being makes no sense.

I accept the theory of evolution - and all the many ways in which proof for it has been delivered - as fact. Just as I accept the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. Analyses may tweak the theory of evolution over the next decades and centuries but one can see from the evidence provided that the basic premises of the origins of species are accurate. Do I cite Charles Darwin ad verbatim? No. Charles Darwin was not the prophet of a revealed text.

Rejecting evolution may be bad science. But it is even worse theology. What statements are we making about the moral validity of God and the eternal sanctity of the Bible if we are saying that God would perhaps actively deceive us or that the account in Genesis can only be read in one, literalist manner? Are we really trying to cram a square peg through a round hole? The Bible is so much more multi-layered and nuanced that that, even when only taken as a literary text and not as revealed scripture. And even if one does take it as revealed scripture, then one should realise that the Bible was never written to be a geology treatise or a natural history book. It is written as a moral code, among many things. But it was not written to compete with modern, empirical science.

The Bible is infinitely precious to me. The opening chapters of Genesis tell me so much about the value of Creation, of life, of Nature, of the cyclical nature of time. Of the need for cosmic rest and regeneration. Of freedom and agency of Man. Of the right to rest on the Sabbath. All those are beautiful, existential lessons I get out of Genesis. And not for one split second do I have to believe that the world was literally created 5771 years ago, in six days, and completed on a Friday night just before sundown.

That the educational systems fail to imbue such nuance on our students is a shame. And that such views are then perpetuated and held up as exemplary in the media is dangerous. It undercuts the value of education, science, independent inquiry and sound theology.

This news broadcast came from a deeply religious person who also loves science :)

[starfish]

Science isn't like a democracy where if there is something you don't like, it's not sparkly enough or whatever,

you get to vote against it.

[nolongerIFBx]

I've done this before so I might as well do it again. Be careful of the rug!

“The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.â€- Evolutionist and world class expert on the chemistry of DNA, Dr. Robert Shapiro, Robert Shapiro, Origins -- A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, 1986, 128.

Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.†Creation ex nihilo magazine, March–May 1999- http://creation.com/creation-in-the-res ... -macreadie

Dr. Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, has said that he is convinced that life could not have evolved on this planet from non-life.

Francis Crick & L.E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,†Icarus journal, 19, p. 341–346; also Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981).

Darwin himself stated, ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Ch. 6, Sixth Edition, 1872.

Obviously- you can still be very well educated- genius even!- and still be "ignorant' enough to believe that evolution (abiogenesis) just might not be completely correct as to the origin of life. In fifty or a hundred years, scientists may have a completely new theory on abiogenesis.

Watch your step!

[O Latin]

Well, first of all, not everyone who believes in creation believes in YEC.

I think part of the problem is that everyone assumes you can't "believe" in creation AND evolution, you have to pick one (and I agree it's sort of stupid to say you believe or don't believe in evolution). I can believe God created the world and still accept evolution.

It is also possible to be educated and just not know a whole lot about evolution. I think I've said before that the best explanation of human evolution I've ever gotten was in my linguistics class. I'm a history major. Thanks to the AP Calculus test that I took in high school, I only had to take one science class in college and I chose online Chemistry for Idiots (this choice had mostly to do with the fact that I wanted to get my science requirement out of the way during the summer, and that's what was offered). Science makes me want to poke my eyes out. It's not because I want to put my fingers in my ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you." I just find it so incredibly boring. I'm glad that not everyone feels this way, because science and scientists have done wonderful things that make my life better and easier, but it's not for me. Anyway, all of this was a long way of saying that I do not really understand evolution (although I don't deny it), but that does NOT make me uneducated or willfully ignorant.

[fundiefan]

I just read something that made me think of this post.

99% of people who don't believe in evolution cannot define it.

[GenerationCedarchip]

Well, first of all, not everyone who believes in creation believes in YEC.

I think part of the problem is that everyone assumes you can't "believe" in creation AND evolution, you have to pick one (and I agree it's sort of stupid to say you believe or don't believe in evolution). I can believe God created the world and still accept evolution.

It is also possible to be educated and just not know a whole lot about evolution. I think I've said before that the best explanation of human evolution I've ever gotten was in my linguistics class. I'm a history major. Thanks to the AP Calculus test that I took in high school, I only had to take one science class in college and I chose online Chemistry for Idiots (this choice had mostly to do with the fact that I wanted to get my science requirement out of the way during the summer, and that's what was offered). Science makes me want to poke my eyes out. It's not because I want to put my fingers in my ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you." I just find it so incredibly boring. I'm glad that not everyone feels this way, because science and scientists have done wonderful things that make my life better and easier, but it's not for me. Anyway, all of this was a long way of saying that I do not really understand evolution (although I don't deny it), but that does NOT make me uneducated or willfully ignorant.

This, this, a thousand times this. First of all, the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis is, as I understand, indicative of a period of time. It's not necessarily 24 hours. Also, I never could figure out why evolution and creation couldn't mix at all. God can do anything - and I think that includes the possibly of God directing the evolution of species. YEC types would probably stone me for saying that, but I still think it's not outside the realm of the possible.

[Lainey]

I've done this before so I might as well do it again. Be careful of the rug!

“The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.â€- Evolutionist and world class expert on the chemistry of DNA, Dr. Robert Shapiro, Robert Shapiro, Origins -- A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, 1986, 128.

Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.†Creation ex nihilo magazine, March–May 1999- http://creation.com/creation-in-the-res ... -macreadie

Dr. Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, has said that he is convinced that life could not have evolved on this planet from non-life.

Francis Crick & L.E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,†Icarus journal, 19, p. 341–346; also Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981).

Darwin himself stated, ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Ch. 6, Sixth Edition, 1872.

Obviously- you can still be very well educated- genius even!- and still be "ignorant' enough to believe that evolution (abiogenesis) just might not be completely correct as to the origin of life. In fifty or a hundred years, scientists may have a completely new theory on abiogenesis.

Watch your step!

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... endaB.html

[Witsec1]

Luckily, the folks at Talk Origins have compiled a handy dandy list of all the mangled quotes creationists love to excrete, which makes cleaning the rug so much easier.

Check here what your sources left out, NoLongerIFBX:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote74

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote84

You might want to check here before posting any more of those turds:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... tents.html

[Boogalou]

I've done this before so I might as well do it again. Be careful of the rug!

*snip*

Obviously- you can still be very well educated- genius even!- and still be "ignorant' enough to believe that evolution (abiogenesis) just might not be completely correct as to the origin of life. In fifty or a hundred years, scientists may have a completely new theory on abiogenesis.

Watch your step!

I think part of the problem is that everyone assumes you can't "believe" in creation AND evolution, you have to pick one (and I agree it's sort of stupid to say you believe or don't believe in evolution). I can believe God created the world and still accept evolution.

I am not going to start explaining evolution because it is never going to change anyone's mind. O Latin has it absolutely right you can believe in creation and still accept evolution because those two things are mutually exclusive (unless you believe in a literal Genesis).

Having said that, I now need to say this: evolution is NOT the same thing as abiogenesis. Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life. Evolution only explains the diversity of life/species.

Sorry for quoting wikipedia but it explains it so nicely:

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

Abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

TL;DR: Evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis.

[dcmhejbl62]

I'm highly educated, not a fundy, and I do not believe in Evolution. I know many people similar to me who believe likewise.

Highly educated from where? Where were the similar people educated? What is your / their religion? Why don't you believe in evolution?

Not snarky, just curious...

[Lainey]

Luckily, the folks at Talk Origins have compiled a handy dandy list of all the mangled quotes creationists love to excrete, which makes cleaning the rug so much easier.

Check here what your sources left out, NoLongerIFBX:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote74

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote84

You might want to check here before posting any more of those turds:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... tents.html

Oh, thank you. I was looking for something like this, but couldn't find. Most excellent.

[dcmhejbl62]

I've been a Christian all my life, and I have never had a problem "believing" in creation and evolution together. Genesis is a beautiful poem about the beginning of the world. Evolution seeks to understand the world's beginnings with the best scientific techniques and knowledge we have at the time. As Christians we don't HAVE to see a conflict between the two.

[thoughtful]

I believe in evolution.

That silly "gravity" thing, however -- that's the antichrist!

:::watches dog float across the room:::

:mrgreen:

[starfish]

I'm voting against gravity. I just don't like it.

[TheJewAmongUs]

Watching the videos I felt like some of the contestants weren't really saying they do or don't "believe" in evolution, but were trying to give an answer to please everyone. (Though I don't really know why, how many pageant judges are likely to really think religious theories should be taught as fact in public schools?)

I think a more telling question should be, "Should comparative religions be taught in schools?" I'd like to know if people could separate, "These are the 5 pillars of Islam, this is what Muslims believe," from something like, "Your beliefs are wrong and we're teaching you to practice a different religion." To me, you should know the basics of what other people believe. I liken it to going to someone else's house and accepting that they have different rules, like taking your shoes off at the door, or no kids in the formal living room, or brush your teeth before breakfast instead of after breakfast.

But to agree with above posters, how does evolution automatically discount creation? One of the contestants said her god created everyone with a purpose. So her god couldn't also have purposefully intended for things to evolve in a certain way? And I'm not talking about intelligent design, because that is also just a political response to avoid displeasing people.

Most people I've encountered don't even call it "evolution," they call it "Darwinism." Probably because it's easier to poke petty holes in a 150 year old book, and has more of a negative connotation to use one man's name than to challenge something supported by multiple scientific disciplines.

[Lily]

...What part about this is supposed to be surprising?

That women -- excuse me, girls -- who either voluntarily participate or are guided/forced into a competition to judge them on their appearance, only valued for their bodies, don't understand the basic principles of science or logic?

The whole pageant world is fundamentally rooted in the idea of being seen and not heard, valued for beauty, not brains: doing what predominantly male judges want you to and following the line, being there to look at, not to have a voice or to present/exchange ideas. Seen and not heard. The people who buy into these pageants for their children (who grow up to be Miss USA) are the kind of people who already agree with the basis of them. Of course they're more likely to be in that camp.

Doesn't it seem a little strange that the pageant world is on life support everywhere except the Bible belt these days?

Going off topic and I'm rambling, but I'm wondering if these pageants aren't a "safe" kind of porn for the extremely religious/repressed. On those pageant shows, the mothers (and sometimes fathers) defend the outfits and sexy dances and stuff by saying something like, "well, they're only little girls! It's completely innocent! If someone's looking at it like that, that's their problem!" That's what has me interested. It's been consistently documented that repressed people are far more prone to having some kind of unhealthy paraphilia than are those who have healthy ideas about sex. If the fundie-lite/general Christian Conservative types that do participate in this pageant world have convinced themselves that sexy outfits and sexy dances and the like are okay as long as it's kids instead of adults, they can indulge in it without facing the wrath of god.

Seems awfully convenient, to ignore your own rules as long as it's children, then get all repressed once they grow boobs.

[Lainey]

I'm voting against gravity. I just don't like it.

I know, right!? I mean, if I walk off a cliff I'm going to fall down? What's up with that!? I want to be able to fly! :snooty:

As an aside, for those who don't "believe" in evilution (*snerk*) because you have a problem with the idea that we "came from" apes (actually we ARE apes, but you know), why are you okay with the idea of us "coming from" dirt? Just curious. I've always wondered about that.

[Marchpane]

I think there should be a World, "I'm proud to be a big, clever ape" Day for those of us who are perfectly accepting of our simian heritage. We should have parades and banners* and music and generally have a good time.

* Or possibly bananas :banana-guitar:

[Lainey]

I think there should be a World, "I'm proud to be a big, clever ape" Day for those of us who are perfectly accepting of our simian heritage. We should have parades and banners* and music and generally have a good time.

* Or possibly bananas :banana-guitar:

Yay! I'm in! We should hold it at a zoo, so that our cousins can participate. :mrgreen:

Personally, it makes me happy to think that in some extremely distant way, I'm related to my cats. And to avocados. I like avocados.

ETA: And puffins! How could I forget the puffins! :doh:

[emmiedahl]

I've done this before so I might as well do it again. Be careful of the rug!

“The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.â€- Evolutionist and world class expert on the chemistry of DNA, Dr. Robert Shapiro, Robert Shapiro, Origins -- A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, 1986, 128.

Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.†Creation ex nihilo magazine, March–May 1999- http://creation.com/creation-in-the-res ... -macreadie

Dr. Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, has said that he is convinced that life could not have evolved on this planet from non-life.

Francis Crick & L.E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,†Icarus journal, 19, p. 341–346; also Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981).

Darwin himself stated, ""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, Ch. 6, Sixth Edition, 1872.

Obviously- you can still be very well educated- genius even!- and still be "ignorant' enough to believe that evolution (abiogenesis) just might not be completely correct as to the origin of life. In fifty or a hundred years, scientists may have a completely new theory on abiogenesis.

Watch your step!

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or the world. It has to do with the shuffling of genes (etc) that you describe. You can observe it in daily life. It is not an enemy combatant to Christianity; Darwin was a minister and his theory of evolution merely described what he saw, what all scientists see, in life.

Saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in the color blue. It's still there. You can say, 'no, that's turquoise...' but the fact remains that the color blue exists.

edited for misstatement

[browngrl]

I think science classes should teach science. BUT if religion is going to be taught in the place of science I vote for the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all of His noodley goodness.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[kb2]

I think science classes should teach science. BUT if religion is going to be taught in the place of science I vote for the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all of His noodley goodness.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Ra-men!

[Guest Anonymous]

Ra-men!

Hail, Carbonara. Creamy be thy name!