SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 24, 2008 21:05:46 GMT -5
As astonishing and as difficult as it may be to believe, almost HALF of all Americans don't believe in Evolution. Excerpt from NY Times
In Gallup polls over the last 25 years, nearly half of American adults have consistently said they believe God created all living things in their present form, sometime in the last 10,000 years. This is yet another reason why it is so crucial to restore and maintain the separation of church and state, and for religious groups to stick to religion and stay out of politics and public education. And for political parties to stop pandering to religious groups. Below are a few more excerpts from an article in today's Times: NY Times on Teaching EvolutionExcerpts
Just this summer, religious advocates lobbied successfully for a Louisiana law that protects the right of local schools to teach alternative theories for the origin of species, even though there are none that scientists recognize as valid. The Florida Legislature is expected to reopen debate on a similar bill this fall.
Even states that require teachers to cover the basics of evolution, like natural selection, rarely ask them to explain in any detail how humans, in particular, evolved from earlier life forms. That subject can be especially fraught for young people taught to believe that the basis for moral conduct lies in God’s having created man uniquely in his own image.
In 2000, when the independent Thomas B. Fordham Foundation evaluated the evolution education standards of all 50 states, Florida was among 12 to receive a grade of F. (Kansas, which drew international attention in 1999 for deleting all mention of evolution and later embracing supernatural theories, received an F-minus.)
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,913
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 24, 2008 21:21:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 24, 2008 21:39:13 GMT -5
This is disgusting. When did we decide as a nation to embrace a form of ignorance that I can't even fathom?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2008 6:51:11 GMT -5
I can't believe that 50% actually reject evolution. I feel like a sizable number of those people feel for many reasons that they have to agree when asked whether "God created all things in present form" without thinking the ramifications through with regards to creationism vs evolution. That looks like awfully leading language. Even if they knew the ramifications I bet a serious number would vote against evolution just to show emphatically which side of the culture war they are on.
At least I have to believe that, because that figure is embarassing to no end.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 25, 2008 8:09:15 GMT -5
Read those Gallup questions again. The questions giving two options - either evolution or creationism - were stacked one after the other. Some might consider this an "either/or". Also note the very specific question on human beings, not on any other form of life. If you believe (as I do) that God was in the background - the "intelligent watchmaker" idea - then some of these questions aren't particularly clear.
The other thing that strikes me? You really shouldn't "believe" in evolution. You can accept its guiding principles as a theory, and use it to inform your scientific approaches, but you don't really "believe" in it.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 25, 2008 8:47:26 GMT -5
As astonishing and as difficult as it may be to believe, almost HALF of all Americans don't believe in Evolution. Excerpt from NY Times
In Gallup polls over the last 25 years, nearly half of American adults have consistently said they believe God created all living things in their present form, sometime in the last 10,000 years. I agree -- the poll seems to be poorly constructed. There should be three choices: 1) I concur with the theory of evolution and accept the scientific evidence and data that supports that theory. 2) I accept the theory of evolution (and related theories of geology/plate tectonics/astronomy, etc) as an explanation for how the universe was created and how life evolved over millions of years, but also believed that some entity played a role in guiding and shaping such growth. 3) I reject the scientific theory of evolution and believe in the story of creation as is spelled out in my faith. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 25, 2008 9:04:37 GMT -5
As astonishing and as difficult as it may be to believe, almost HALF of all Americans don't believe in Evolution. Excerpt from NY Times
In Gallup polls over the last 25 years, nearly half of American adults have consistently said they believe God created all living things in their present form, sometime in the last 10,000 years. I agree -- the poll seems to be poorly constructed. There should be three choices: 1) I concur with the theory of evolution and accept the scientific evidence and data that supports that theory. 2) I accept the theory of evolution (and related theories of geology/plate tectonics/astronomy, etc) as an explanation for how the universe was created and how life evolved over millions of years, but also believed that some entity played a role in guiding and shaping such growth. 3) I reject the scientific theory of evolution and believe in the story of creation as is spelled out in my faith. Answers 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive there. It's possible to agree 100% with evolution while still believing that there was a deity guiding it all. There's absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that denies a divine being. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 25, 2008 9:37:41 GMT -5
"This is yet another reason why it is so crucial to restore and maintain the separation of church and state, and for religious groups to stick to religion and stay out of politics and public education. And for political parties to stop pandering to religious groups." Then, read this news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_democrats_faith |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 25, 2008 10:05:17 GMT -5
I'll start this out by saying I believe in evolution but I believe it is being guided by a Higher Power. And, it's continuing today. And, with God, all things are in the present; there is no time.
Just because science says something is so, does not make it so.
1,000 years ago science told us the earth was flat. 100 years before Galileo, science (yes, science) told us the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago science told us the atom was the smallest possible form of matter and could not be separated.
Today, science will tell us virgin birth is impossible. And, rising from the dead, also impossible. And that thing about water into wine, can't happen. And the parting of the Red Sea, no way. And, God speaking from a cloud on a mountain, gimme a break.
Jesus very-clearly said He would hide the truth from the learned and reveal it to the common people. This is why learning should take place in the light of faith lest we form the wrong conclusions.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 25, 2008 10:59:17 GMT -5
I'll start this out by saying I believe in evolution but I believe it is being guided by a Higher Power. And, it's continuing today. And, with God, all things are in the present; there is no time. Just because science says something is so, does not make it so. 1,000 years ago science told us the earth was flat. 100 years before Galileo, science (yes, science) told us the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago science told us the atom was the smallest possible form of matter and could not be separated. Today, science will tell us virgin birth is impossible. And, rising from the dead, also impossible. And that thing about water into wine, can't happen. And the parting of the Red Sea, no way. And, God speaking from a cloud on a mountain, gimme a break. I'm sorry, ed, but this is just incredibly hackneyed and stupid, yet another iteration of the "science doesn't know everything" gambit. Science is so inherently useful because it is self-correcting. No theory is sacred and can be overturned by sufficient evidence, unlike dogma. Galileo accumulated more evidence than Copernicus and thus the heliocentric model was adopted. And let's not forget that it was the church that tried to prevent this self-correction from occurring at all. It's that awful convenient? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 25, 2008 11:00:53 GMT -5
Look, all's I know is that those paleontologists on "Jurassic Fight Club" can't possibly know everything about a dinosaur battle that they claim to know.
I'm pretty sure they're making a lot of that up as they go along.
That right there is enough for me to reject evolution.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Aug 25, 2008 11:11:33 GMT -5
I can't believe that 50% actually reject evolution. I feel like a sizable number of those people feel for many reasons that they have to agree when asked whether "God created all things in present form" without thinking the ramifications through with regards to creationism vs evolution. That looks like awfully leading language. Even if they knew the ramifications I bet a serious number would vote against evolution just to show emphatically which side of the culture war they are on. At least I have to believe that, because that figure is embarassing to no end. Yes, you might as well be asking "Do you believe that the Bible is mostly lies?" If you don't like the answer, ask a different question. Actually, no, Dem leaders should take the moral high ground and promise to rid the American public schools of such evils as Creationism and heteronormativism. ******* "Even states that require teachers to cover the basics of evolution, like natural selection, rarely ask them to explain in any detail how humans, in particular, evolved from earlier life forms." ******* That's good, because as far as I understand the debate, while natural selection can be explained fairly readily, nothing to date has really been able to explain how modern humans arose from the muck in the period of time that it's actually taken. I'm not saying "evolution" isn't real, just that it doesn't explain such things in detail. I suppose acknowledging that must make me some kind of evolution-denier on par with Ed. Lump all your enemies together and we'll always outnumber you  |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 25, 2008 11:22:32 GMT -5
I'll start this out by saying I believe in evolution but I believe it is being guided by a Higher Power. And, it's continuing today. And, with God, all things are in the present; there is no time. Just because science says something is so, does not make it so. 1,000 years ago science told us the earth was flat. 100 years before Galileo, science (yes, science) told us the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago science told us the atom was the smallest possible form of matter and could not be separated. Today, science will tell us virgin birth is impossible. And, rising from the dead, also impossible. And that thing about water into wine, can't happen. And the parting of the Red Sea, no way. And, God speaking from a cloud on a mountain, gimme a break. I'm sorry, ed, but this is just incredibly hackneyed and stupid, yet another iteration of the "science doesn't know everything" gambit. Science is so inherently useful because it is self-correcting. No theory is sacred and can be overturned by sufficient evidence, unlike dogma. Galileo accumulated more evidence than Copernicus and thus the heliocentric model was adopted. And let's not forget that it was the church that tried to prevent this self-correction from occurring at all. It's that awful convenient? You can have a debate on here without mocking someone's faith. There's a lot of people that believe what ed typed. It would be foolish to dismiss them outright. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 25, 2008 11:44:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry, ed, but this is just incredibly hackneyed and stupid, yet another iteration of the "science doesn't know everything" gambit. Science is so inherently useful because it is self-correcting. No theory is sacred and can be overturned by sufficient evidence, unlike dogma. Galileo accumulated more evidence than Copernicus and thus the heliocentric model was adopted. And let's not forget that it was the church that tried to prevent this self-correction from occurring at all. It's that awful convenient? You can have a debate on here without mocking someone's faith. There's a lot of people that believe what ed typed. It would be foolish to dismiss them outright. If I sounded mocking, that wasn't what I intended, and I'm sorry. I was simply trying to say that the argument "evolution isn't true because of [bible passage]" isn't really valid. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 25, 2008 11:45:17 GMT -5
There's a giant difference between the belief that science is more or less right but was the natural universe was created and/or guided by a higher power and those who believe the Bible should be taken literally.
There may be no definitive observable evidence for a God (or Gods, if we have any pagans here), but there's really no evidence against the thought. Yes, I can see why some folks think that people simply define their God to be outside the bounds so that it can't be proven wrong, but I can also see the argument for some kind of divine spark.
On the other hand, there's a lot of observable evidence to say the earth was not created in it's current state 10,000 years ago. Of course, people can say it was created as is 10,000 years ago, and always can (and this is why I can see both sides), but there's a huge difference between the two. In the latter, you need to explain why the laws of nature have changed; in the former, the discussion is certainly out of knowing.
Scientists don't know everything. But they've got a pretty good hit rate.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 25, 2008 12:12:05 GMT -5
"1,000 years ago science told us the earth was flat"
Illiterate peasents may have thought the world was flat but the vast majority of Medieval academics knew the world is a globe.
"Galileo accumulated more evidence than Copernicus and thus the heliocentric model was adopted. And let's not forget that it was the church that tried to prevent this self-correction from occurring at all. "
The Church didn't care one way or another (others had proposed heliocentricism without any fuss), they just didn't like Galileo because of his anti Papal stances so they just "blacklisted" all of his ideas
/Nope, not a history nerd at all/
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2008 12:43:11 GMT -5
Heteronormativism...is what exactly? It can't be that legit because it ain't even in the dictionary or wikipedia unless I spelled it wrong.....
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 25, 2008 12:47:02 GMT -5
"1,000 years ago science told us the earth was flat" Illiterate peasents may have thought the world was flat but the vast majority of Medieval academics knew the world is a globe. "Galileo accumulated more evidence than Copernicus and thus the heliocentric model was adopted. And let's not forget that it was the church that tried to prevent this self-correction from occurring at all. " The Church didn't care one way or another (others had proposed heliocentricism without any fuss), they just didn't like Galileo because of his anti Papal stances so they just "blacklisted" all of his ideas /Nope, not a history nerd at all/ I think you were misinterpreting ed. I think that all he was saying is that science is not stagnant, and that as we learn things, we also discover shortcomings in earlier beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the earlier beliefs, just maybe help explain them in more detail. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 25, 2008 12:55:34 GMT -5
"1,000 years ago science told us the earth was flat" Illiterate peasents may have thought the world was flat but the vast majority of Medieval academics knew the world is a globe. "Galileo accumulated more evidence than Copernicus and thus the heliocentric model was adopted. And let's not forget that it was the church that tried to prevent this self-correction from occurring at all. " The Church didn't care one way or another (others had proposed heliocentricism without any fuss), they just didn't like Galileo because of his anti Papal stances so they just "blacklisted" all of his ideas /Nope, not a history nerd at all/ I think you were misinterpreting ed. I think that all he was saying is that science is not stagnant, and that as we learn things, we also discover shortcomings in earlier beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the earlier beliefs, just maybe help explain them in more detail. That is not at all what ed said. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 25, 2008 13:21:19 GMT -5
This is what Ed said (I'm Ed). Just because science tells us something is so, does not mean it is necessarily so. I also said I believe in evolution. I also said I believe evolution is being guided by a Higher Power.
I do not believe (in the time domain in which we live) that mankind was created in its present form. So, I do not believe in what most call creationism. In fact, what I believe is that what we see today is creation unfolding, merely a snapshot of God creating the universe and all in it.
Beyond that, Bando, I would like to ask if you believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. If you don't we have nothing in common on this subject and there will be no further reason for your calling my beliefs hackneyed and stupid.
If you do believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, please tell me how science, without faith, explains that.
|
|
