Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
hey, user:Conservative, come take a look at this!
But when defined more narrowly as new forms of life coming into being "without any intervention from God", only 13% to 16% of Americans agree.
But when defined more narrowly as new forms of life coming into being "without any intervention from God", only 13% to 16% of Americans agree.
Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".
*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact. (teacher in CNN article)
This apparently refers to the assertion that the appearance of new forms of life is supported by fossils (see [[carbon dating]]). But the context of the quote implies that the teacher was actually talking about the notion that "new species can evolve from older ones -- such as humans evolving from ancient apes." [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/]
About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that [[natural selection]] and unguided forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.
==Notes==
==Notes==
<references/>
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]
[[Category:Origins debate]]