Comment by Peter on Thursday, Jan 10 at 06:15 PM

One reason people (85% supposedly) resist Darwin's findings is perhaps this: I noticed that no one in this program talked much about Darwin's racism and elitism and how the idea of survival of the "fittest" (the "favored" races) has been abused by those with wealth and power to justify all kinds of evil crap. The tendency is to make Darwin a villain or a prophet, but he was neither, he was human; he has good things to offer, but not all of it is good. The idea of evolution of the "fittest" in the sense that there is an overall progression (plants and animals today are more evolved than those of 2000 years ago) is just false; it's really "survival of the moment." Does that make Creationism right? Not necessarily; it's not good science or spiritually simply for the vibe driving it at its center. But most science these days is really a religion in itself. Like all religions and all ideas, there are good things there, but there's also a lot that's not. So the issue is black/white, right/wrong, 1/0 type thinking. That's the problem, and that's why this topic continues to be such a hot issue.

Comment by mnjam on Thursday, Sep 20 at 12:24 PM

1. As is well known, most Americans do not believe in evolution, whether by natural selection or otherwise. 2. A lesser known fact is that, as pointed out by the late Enrst Mayr, most self-proclaimed "evolutionists" really do not grasp the ontology and logic underlying Darwin's work. Much of what has been published on evolution is pseudo-science: it restates pre-evolutionary myths and ideas using evolutionary jargon. The most atrocious example of evolutionary pseudo-science is the metaphor of "genetic program" -- the rubbish that genes are to an organism as software is to a computer. The few genuine successors to Darwin are virtually never interviewed on shows like Charlie Rose or published in widely read books. 3. The profusion of pseudo-evolutionary drivel on shows like Charlie Rose and in pop-science best sellers is the main reason why most Americans do not believe in evolution. It is simply never properly explained. 4. I would be highly useful if Charlie Rose started interviewing real evolutionary biologists (i.e.scientists whose work is rooted in an understanding of Darwinism and designed to deepen that understanding) -- e.g. Steven A. Frank, Queller, Russell Lande and others. As far as I know, the only legitimate evolutionist ever interviewed on Charle Rose is G.Craig Ventner, who correctly scoffed at the "genetic program" metaphor, though without any follow-up by Charlie Rose.

Comment by Steve Huffey on Thursday, Sep 20 at 03:13 AM

Often, creation topics forge a wide gulf between Bible believers and atheists, or creationists and evolutionists. The gulf is falsely formed, mostly by â??So Simple a Revisionismâ??: referring to the famous almost poetic 60 word last sentence of Darwinâ??s â??â?¦ Origin of Species â?¦â??. It is almost always grossly misquoted: less 19 words which pertain to God. Such was done in the interview with Dr.â??s Wilson and Watson about Darwin, found at 37:40. Edward Wilson is a Harvard socio-biologist who, by authorship of an anthology of Darwinâ??s works entitled â??From So Simple a Beginningâ??, alludes to that last sentence. The 19 word deletion is here put within braces, in that sentence: â??There is grandeur in this view of life, [ with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and \ that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.â?? The Devine is in Darwinâ??s design. Both experts, Wilson and Watson, should be cognizant. Darwinâ??s first edition in 1859 did not contain the three word phrase â??by the Creatorâ?? above, but it was added in the second edition for clarification. Darwin heavily changed and updated â??â?¦ Origin â?¦â?? in each of five subsequent editions. The sixth and last edition was published on February 19, 1872 prior to his death. Other modifications were numerous, but the full closing 60 word summary sentence [ first edition, 57 words \ never changed. The tragic death of his daughter might have left Darwin struggling about evil, goodness, and God. He privately made pro and con cases, but he never changed his design. Creation topics challenge us in finding fact, good measurement, and accountability. Whether or not Bible Genesis days 1 through 6 are actual measurement, or whether or not Darwin and evolution are delightfully illuminating or devilish deceptive, depends on facts. The Bible, and Darwinâ??s view of the Devine, is given misleading falsity in this interview. The portrayed vision is revisionism, at its worst. A good foundation upon which to build truth is: facts come from acts; science measures acts, thus facts. False facts are not true acts. Thus, falsity will bias factual measurement and a-count-ability. Bias: Wilson falsely claimed in the interview at 10:47 - 13:15 that Darwin had a â??conversionâ?? away from God during his discovery voyage. Yet, in 1839, â??The Voyage Of The Beagleâ?? was published relating his three years earlier 1831 -1836 voyage. He wrote near its closing: â??Among the scenes which are deeply impressed on my mind, none exceed in sublimity the primeval forests undefaced by the hand of man; whether those of Brazil, where the powers of Life are predominant, or those of Tierra del Fuego, where Death and Decay prevail. Both are temples filled with the varied productions of the God of Nature:--no one can stand in these solitudes unmoved, and not feel that there is more in man than the mere breath of his bodyâ??. Temples, God of Nature, more in? Darwin was interested about visioning God in nature. But, is Wilsonâ??s revisionism isolated? Consider another influential person. Stephen Gould, also formerly of Harvard University, re-visioned Darwinâ??s closing sentence, too, in his book of essays named â??Eight Little Piggiesâ?? ( pp. 79, 179, 217 ). [ Also, two of his essays quoting Darwin previously appeared in â??Natural Historyâ?? magazine \. Gould deleted 20 words, 1/3 of Darwinâ??s original 60: â??There is grandeur in this view of life. [ deleted \ Whilst â?¦.â??. Gould had punctuated truth! That is bad. Scientists and lay persons, alike, usually do not have time to find and read Darwinâ??s closing sentence from his book; nor read his letters. So, the bills explaining goods are dirty laundry. It stinks. Too many Christians suspicion Darwin. He is misrepresented to them. Other people who might suspicion Christians possess a distorted Darwin, too. Creation challenges are true. The gulf is: falsity.

Comment by Marko on Saturday, Jun 16 at 06:34 PM

May the 85% of Americans that do not believe in Darwin's findings watch this conversation.