I believe in Evolution. yes
its fool to suggest otherwise

In the way that a counterexample nullifies an argument your reply stands in such stark contrast to the view of religion and religious people advanced by Manus that it is a persuasive refutation of that view.  To be sure there are clearly people of extreme view in any group of people, religious or otherwise, and forced to conclude based on an interaction with those individuals alone the conclusion would almost certainly look like what he puts forward. 

However, considering that his story is in essence one of transition from ignorance to enlightenment it initially seems odd that he did not encounter any non-extremist religious persons during that transition to enlightenment.  At first this occurs to me as improbable, but considering further is probably best explained by a strongly held view not easily swayed.  And as you point out it would certainly be a warranted bias in this scenario.

Having pointed that out, I now arrive at the thought that compelled me to reply.  That the ignorance of such an upbringing would not be exclusive to the view of the outside world but would also pervade the view of religion as a whole.  As a person leaves such an environment, and with only that experience to base off of, their view of religion would naturally lack true and full perspective representative of religion as a whole.  It seems to me, that in a very real sense they would have one last remnant of ignorance to escape from.

Granted, we certainly all have our flaws, biases, and faults (and I probably have more than my fair share), but after reading his post in contrast with yours the impression of this remnant was quite strong for me.

@topic,

I believe evolution is the best theory we currently have, and that it is a well formed and well supported theory.

I don't know that I would use the word "accept" to describe my opinions on evolution, but in the casual sense of the word it is close enough.

ManusJustus has it spot on.
I'm also tired of hearing I'm going to hell because I don't kneel before Zod, I mean God. Sure i'm a little sarky and don't think much of people but I don't go out and hurt people yet because I don't go to church one day a week I'm condemned. All I would have to do is go to church to be saved, I wouldn't have to change anything about the way I live my life so it appears to me it's not how you live your life but how often you pledge your unwavering subjection to a deity.
Doesn't add up to me. It's family members that have said I'm going to hell and they're trying to save me. What a wonderful god that would force family members to say that.

I was working on a production line with a guy from Africa and we started talking and he asked me if I drank. As he was the same age as me and I'm not a drunk I thought it would be safe to say yes. So I asked him if he did as I don't care if someones tea-total and he said no. Fair enough until he gave his reason why.
He said he didn't because the Lord Jesus never drank and then I knew I was in for it. I had to spend the next 7 hours listening to him preach to me.

How is that opinion different to anyone else's who accepts it?

You can "accept" a theory and know it is not complete or accounts for the bigger picture.

I don't think anyone accepts evolution in its current form, I certainly don't. Granted, evolution is a proven fact, we know it occurs. However, despite how well supported by evidence it is we do not have a full understanding of it yet; and I doubt anyone would claim we do.

Like nearly all theories, evolution is an area of active research as we're constantly attempting to refine the theory and understand it better. If in the future a new theory replaces evolution due to new evidence, I can guarantee one thing, It will have to take into account the massive amounts of evidence that has been generated so far. So in its current form I can accept it, even though I know in the future it will change, whether that change is small or large.

So whenever someone asks whether I "accept" a theory I believe is the best we have I will say yes, more or less because I believe the theory is well supported and is heading in the right direction.

(I'm on the verge of falling asleep so my post may not make much sense. If it doesn't I apologise in advance)

It makes sense.
I hope science never claims it knows and understands everything.
An ongoing process like you say. One of the problems with religious types is when they claim to know how life and the universe started and say it's all in the bible or whatever religious text they use.
The text offer no explanaition just a story in which you need to blindly accept ignoring reality to believe. Faith is good for the soul shall we say. How to live your life, give meaning to it help you through difficult times. I have no problem with it making you a better person and giving you good values but it should stay clear from anything to do with science unless its to keep the scientist moral compass pointing the right way so he doesn't perform unethical experiments.

@yellow,

You certainly came off as tired, but I get where you were going =)

Anyways, I wasn't so much troubled by the degree of certainty expressed in regards to the theory as I was the lack of expressed understanding on the part of the "acceptor".  It is more along the lines that I don't think of myself as having accepted evolution the same way you might say someone "accepts his fate". 

In other words my point was more that I understand the theory of evolution and believe it to be our best effort at understanding the process to date, I don't just accept that what I've been told of the theory is true or probably true or even close enough....I looked at it and determined it for myself.

In short, I place I great deal of emphasis on personal understanding and really dislike the concept of one individual outsourcing their views of science to the mind of another individual.  Obviously people can't investigate all scientific claims but I believe those claims that interest or effect someone personally should be.

PS - Like I said, the casual sense of the word "accept" is close enough =P

@ Yellow - Red. Haha, don't worry. I said at the beginning I don't accept it in it's current form. The second part and the red text was attempting to explain how it can be accepted with the knowledge that the current form is "incorrect" but also realise it will be refined into a more accurate and correct theory in the future... But I can see where the confusion came from, I didn't express it very well.

@ Post - That's fair enough, personal understanding is key when reading about a scientific theory. The ability to independently critique theories/hypotheses is the mark of a good researcher. All I know is that I have looked at a lot of evidence and know that whatever comes after the current evolution theory will have to account for all we have learned to be true about the theory so far, which is a lot so it would at least bear fair resemblance. But that's just what I think.

as luck would have it today, my Bible teacher(i go to a private school. IT SUCKS!!!) was talking about how evolution is not "observable science". After my abrupt laughter, he put three key points about evolution

1. Life begets Life- Basically, he believes that evolutionists believe life was spontaneously generated, and then claimed that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. I told him what the second law of thermodynamics states and how it has no implications against evolution.

2. Like begets Like- He said that life cannot give birth to anything new. He states all dogs are still dogs(a lot of people in my class didn't get the stupidity of that statement). He then express how he believes God made different "kinds"(which has no clear cut definition. If only God gave us the answer!) and those kinds branched out.

3. Missing Links- He then goes on to say how there are no transitional forms, and all claimed to be are frauds. He then quote mines Stephen J. Gould about his theory on punctuated equilibrium by saying Gould made the theory because it makes evolution make more sense.

Alright. I would love to explain why all these statements are wrong, but I am going to ask one of you to show how idiotic my Bible teacher is

Put simply your bible teacher is, as you put it "an idiot" because he is trying to use faith as justification for a scientific conclusion.

It doesn't work that way.  Science is the pursuit of emperical truth, where religion is the pursuit of spiritual truth. 

Put simply, there is no spiritual truth to be found in the minutia of biological mechanisms for the formation of life. 

That's not to say religion has no role in the discussion of origination, but it should be careful not to conflate the question of "why are we here?" with "what steps did we take to get here?". 

I simply don't see any conflict in believing that we are here by the act of a diety whose powers manifest in adherence to physical law.  Most religious people seem to view their god as a rational thinking being who places a premium on order and at the very least is not fond of chaos.  It is of absolute logic then for that deity to enact its intervention into mortal reality with mechanisms consistent with the laws of mortal reality, particularly when you're talking about a deity that wishes to leave no proof of existence and instead require people to believe through faith.

In short, the real oddity to me is that evolution is a topic in bible study when it truly has no bearing on rational theology.  To the world of faith the fact that we are here is a far better point of contention for deism than arguing over the details of precisely what mechanisms brought us here.  Particularly when any mechanism for our arrival is easily within the capability of an omnipotent being.

1. Evolution does not actually have anything to do with the beginning of life, that's another branch of science called abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is unfortunately not able to be observed in the same way evolution is but it is able to be proved possible and for ways it could have happened to be found. Second law of thermodynamics is applicable to a closed system, earth is not a closed system as the sun puts tremendous amounts of energy into it. Evolution is the entropy on earth decreasing but the suns increasing entropy dramatically outweighs this.

2. Like begets extremely similar. It takes many many steps on the chain for something drastically different to be born. While a dog may only give birth to another dog, a thousand generations of dogs may give something quite different from your starting animal. There is no clear cut point in the chain where the dog goes 'you know, I think I'll give birth to a toad'.

3. It's been said that every new link in a chain is a disaster for evolution, it fills one gap but creates two - one on either side. There are transitional forms, many creationists just decide to treat them as completely seperate from the chain of evolution - despite how neatly they fit in form, location and time. Punctuated equilibrium is merely a repackaging of evolution.

Edit: Crap. I wasn't going to debate in this topic.