Which statement about human evolution is closest to your own idea about it?

[BurtWorm]

(h/t Jerry Coyne for inspiring this poll)

[LAGC]

1. 48% still believe in Creation. Scary.

Thats some mind-numbing statistics right there.

[guruoo]

41. I wonder how many of those that would poll that way really don't believe it? nt

[uncommon]

2. I think the scariest part of this is that 47% if surveyed high school BIOLOGY teachers

seem to believe in intelligent design.

That's horrifying.

[Recursion]

10. No. Belief that God guided evolution has nothing to do with intelligent design

Intelligent design is based on an argument about some structures being too complex to develop without intelligence from simpler structures. Simply believing "God has a hand in what happens in the universe" or "all these natural laws were how God made her plan happen" is not a scientific claim one way or the other and has no bearing on the actual theory of evolution.

[uncommon]

65. I disagree. I think this is very much in line with intelligent design - there is a creator

in the "guide."

[Recursion]

77. Well, disagree all you want

As long as you state "according to the best current evidence, species adapt from common ancestors by variation and natural selection of those variations", that is the theory of evolution.

Questions about "design" or "intelligence" or "intent" are not scientific (these terms do not define measurable quantities), so however you answer them has no bearing on the theory.

[uncommon]

78. Saying that some magical man in the sky had a hand in it is just as bad as

claiming intelligent design.

[Recursion]

81. Simply claiming that has no bearing whatsoever on the science

A scientist is free to think whatever the hell he or she wants about questions like that, and since the poll brought in unscientific questions, who knows how they would answer.

The magical man in the sky idea offers not one single testable prediction, so believing it or not believing it has no bearing from a scientific standpoint.

I'm not sure why biology brings out such stridency from everyone. If a physicist says "I see providence in the fall of every stone" but still says they describe the path of least action through Einsteinian tensor space while falling, how would that be a problem?

[uncommon]

86. I understand what you are saying. I'm just saying that I think adding

God into the mix is ignorant and makes no sense. You are arguing semantics.

[Recursion]

88. I think we both agree the poll is lame NT

[EstimatedProphet]

11. Option 2 doesn't depend on intelligent design

[Clovis Sangrail]

14. not necessarily intelligent design

the statement that "god guided this process" could easily refer to theistic evolution

[BurtWorm]

32. What's the difference, exactly?

Theistic evolution? I've never heard that term before. How is it different from intelligent design?

I think the question is whether you believe God's hand is directly responsible for the world as it is, or if you believe no god is necessary to explain how the world is. If you think God is behind it--in other words created it and guided its development, including (maybe especially) human development--you're essentially believing in intelligent design. If you believe "god had nothing to do with it" this might not preclude belief in a god of some kind (see Deism, for example), but your belief that natural processes rather than divine ones were at work would entitle you to say you believe in evolution, no qualifying adjectives necessary.

[JoePhilly]

35. The term Intelligent Design, while usually left ill-defined by intent ...

by its adherents, goes well beyond a God who set up some dominos, and then just knocked one over to start the process.

Usually, they see a far more active God, one involved regularly in world and personal affairs.

They stick God into any gap they can find in evolution.

And so that is the rub ... the difference between a God that started humanity and now sits back and allows it to run its course, verses a God who is active in everyday affairs of humanity.

Again .. the ID folks try to avoid getting this deep ... their goal is not to prove that God exists in either form, but to create doubt regarding evolution ... hoping that the doubt will be enough to bring people back to traditional religion.

[BurtWorm]

43. Ok but you saw that the poll distinguishes between guided and unguided evolution.

And what you suggest is theistic evolution sounds more like deism to me.

[EstimatedProphet]

47. Deism is a form of theistic evolution

The reason ID is such a bad idea, and why it really wasn't in option 2, is because it's a black-box exercise. In practice, ID states that there are things that aren't knowable by man, and studying them is a waste of time (if not blasphemy.) So, at some point, the ID "scientist" says "I can't figure this out any further. Let's give up and say God did it." That's not how science works. A theistic evolutionist or a Deist wouldn't have that problem, because they wouldn't automatically try to put scientific questions into their own belief framework from the outset.

[BurtWorm]

49. But if they believe evolution is guided by God, how is that not belieivng in a god of the gaps?

I'm trying to imagine this for myself, not pretending I have an answer. I'm trying to understand if you can possibly believe that god is involved in the process of evolution--in essence willing it--and believe in natural selection at the same time. Maybe it's just my atheist brain having a hard time conceiving of natural selection as the tool of a being with a plan. It seems to me that the essential fact of natural selection is that it operates under *no* plan, that what looks like its plan is actually the result of accident and the tautological rule that successful survival strategies are passed to the next generation and unsuccessful ones aren't.

[EstimatedProphet]

54. I'm kind of a theistic evolutionist

So maybe I can help.

I disagree with natural selection as having no plan, probably because we define the meaning of "plan" differently. Let me put it this way: a Rube Goldberg design is a plan, but is random at the same time. It depends on a variety of things happening at just the right time and in just the right way to have the correct outcome. Natural selection is somewhat like that, but doesn't have a defined correct outcome. I don't personally believe that God guides evolution in any active way. God simply set up the rules, much as a Rube Goldberg sets up specific conditions.

Now, to go back to ID, someone who believes in ID specifically believes that God is active in every step. They therefore have to believe that natural selection is guided, has a purpose, and an ultimate goal. I don't buy that for a minute.

[miscsoc]

56. you could in some sense consider god active

in maintaining the basic physical laws of the universe.

But I get your point, ID in the usual sense involves some sort of supernatural intervention in violation of natural laws. Whereas you see God as in nature or as in some way determining natural laws? Am I getting this right?

[EstimatedProphet]

57. In effect, yes

The best way I've ever heard it put:

Prior to the Big Bang = God
After the Big Bang = Nature

[BurtWorm]

60. Isn't that Deistic?

Not that there's anything wrong with that! :hide:

[EstimatedProphet]

69. Yeah, pretty much

Deist is approximate to theistic evolutionist. But it's way way off ID.

[snooper2]

72. And that is wrong....does anybody have a concept of the size

of the universe? I mean really, the number of stars alone? The universe always was and always is, prior to the big bang- was a previous universe that expanded and collapsed.

The number of galaxies? not to mention black holes, red giants? dark energy?

our shitty little planet is less than a speck in the grand scheme of things. Take all the matter our planet is comprised of and envision that is all matter in the universe, our planet would still be less than a single grain of sand. Much much less...

The fact that large numbers of people still think some "god" has some kind of "design" is lunacy. I guess over time we are getting smarter as a people, compared to say 600 years ago. But still :eyes:

I would love to see how the matter (or anti-matter :) ) that "god" is made of deals with encountering a black hole while traveling around the universe planting "seeds"

Maybe that's what happened to Zeus.
Zeus hanging out talking to Aphrodite:

Zeus- "Yo Aphro, you know those black holes that Hephaestus thought were so cool to create?"
Aphrodite- "Yeah, he thought he was so cool. Damn, that was 709 light years ago wasn't it?"
Zeus- "Yeah, been a while, I think I figured out how to beat them though."
Aphrodite- "Beat them, Hephaestus said no matter can escape gravitational pull he released."
Zeus- "But I got this cool new shield I'm going to wrap myself in." "Watch this-"

ZOOOOM- Zeus goes flying past galaxies to the nearest black hole and disappears...
Aphrodite- "Dumbass, I told him" :rofl:

[BurtWorm]

59. Ok, but, again, the second choice says god guides the process.

So whether or not you believe god set up the process, if you believe god is not guiding it, you should pick number one. This would reflect a belief that human beings were not "planned for" but were the result of billions of years of natural laws acting in concert (and in disharmony) and may or may not succeed ultimately as a species.

If you pick number two, it seems to me, your view is that god is tinkering with it and has always tinkered with it, used it to mold human beings out of the materials of the universe and to make this moment inevitable, as well as every moment before and after it. If you believe that god hath a plan and natural selection is his way of achieving it, I think you're basically buying some form of intelligent design, because essentially you believe all is as god wills it--god, in other words, intelligently designed it. It didn't design itself following the rules inherent in the physical universe.

[miscsoc]

61. I'm not a theist, but

A popular concept of god involves the idea of his omniscience. If you were a being that knew all that had happened, was happening and would happen, it wouldn't be hard to design life by means of choosing this or that set of natural rules, when you are creating the universe, as christians believe god "did"

It's definitely in some sense Intelligent Design, but of a variety entirely compatible with science. (As opposed to intelligent design in the popular sense, which definitely isn't.)

[BurtWorm]

63. Which is one of the main arguments against belief in God.

If a being knows the outcome and controls it at the same time, why choose this messy way of making it happen? The theistic answer: the lord works in mysterious ways. I don't buy it. A lord who works that way must be some kind of idiot or sadist or both.

[miscsoc]

64. i know, and as i said i'm not a theist

my post was just by way of illustrating how forms of theism can be compatible with the scientific method.

[BurtWorm]

68. Between you and me...

I agree with you about the way theists probably mesh their theism with naturalism, but as I've been thinking about these posts, it has become readily apparent to me that it's an incoherent ideology. God, it seems to me, dissolves pretty quickly when you hold it up against the awesome majesty (and impersonality) of natural processes. Especially when you consider the human place in the scheme of things. We loom large to ourselves, naturally, but so do amoebas to themselves. And beyond our planet, our consequentiality diminishes to nothing pretty quickly. It's rather difficult to come to any other conclusion when viewing nature as a whole.

We flatter ourselves with theology.

[miscsoc]

71. I agree, but I think it's quite a big leap

to comprehend the majesty of nature and the atheist implications. Honestly I've not yet wholly managed it.

[BurtWorm]

73. God is our security blanket against the terrible consequences of naturalism

which, of course, don't make naturalism less true, frighteningly enough for a lot of people. It seems to me that letting go of God is similar to letting go of the wall when you're learning to swim. The difference is that in swimming the wall is there when you're tired and ready to come out.

[EstimatedProphet]

70. Actually, you're right. My mistake

Given that, I would choose 1 over 2.

[NeedleCast]

95. Demands one of my favorite quotes

"Religion does not give you the answers, it just stops you from asking the questions." -Frater Ravus

[BurtWorm]

97. Nice!

:thumbsup:

[miscsoc]

55. It's more or less compatible with the scientific consensus about the course of evolution

Well, the idea of divine guidance is, although in some forms it inescapably conflicts with science. The concept of God and what his "guidance" would consist in are so amorphous and disputed that it might not even necessarily exclude Deism.

[uncommon]

66. Exactly. No matter how you want to paint it, it involves an intelligent guiding force

in the form of a deity. And it doesn't sound any less insane than intelligent design no matter what label you want to put on it.

[Matariki]

74. You find the lack of atheism "scary"?

I don't find it any scarier than atheism. (by that, I mean I find neither atheism or deism 'scary').

I know a lot of scientists and mathematicians, really smart people, and only a few of them are atheists.

[uncommon]

80. Yes, I do. It's ignorant and regressive.

Some smart people may believe in a magic man in the sky, but I don't, and yes, I think it makes them less intelligent.

[Maru Kitteh]

83. Well if you're that much smarter than everyone I must say DU is a tremendous waste of your time.

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
—Albert Einstein


The world waits in breathless need of your mighty intellect, Mr. Uncommon.

[uncommon]

87. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - mine is that religion and belief in magical sky creatures

are both absolutely ridiculous, unfounded, and nonsensical.

I think it's an embarrassment that such beliefs have an effect on public policy.

And sometimes DU really is a waste of time but I enjoy wasting a little time as much as the next person.

[AngryAmish]

3. Evolution is still happening

[Dogtown]

46. Agreed, AA

And it's quite possible our species has had it's day.

[miscsoc]

62. You have

I have psychic abilities, you lot are going the way of the neanderthals

[Sheepshank]

4. I'm incredulous

almost half of the population believes that the human race is less than 10,000 years old?

If that is the case, most of them around here are embarrassed by that notion and never speak of it out loud. And I live in a darned religiously red state.

[Parker CA]

6. Unreal, isn't it? My jaw dropped at that statistic. 10,000 years...really people? nt

[SkyDaddy7]

27. Same here!

I live in the deep south where the STUPID can be physically painful to listen to! America has a lot of growing up to do! The truly scary part is the Republican Party depends of the STUPID to win elections so they love to see polls like this!

[Enthusiast]

37. Without stupid they would be done.

And that is a fact.

[SkyDaddy7]

93. I know and that is both SAD & SCARY!

[Enthusiast]

38. Without stupid they would be finished.

Fact

[FormerDittoHead]

5. Very disappointed in Biology Teachers...

DISCLAIMER: THIS POLL HAS SOME GAPS. Like the second question about God guiding the process: WTF does THAT mean?

I'm VERY disappointed that 16% of BIOLOGY TEACHERS believe that we live in some kind of fairy tale world.

But the big story is that ONLY 28% of BIOLOGY TEACHERS(!?) accept the SCIENCE OF BIOLOGY???

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. If God did it, he needs to hire better engineers for his next project.

The design is faulty if folks like Reagan and Bush were the end-product.

[AnArmyVeteran]

51. If God is all-knowing how could he have crafted the imperfect 'Bible'?

The Bible is so littered with holes and inconsistencies how can anyone really believe God directed the hand of man to write it? And why did an all-knowing god have his word documented when man was still primitive and before the printing press was even invented? It seems as if a 'perfect' god would have waited until at least the inventions of recording equipment. If god 'has always been', why couldn't he wait another 1800+ years until film and recording devices were created?

As it is, 'god' had just a handful of men (no women) to write his laws and his story. It's obvious the writers of the Bible were not very talented writers because of all the confusing, inconsistent and even idiotic things written in it. Shouldn't god have waited until relatively modern times and pick someone like Stephen King to write it? If simplicity is genius, then the god who supposedly wrote the Bible (thru men) is a blooming idiot. No two Christians on the face of the earth can interpret everything in the Bible in the same way. Even no two Biblical scholars can agree or even understand everything in the Bible.

I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have very good things to live by, it does, but so so other religious books. For anyone in any religion to profess that their religion is the only true religion of 'god' is the height of arrogance and aloofness. These two traits are condemned even in Biblical scripture. It's a paradox for a person to be so sure of their beliefs that they believe they are privy to the only true 'god', because if they are, it makes them pompous, arrogant and aloof, all ungodly traits.

Faith as described by Craig Fergeson on 10 12 09:

"If you know about God, that he exists and you know what he wants and you KNEW all of this stuff, you don't need faith. Because faith is only for people who experience 'doubt', because if you have no doubt you have certainty, or in other words, 'pathology'. So in order for you to experience faith you must have doubt."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Mark Twain said it best.

The bible is a book that has some beautiful poetry, a blood stained history, a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of 10,000 lies." From "Letters From the Earth"

[Zoeisright]

99. Truer words were never spoken.

For instance, if I was to design a person, I'd delay the drive to reproduce until the mid 20s. Making it possible for 11 year old girls to get pregnant is just sick. The fact that the brain isn't fully developed until age 25, while the sex drive kicks in for preteens says a lot about 'intelligent design'.

Candy and chocolate would be health foods. And animals would be eating plants and berries, not each other. Nothing, to me, says bullshit to intelligent design more than the fact that animals die horrible deaths being eaten by other animals.

[damntexdem]

8. Human being developed over millions of years; and I don't know whether there is a God.

Nor whether if there is, said God had anything to do with it.

Nor is it something amenable to scientific study, so I have no basis on which to form an opinion.

[SkyDaddy7]

31. If god created human beings or guided evolution...

Then why did he design a human body where the "fun parts" are the same place bodily waste leaves the body? Not to mention all the other flaws and bad engineering that went into designing the human body?

[guruoo]

42. So, where would you have put them? nt

[SkyDaddy7]

58. NICE!

I had not put much thought into it but I would put them anywhere other than where they are.

However, I am sure engineers could come up with some very creative ways to design a fun park far from the sewage plant!

[Clovis Sangrail]

9. you need another option

"Human beings have developed over millions of years... God may or may not have had anything to do with it"

[BurtWorm]

15. I'm just replicating the study Coyne cited.

[Clovis Sangrail]

25. Coyne is brilliant in some ways .. an asshat in others

"Only a tad more than one in four teachers really accepts evolution as scientists conceive of it: a naturalistic process undirected by divine beings."

Scientists don't uniformly believe there was no direction of evolution by divine beings.
That can't even be said about scientists who very specifically study *evolution*.

He's similar to Dawkins
he's intelligent ... obviously on a crusade ... mildly amusing - BUT also *insanely* pompous ... in some ways wildly incorrect ... of questionable value to his cause.

[LWolf]

16. +1

[SidDithers]

22. Or even just "Human beings have develolped over millions of years."....

Why bring God into it at all?

Sid

[BurtWorm]

28. Excellent point.

:toast:

[Yuugal]

12. God spent a lot of money making us.....

and now he needs some of that cash back. Please give today, won't you?

[KittyWampus]

13. Depends on how you define "God".

[SPedigrees]

19. Amen to that. My definition of god is "the sum total of

physical laws that define the universe."

[KittyWampus]

33. that is very,very close to mine.

[Hosnon]

48. I like that definition. nt.

[spin]

29. We attempt to define "God" in our very limited imagination ...

Unfortunately, our intelligence is not up to the task.

[KittyWampus]

34. Exactly. We project our own experience as separate individual

personalities on what transcends all limits.

[BurtWorm]

89. How do you know this thing transcends all limits?

Have you transcended them yourself and found it there?

[ngant17]

17. this poll is skewed toward "god"

there is no need for any kind of deity in the process of evolution, and none of the statements in your poll presupposes this fact.

A better statement to add: all life evolved or developed without the existence of deities, and it will continue to evolve without the necessity of a god or gods.

[SidDithers]

23. +1...nt

Sid

[tropopause]

18. Here's the truth:

http://www.godisimaginary.com

[bigwillq]

26. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[KansasVoter]

20. PROUD of the DU for being 75% on the first answer!!!! We rock!!!

[old mark]

21. I'd love to see one of these polls on how many believe in the "6000 year old earth"

nonsense. I worked with quite a few who did... professionals in the mental health field.
I also recall hearing the statement,"Isn't it wonderful how god made the earth to exactly fit our needs?"...from college students maybe 25 years ago.

Even Sarah Palin is a college graduate...


mark

[IndianaGreen]

24. Other: GAWD made Man into His own image, about 5,000 years ago.

The Bible tells me so!

:sarcasm:

[seleff]

30. Maybe that's why I can't get a HS biology teaching job...

I left biomedical research in 2001 after about 15 yrs as a Principal Investigator (Ph.D) and took up HS teaching for 3 and a half years before moving to a new state for my wife's job in Pharma. Little did I realize thhat I would have to recertify all over again. Now that I have been teaching at the college level (mostly as an adjunct instructor)four years while I recertified I have been unsuccessful in finding another HS position with either an intern cert or a level I certification in Biology and Chemistry over the past 3 yrs. Maybe I shouldn't have volunteered that Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True" was on my list of books I recently read at my last interview...

I never thought that looking for a HS science teaching job with a PhD, HS AND college teaching experience and being over 50 would disqualify me from continuing this second career...

[KansasVoter]

36. I wish we had ore teachers like you!

[Enthusiast]

39. That sucks!

Good luck with your job search.

[glen123098]

40. Human evolution happens naturally.

I don't know if there is a God or not, but if there is, there is no evidence to suggest he is guiding evolution. And who the hell are these 16 percent of Biology teachers who say God created humans in present form 10,000 years ago? Someone fire them.

[old mark]

44. I wonder what the poll would look like if it were taken in Europe....nt

[Umbral]

45. Humans evolved, they developed society and evolution from a biological perspective stopped.

Indeed, Devolution has been the order of the day since that momentous occasion. Look around, you know it's true. If the Earth is lucky, humanity will de-evolve back into the hapless monkeys they once were. Otherwise Gia will have to take more desperate measures.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. So almost half of the biology teachers polled believe that God drives evolution

and 16% believe that humankind is only 10,000 years old and WAS created by God in that time frame?

What does that say about the quality of biology instruction our high schoolers are getting?

[Recursion]

85. Eh. Let the proles have their comic book comforts

Understanding the mechanisms of shifts in populations' allele frequencies over time isn't actually that important to 99% of the population, really.

[miscsoc]

52. I'm worried about that 16%

I think it would be hard to effectively teach biology if you believed that humans were created by god in the last 10,000 years. Even at high school level, surely that conflicts with many of the facts high school biology exists to impart.

Is this public high schools, or all high schools? Either way it's disturbing.

[progressoid]

102. Yeah, very scary. n/t

[slackmaster]

53. I don't know whether or not God exists, so I chose the first option

Even if God exists, God may have just let things develop on their own.

[Cleita]

67. If there is a god or goddess, I doubt if they would have

created a genus, which by it's very nature, must live against nature and destroy it. The term homo habilis, or tool using man, was coined to describe an early species of our kind. By our very nature we must destroy, whether rocks, ores or minerals to sustain our need to survive and protect ourselves from our environment. Otherwise we are very ill suited to survival on this planet. I wouldn't doubt though this god or goddess might try to get rid of us as a failed species. All the other species of our genus are extinct. We are all that is left.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

76. As opposed to the lion who makes friends with the zebra and invites him over for tea?

[Cleita]

84. You missed my point. The lion was born with claws

and fangs, his tools. The zebra was born with swift legs and hooves to run from the lion. Neither of them chips rocks or forges tools to catch their dinner. Neither uses wheels to get around and run from predators or after prey. Neither of them needs to build shelters to protect them from predators or make clothes to protect them from the elements.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

90. Our "tool" is our increased mental capacity

Do you think a Zebra cares whether it is killed by a spear or by a lion crushing its windpipe?

[Cleita]

91. The Lion still doesn't kill with a spear, a "tool"

that is fashioned from a piece of wood and a stone or bronze point or iron point that is dug from the earth and in the case of the metals forged from fire. We had to have the mental capacity to do those things, so perhaps the gods decided that they would put this wimpy species out there with little to protect them other than their brains. So today we have used the natural assets of the earth for that very successfully and destructively. If you were a god wouldn't you reconsider your experiment?

[Cleita]

92. Also, I watch the cycle of birth and death all the time

where I live. Things kill and eat from the littlest spiders and insects to the hawks in the air and the deer and rabbits being chased and killed and eaten by the coyotes and cougars. Then the crows and vultures move in to clean up, yet the biggest destruction is done when cement dwelling city people move here and try to reshape the landscape. They clear the brush and trees that are homes to the wild life, reshape the natural contours of the land, pour cement and spray insecticides and chemicals to make their land into what they just left in the suburbs. The wildlife leaves or becomes diminished. More roads get paved and there is more traffic and road kill and more pollutants in the air and contamination in the water. All those lions killing zebras just don't cause the damage we do.

[NeedleCast]

96. Another person who fails to understand evolution at its base level

[Cleita]

101. Oh I understand it, which is why god or goddess has

nothing to do with it. We are a failed species that will eventually be eliminated if we don't eliminate our home world first. You science fundamentalists need to step out of your self-imposed boxes every now and then and think about the whys of things.

[Ichingcarpenter]

79. Alien induced or manipulated Hybrids

was left out of your poll

Arthur C. Clarke is upset and now leaves the movie 2001 worthless.

[uppityperson]

82. Define "God". eom

[NeedleCast]

94. Wow, even on DU there's still an alarming number of creationists

[Whisp]

106. ugh, and its that magic 20-25% number that keeps popping up

no words.

[LatteLibertine]

98. Couldn't care less

I care about what we choose to do now.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

100. I believe "God" is within all creatures and things

I don't see God as an outside entity, guiding things. I see the God within as the animating motivating force of life, so in that sense, I guess I have to check God guided this process.

[RainDog]

103. not really

the wording of the question would put god into a category apart from the natural world.

if god is the label some put on notions of infinity, or the truly bizarre nature of reality (as in, we are made up of nothingness more than somethingness) that's something else entirely.

the three stages of the question come down to this:

1. do you believe in the scientific explanation for evolution

2. do you accept the scientific explanation for evolution but choose to add an unverifiable and unscientific explanation that has no context within science education (but may constitute a private belief)

3. do you admit that you are an idiot of gigantic proportions who is too uneducated and too misled by propaganda from the Elmer Gantry division of American life to have anything to say about science education or scientific and medical endeavors in this nation.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

107. uh, yeah, that was my point

there was no answer that was completely in sync with my beliefs.

[Whisp]

104. woah, we Do need education reform.. holy crap, that many Bio Teachers

believe in a bearded white guy up in the sky that has marionette strings on us all and know every detail of every thought we all have?

[uncommon]

105. This is what I'm saying!

[Arugula Latte]

108. 48 percent of Americans are ignorant dumbasses.