Ahhhh...I see now. You misunderstood your own quote...AND it's wrong...I'm now wondering where you got it from.

Quantum theory is not the theoretical basis of modern physics, it is a mostly theoretical part of sub-atomic physics, and could be called a 'base' for understanding much of that subject, but is not a catch all explanation for even all sub atomic physics, certainly not physics in total.
Modern physics explains the nature and behaviors of matter and energy on the atomic and sub-atomic level, not quantum theory. Quantum theory does NOT explain atomic physics at all, it's only about sub atomic physics. Quantum theory is a sub set of physics, not the other way around as you implied.
Sub atomic physics and 'atomic' physics don't seem to jibe with each other... yet, and the rules of one do not work in the other. It's all counter intuitive and difficult for scientists to understand, the lay person has a snowball's chance in hell of understanding what we even think we know, even less if they get bad info to start with.
That means your understanding is completely wrong. Even sub atomic particles can't really be in two places at once in the way you understand it...it's all insanely difficult math that suggest something that, in lay man's terms, is close to being in two places, but is not actually that, because it's also in neither place (and in some equations, everywhere at once, and nowhere)! It's impossible to state fully in normal English, it's math...and screwy math at that.
Matter simply can't really be in 2 places at once, not even sub atomic parts of it. Certainly not a person. Some experiments may SEEM to show that certain particles/waves may be, but they aren't really...it's wierd. No actual quantum physics scientist has made such an insane claim (that YOU are in 2 places at once) that I know of....it's just plain wrong and displays a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles involved and the difference between sub atomic and non-sub atomic. If someone said that, you can be certain they were either not a physicist, or were trying to over simplify and explain through a poor, un-explained analogy as poor teachers have a tendency to do when explaining difficult subjects to those with no grasp of the basics.
And I don't own any scientists, gawd believing or no. ;-)
...and none of that has a thing to do with evolution beyond being the basic 'rules' for matter.
...and none of that has a thing to do with moral superiority or morality at all.
...and it all has nothing to do with religion based homophobia/bigotry....the topic of this video....so now that another thread has been hijacked, I'm taking this thread to Cuba!

I think your quote may be wrong, quantum physics deals only with the sub-atomic level.
Atoms and/or molecules do not behave like some particles do. Particles also can't be in 2 places at once, but appear to be able to move from one place to another without traveling between. It's an incredibly difficult science to understand, more so when it's basic principles are misunderstood.
This has nothing whatsoever (or barely anything, nothing directly) to do with evolution. It is an attempt at explaining the sub atomic world, not the atomic one. Evolution happens in the macro/atomic level and larger. It MAY happen in some unknown way in the sub atomic level, but hasn't been noted or studied there that I know of.
Did I state or imply that 'there's no way gawd did it'? I don't think so, you are projecting. While I don't 'believe' in gawd(s), I do leave open the miniscule possibility it exists, or that one did before the big bang....one problem is there's no real set definition for gawd, so if something outside our universe created this one, is that "gawd"? Must it be super-natural, or simply a creator? Must it exist in our universe to count? How about in our perceptible dimensions? Could it just be alien to our universe, but not a supernatural omniscient direct human creator? There's far too many points of view on that to have consensus of what constitutes a 'gawd'.
I will state that there's no proof, or even evidence, of a (or many) gawd(s). That said...Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, (thanks Mr Jackson), so there's also no 'proof' it doesn't exist (it's hard or impossible to prove a negative).
Jumping to the conclusion that, because there's no proof of no gawd, it must exist, is also close minded against the high probability (likelihood) that it doesn't, and never did, exist outside human minds.
Science and gawd don't go together or explain each other any more than addition explains a words spelling. They're totally different arenas of thought. Thinking that science 'proves' the existence of 'gawd' either greatly overstates the 'proof' or completely misunderstands science. At best, science doesn't disprove the existence of 'gawd(s)', but then again that was never the mission of science or real scientists...they don't deal with/in theology at all.
I would point out that, most Christians (or any religious people really) have repeatedly 'proven' the non-existence of 'gawd(s)' to themselves...all gawds except the one they think exists....but for some reason the one they believe in is exempt from all the proofs (math term, not bad English).

EDIT: What science has done is disprove most, if not all 'proofs' put forward alleging to prove the existence of gawd(s), and also removed all requirements for ones existence to explain the universe and existence.

I did actually decide to change some of the language in the different sections so that they are more separated and have less to do with Evolution with each other (the Alien one is odd of course as it has the possibility of having itself be true and others as well), BUT we are really talking about the ORIGIN of the human race. By which means did we come and continue from, basically.

Anyway, right now I'll have to get @lucky760 as nothing in the modify entry section is working so I can't add in the changes I made (plus I noticed a "boo-boo" I made as I basically said natural selection was "survival of the fittest", go look it'll be there till I can fix it . Hopefully the changes I make separate the four out enough so they can stand on their own, but I do believe Evolution will still triumph as it has FAR too much evidence and backed up peer reviews going for it to really make a difference otherwise.

Option 4 is my next option...

edit-There the language has been changed to better suite the individual pieces rather than making them beholden to Evolution.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^JiggaJonson:

They could sue for fraud if they're not dead because said disease hasn't completely overtaken them. All of your lofty ideas for how awesome a completely unregulated market would be come crashing down the second businessmen whip out their cost-benefit analysis charts.
You are the one conflating ideas here. The free market doesn't automatically mean that more eyes will be on every problem; it just means most eyes will be on the most profitable problems.


I'm glad the rest of the world doesn't have your cynicism when it comes to human endeavors. Chicken littles who live with so much fear are miserable people in real life. I hope you're not one of them.

People tend to want to do the right thing. There'll always be bad apples, but those are the minority. The majority of us receive endorphin rushes from doing good and feel symptoms of depression when we do bad. Evolution has made us caring of others. It gave us empathy. And when we open the playing field up to 350 million people instead of a handful of corporations, we're doing the right thing.

Blurry... here's a tip: If you think a proven scientific FACT is dragging people to hell, you are already brain dead.

Edit: Also, I would very much like to know WHAT THE FUCK does stalactites, strata, carbon or radio dating have to do with evolution?

>> ^TheGenk:

I have only one question for you now:
How did, to the best of your knowledge, life end up like we see it today(I am not asking for how life came to exist, that has nothing to do with evolution)? And please provide evidence.
Still waiting.


That aside, I really like that 95% of the sources creationists quote are at least 30-40 years old. Quietly disregarding the boost modern computers and electronics have given scientific research and understanding.

I'm not saying that you have to be an evolutionary scientist to make an argument, I'm just saying you didn't make this particular argument.

The really funny thing is that it's utterly, hopelessly false and misleading. The theory is sound; it explains reality as it is; it can predict. You can use it to create artificial evolution too, even the most stubborn creationist farmers do it.

Evolution is fact, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htmhttp://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

you can't assign evolution feelings, opinions, emotions. you can't personify it like that. to do so is at best- a misstatement, and at worst - an intentionally manipulative scare tactic. every successful adaptation is a mutation. mutations happen constantly. some are more attractive than others. but someones "less attractive" mutated genes don't deem them useless. i'm short, have bad teeth and i run slow. i still bred. but evolution has 0 opinions on the matter because it does not have a personality. i am valuable only because of my ability to mean something to someone and find meaning in someone else. "survival of the fittest" does not describe which adaptations are "better" and therefore not "useless", it was a term coined by a social darwinist to justify gross poverty and legitimize human suffering.

Right, this is my point. Evolution is deaf dumb and blind. The only measure of success is whether something can reproduce or not. Many of the people who have these kinds disabilities could never survive on their own. Evolution would eliminate them from the gene pool entirely if other people didn't intervene. So really, by taking care of them we are doing something contrary to evolution. Why should we do that if it is contrary to evolutionary principle? Isn't it more harmful to humankind to perpetuate their genes?

anyone that has the ability to love and be loved is intrinsically valuable. if love and morality have an evolutionary basis, which they do, then i see no need for god. your attempt to demonize evolution with callous and offensive personifications is weak. and gives a bit of insight into your own morality and how you view people. evolution didn't deem kids with syndromes or other disabilities as worthless, you did. god didn't generously bestow upon them the ability to "behave nobly", they're human beings .. they did that on their own. this self righteous, pompous ass interpretation of the "miracle" of admirable behavior being displayed by someone you obviously view as "less than" can fuck right off

The only basis of "moral" behavior in evolution is selfishness. Morality, on the other hand by definition is unselfish. What you're talking about are simply behaviors conditioned into animals by their environment to act in ways that benefit the survival on the species, You've given that a label you call morality. If it were more beneficial to harm people rather than help them you would call that moral too.

But under these terms everything we do is selfish..you have to ask yourself, why should I be unselfish? Because it benefits the group. Why should I care about benefitting the group? Because it benefits the species. Why should I care about benefitting the species? Because it benefits me. So, the motivation of being unselfish is selfishness! I think you know this isn't how morality works. For something to be moral, it needs an objective basis that evolution doesn't provide, a purely unselfish reason. If what's moral is just whats best to keep us surviving and reproducing, then you can justify any kind of behavior undet those terms.

You speak about meaning and value, which are entirely subjective and have nothing to do with evolution, as if you could derive them from a mindless unconscious process. How do you find any personal agency in any of this? What makes you valuable is to love and be loved? No, what makes you valuable under your terms is your ability to perpetuate the species, an entirely selfish motivation on your part. And that entirely contridicts love, which is never selfish. I'm sorry but evolution doesn't explain these things at all, not noble self-sacrifcial behavior and certainly not love. It actually just makes the idea of them utterly ridiculous, perfectly shallow and base. I mean your idea of love is that it is a chemical reaction in the brain that developed so you wouldn't leave your babies in a ditch somewhere instead of taking care of them. I find that utterly sad.

As far as your judgments on my character are concerned, I am merely postulating hypotheticals based on the terms science presents. My personal views are that all human life is equally valid and valuable. So, please check your preconceived notions about me at the door..thanks.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.
another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

Concerning your first paragraph:
Just from the top of my head the Appendix comes to mind, which seems to not serve any function.
Regardless, you still use the irreducible complexity argument, which I should believe enough evidence has been presented to you to show that it is incorrect.

Your 2. paragraph:
Google is a b***

Now I am growing tired of this game because we came full circle.
I have only one question for you now:
How did, to the best of your knowledge, life end up like we see it today(I am not asking for how life came to exist, that has nothing to do with evolution)? And please provide evidence.

With all due respect, isn't this more of an example of the aging process rather than evolution? If it were evolution the line would get straighter and straighter over time with the unfit ones weeded out (or the line would come closer to some other arbitrary goal).

But in this case, errors add up and multiply over time, which is what happens as an animal ages right? The total sum of errors eventually causing the organism to stop working at all.

An interesting experiment, but not related to evolution really. At least not biological evolution.

>> ^therealblankman:

Not a very good metaphor for Darwinian evolution at all, this merely illustrates mutation without the natural selection and differential survival part. Many of these mutations would have been unsuccessful, and would have most certainly died out.


>> ^westy:

LOL thias has pritty much nothing to do with evolution more to do with "noise" and data corruptions for this to be an analgy to evolutoin u would have to enfirce an environmental factor that cussed the "noise" to progate in varouse directions due to selective benefit.


>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^BoneRemake:
This makes absolutely no sense to me.

The people tracing the line only see the last line before theirs. Bcause noone can trace the previous line exactly like the one before, little differences occur.
In nature, no two people of different mothers are alike, because every time the genes involved change in miniscule ways = variation.

Thanks, makes sense now that I know they did not see the lines previous just the one previous. I was trying to grasp how it all of a sudden looked like an upside down question mark, it seemed ridiculous.

LOL thias has pritty much nothing to do with evolution more to do with "noise" and data corruptions for this to be an analgy to evolutoin u would have to enfirce an environmental factor that cussed the "noise" to progate in varouse directions due to selective benefit.

Unfortunately for people who believe atheists have no morality because morality comes from religion, science now knows where we get morality, and it is a specific part of our brain. We evolved to have morality because morality is important in a tribal culture. We evolved to have morality as well because it was a powerful motivator for life to strive to succeed. Evidence of this can be seen in many species of animal, including our species.

This thought that morality stems from religion is so ingrained in society even my mother (the most open person I know when it comes to religion) thinks that people without religion, or people who haven't grown up with religion don't have a center of morality built within them.

And the whole 'if we evolved from monkeys than why are there still monkeys' just shows supreme ignorance. It shows that Mr. Harvey never picked up anything on evolution and read it just to determine whether he believes it or not. It shows that he avoids anything that has to do with evolution because he simply doesn't want to even think that it is fact. He isn't even intelligent enough to pick up a book, read the theory and it's evidence and make an intelligent choice as to whether he would stick with 'god made everything in 7 days and the universe is 6000 years old' or to accept Evolution.

Again I am seeing the whole 'atheists have beliefs too because they don't believe in gold, that is a belief!' argument. Oh and how circular it is. I am not an atheist so I cannot presume anything but I can tell you that lack of belief is not belief in and of itself, but the lack..there...of.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
Again the only thing I dont like about this guy is that he is very rude. Does he have to say disgrace that kind of talk will lead us down a road the human race has been to over and over and over again. Im not saying the guy is not smart or right he just does not seem very tolerant. Which in the way I view things people who are not tolerant are like animals and less evolved.


WTF does tolerance have to do with evolution? I highly doubt being more tolerant gives you an evolutionary advantage. Pretty poor choice of words there, not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of you not being able to tolerate Dawkins' attitude.

Kudos to Dawkins for having the balls to tell it like it is.

What chills me as I watch the video is Bill Maher's comments about what is to be done with these people. I'm not one to rush to Nazism or any other group that saw a purge as necessary to ensure purity of ideology, but the logical consequence of what he's asking is that we remove from positions of responsibility those people who show such 'mental defects'. An exemplar of the atheistic ideal is Michael Shermer who, in Why People Believe Weird Things, states that any atheist who doesn't embrace Spinoza's Dictum with both hands isn't worth a mote of intellectual salt. Harris and Dawkins both exhibit extreme exasperation at having to prove the same things over and over and over in debate after debate. Their result, thus, is to mock those who could believe such things. Harris goes so far as to accuse more liberal-minded believers of allowing fertile ground for the more dangerous ideologies to take root. When it comes to his arguments about a modern Christian not believing in Zeus or Vishnu, I think he's missing a bigger picture. I don't think a modern Christian would 'believe' in the G-d of the disciples, or the God of Abraham. He might see the clear chain, and assume that he does, but to worship that God was very different from the one he goes to every Sunday (or not). The idea of God has evolved with human culture. At times I fear that the two are inseparable. Had we the capacity to wipe out all religious thought, we would not find ourselves in a Dawkinsian utopia, but in a world oddly devoid of certain stabilizing influences. I do not think we get our moral sense entirely from religion, but it certainly helps.

Put another way--it is often said that over 50% of Americans believe in a 6,000 year old earth. This doesn't trouble me as much as it probably should, but I take great comfort in knowing that if I were to take one of these 50% of Americans to the top of a skyscraper and tell them, "Jump off. The God of Abraham will _totally_ catch you," he'll look at me as if I were insane, ESPECIALLY if I said, "No, seriously. He just told me.*" The great revolution in human culture occurred when we swapped learning things through revelation for learning things through deduction. If something is difficult to deduce, then people will fall back on the 'revealed' which is pretty much anything anecdotal. Put another way, tell someone that there are a billion billion stars in the sky, and he'll believe you. Tell the same person that the paint on a park bench is wet, and he'll have to touch it to be sure. Evolution as a metaconcept is hard to deduce, but people get that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. Why can't they bridge the distance? If I knew the answer to that, then there wouldn't be a distance.

* And yes, it is possible with the right listener and the right speaker to find someone willing to jump...but we don't want them breeding anyways, do we? Evolution cleans up its own messes.