<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: EVOLUTION: Interesting graphs illustrating the acceptance of evolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/</link>
	<description>In wildness is the preservation of the world. – Henry David Thoreau</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:20:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Zach</title>
		<link>http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/#comment-6392</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://conservationreport.com/?p=4795#comment-6392</guid>
		<description>to be honest I am not sure why a sample size of less than 1% is considered a good statistical representation.  For the United States the sample size is around .5%,  maybe if they sampled 5-10% I might take this graph a little more seriously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>to be honest I am not sure why a sample size of less than 1% is considered a good statistical representation.  For the United States the sample size is around .5%,  maybe if they sampled 5-10% I might take this graph a little more seriously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heather</title>
		<link>http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/#comment-2377</link>
		<dc:creator>Heather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:29:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://conservationreport.com/?p=4795#comment-2377</guid>
		<description>Hi there, 

I recently watched Ben Stien&#039;s fairly biased documentary on intelligent design (&quot;Expelled&quot;), which examined the discreditation of scientists who consider exploring the concept. However, I enjoyed watching the dogmatic &quot;Darwinists&quot; scramble to address the question of origin. Evolution is certainly an ecological/biological function. There is observable evidence of this at the finest resolution of observation (DNA). However, evolution does not necessarily address ORGIN. 

As a realist, I expect openness to inquiry within any discipline I study. Prime example: quantum physics (look up on goggle video - double slit test). That&#039;s right; biology is not the only field with unexplained phenomenon or circumstances of a fundamental nature. And keep in mind that organisms exist in an environment shaped by quantum physics...

In any pursuit for truth (scientific or religious) we should be sure to examine and disclose our biases. For some proponents of intelligent design, religion is a bias, but this is not the case for all. And for some scientists whoring out to corporations is a bias (results tend to favour profits).

On the topic of culture and human wellbeing, there are arguments on both sides. In the end though, the verdict is still out on the origin of life (note that I don’t say species here). It will continue to be a matter of faith for both creationists and scientists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there, </p>
<p>I recently watched Ben Stien&#8217;s fairly biased documentary on intelligent design (&#8220;Expelled&#8221;), which examined the discreditation of scientists who consider exploring the concept. However, I enjoyed watching the dogmatic &#8220;Darwinists&#8221; scramble to address the question of origin. Evolution is certainly an ecological/biological function. There is observable evidence of this at the finest resolution of observation (DNA). However, evolution does not necessarily address ORGIN. </p>
<p>As a realist, I expect openness to inquiry within any discipline I study. Prime example: quantum physics (look up on goggle video &#8211; double slit test). That&#8217;s right; biology is not the only field with unexplained phenomenon or circumstances of a fundamental nature. And keep in mind that organisms exist in an environment shaped by quantum physics&#8230;</p>
<p>In any pursuit for truth (scientific or religious) we should be sure to examine and disclose our biases. For some proponents of intelligent design, religion is a bias, but this is not the case for all. And for some scientists whoring out to corporations is a bias (results tend to favour profits).</p>
<p>On the topic of culture and human wellbeing, there are arguments on both sides. In the end though, the verdict is still out on the origin of life (note that I don’t say species here). It will continue to be a matter of faith for both creationists and scientists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dg61</title>
		<link>http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/#comment-2369</link>
		<dc:creator>dg61</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://conservationreport.com/?p=4795#comment-2369</guid>
		<description>Where is Nicholas Malebranche when you really need him? Anyhow, I think this is more a &quot;cultural issue masqurading as religion&quot;, than a religous issue, as shown by the fact that noted major religions Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism consider evolution acceptable. 
&quot;Evolution is nonetheless problematic to some of these nonliteralist Christians, because it implies a more distant or less personal God (1—3). &quot;
Those are not so much strong religous belifs as they are insecure relgious belifs.
&quot;Adnan Oktar borrows his “science” heavily from the Institute for Creation Research and, more recently, from the Intelligent Design movement in the United States (2)... is on the social and cultural threat posed by evolution&quot;
My irony meter just exploded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where is Nicholas Malebranche when you really need him? Anyhow, I think this is more a &#8220;cultural issue masqurading as religion&#8221;, than a religous issue, as shown by the fact that noted major religions Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism consider evolution acceptable.<br />
&#8220;Evolution is nonetheless problematic to some of these nonliteralist Christians, because it implies a more distant or less personal God (1—3). &#8221;<br />
Those are not so much strong religous belifs as they are insecure relgious belifs.<br />
&#8220;Adnan Oktar borrows his “science” heavily from the Institute for Creation Research and, more recently, from the Intelligent Design movement in the United States (2)&#8230; is on the social and cultural threat posed by evolution&#8221;<br />
My irony meter just exploded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EVOLUTION and science are under attack…again &#171; The Conservation Report</title>
		<link>http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/#comment-2334</link>
		<dc:creator>EVOLUTION and science are under attack…again &#171; The Conservation Report</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://conservationreport.com/?p=4795#comment-2334</guid>
		<description>[...] On the Net: EVOLUTION: Interesting graphs illustrating the acceptance of evolution [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] On the Net: EVOLUTION: Interesting graphs illustrating the acceptance of evolution [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: make money</title>
		<link>http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/#comment-2162</link>
		<dc:creator>make money</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://conservationreport.com/?p=4795#comment-2162</guid>
		<description>reading your blog daily its great</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>reading your blog daily its great</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 2009 Post Two &#171; blueollie</title>
		<link>http://conservationreport.com/2009/01/01/evolution-interesting-graphs-illustrating-the-acceptance-of-evolution/#comment-2160</link>
		<dc:creator>2009 Post Two &#171; blueollie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:12:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://conservationreport.com/?p=4795#comment-2160</guid>
		<description>[...] Evolution Do you want to know how backwards we (the USA) are in reference to acceptance of evolution? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Evolution Do you want to know how backwards we (the USA) are in reference to acceptance of evolution? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
