Established Member
Just in case you missed it, here is a report published by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center:
http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=254
It indicates, among other things, that 42% of Americans think that "humans and other things have existed in their present form only." Also note that 42% of people indicated that religion is the most important influence on their views about the development of life, followed a distant second by education at a mere 28%.
Aporetic
Established Member
frightening.
Established Member
42% of americans have never got any higher than the apes...
still living in trees and slamming everyone within sight withas a big a stick as they can find...
sounds about right actually
a rwally rawwly scurry thuttt
its as bustust as it likely to get where any form of fundilism exists
of any form...
i am proud to say for once..
prove me wrong..
R.I.P. Bad Astronomy
Order of Kilopi
Okay, guys, no offence, but I do know some Creationists personally, and I wouldn't insult their intelligence. A lot of creationists or people that are strong in their religious beliefs can actually be pretty darn smart.
Of course, I disagree with them all - I'm a strong advocater of Evolutionism, and I don't believe that religion should be forced upon science books and science teachers, since it's not a topic that should go under science, but instead religion... I'm also not religious at all, and have no religious convictions. I'm not an atheist, I just tend to think that it would be impossible to really say what's what for sure, especially with the limited resources we have.
Nonetheless, I've been called an idiot for "not seeing that a higher power is above everything", and it hurt. I wouldn't want to call someone that has religious convictions an idiot just for having those convictions.
Anyways, that's just my personal opinion. As is everything I'd ever post here, I'd suppose :P
Established Member
Your description of your belief system appears to tag you as an agnostic, not an atheist. Whether one is an atheist, agnostic, or a deist of some sort, she should hold her beliefs sufficiently confidently to not be at all hurt by others calling her an idiot. It is the caller not the callee that should feel hurt, embarrassed actually, as soon as she realizes what that action implies about her. Many atheists seem militantly opposed to believers; these I would tag as anti-theists as opposed to atheists and in need of a support system to sort out their emotions.Nonetheless, I've been called an idiot for "not seeing that a higher power is above everything", and it hurt.
Bad Post-Doc
if someone you love calls you an idiot, it hurts whether or not you "hold your beliefs sufficiently," or at least, that's been my experience. and, in fact, I've had both atheists and theists insult my personal beliefs, and, yes, how much it hurt depended on how much respect I'd previously had for the person. in fact, I still haven't told my mother about my change in religion (now going on ten years old), because I'm wary of how she'll react.Originally Posted by GOURDHEAD
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
It wasn't my intention to insult anybody about anything. I am all about the Evolution, but my post was intended only to inform people about the new study.
Aporetic
Order of Kilopi
I was more responding to Boppa, really, Aporetic. I have no problem with the post you made, it was interesting data to have.
Yes, I'm an agnostic, though I always feel wary of tacking a title onto my beliefs. Especially since I've seen a huge debate erupt about the definition of agnostic and atheist. Including how Agnostic doesn't really mean what most think, it's what atheist means, and vice versa, and blah blah blah I really don't care anymore blah blah blah.
*Cough* Yeah, I'm just rambling now. Don't mind the crazy wulf. >.>
Order of Kilopi
it seems to me that the evolutionists are kind of winning. the creationists are already starting to backpedal and say that God used evolution to make us- the whole "intelligent design" deal. but they won't just come out and say they were wrong or whatever. they just take the other idea and twist it to fit what they already belive, and say that if you don't believe what they believe verbatim, you are a sinning idiot. besides, you can't really PROVE that evolution exists, just like you can't PROVE that God didn't use evolution to create us. twisted logic at it's finest.
maybe the book of Genesis is just the only way the ancients knew how to explain evolution. it does, after all, kind of fit the way scientists tend to think the universe was created.
Newbie
There's no reason smart people can't believe dumb ideas.
And it gets more complicated... understanding evolution takes a significant amount of learning, and it makes no claims about humans being special. Faith is simple, comforting and appeals to the ego (created in His image, separate from the beasts, etc.).
It seems like we're pre-wired to automatically accept that which makes us happy, unless we make a conscious effort not to. Faith (with big poppa god and special humans) fits this rather well. So it is actually against human nature to think critically.
What can I say... logical analysis wasn't as important on the african plains
Vulcan Administrator
Evolution is winning everywhere except in the eyes of the public, and pretty much just the American public at that. Most biologists consider creationists to be inconsequential nutters and ignore them, though that appears to be changing as the ID movement has been making inroads into teaching standards and such - the scientists are starting to realize that they actually need to do something about it.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Established Member
I have to second that. From Europe, the whole creationism debate is viewed with disbelief and lots of head-shaking, Schönborn or no Schönborn.
I think the ID/creationism debate is kept alive on two principles: a) that in a media-controlled society any idiocy becomes relevant if only it is repeated loudly enough and often enough; and b) that strong pressure groups in the US interested in a rabidly conservative and at the same time docilely uneducated public make sure these idiocies are repeated loudly and often. After all, there is so much power and money to be made from stupid people.
So there is no reason whatsoever that this or similar issues might not become virulent in Europe, although Europe's current secularism is a bit of an antidote for the moment. Maybe Europe's anti-technolgy movements (coming under the veil of environmental protection) are a rough equivalent to your ID infestation: Pseuodo- or anti-scientific in their principles, preferring dogma over fact, equating scientific thinking with moral shortcomings. Ask Glom about the antinuclear movement over here and he won't stop ranting for some considerable time.
Yes, ToSeek, scientists have to do something about it. The websites attached to this boardare a good model.
Established Member
Democritus is one of the founders of atheism and for whom "democracy" is named after..Atheism was simply defined as a belief in the atomic theory.
To repeat...If the forces of religion wish for equal time at the pulpit of Democritus in the schools, then it stands to reason that voices of Democritus should have equal time at the pulpit of the congregations on Sundays to present supportive views of evolution, random selection and an atheistic view of morality that castes the values of Christianity into doubt..
Does anyone really think that those who wrote the scriptures of the major religions really had a desire to suffocate the future generations by dumping their "legacies" upon them? Handwriting was new to the first writers of biblical verse and the concept that some future generation might be able to receive a message that spanned across time must have been mindblowing to them...
Handwriting to them could be easily equated to what the internet is to us...a new toy and tool to play with..The messages they left in those pages would seem to be a way of introducing themselves to the future, saying in effect, "Hello, this is what we were thinking long before you." They left a simple greeting card, nothing more.
We have sent messages aboard the Voyager on a CD disk that some distant future species may receive some day..Do we really wish to dump our values upon them? Or, are we just sending them a greeting card as well? What if the being has 6000 appendages; 652,000 eyes; and what if it takes 1700 of them arranged into a crystalline structure that uses 3 more spatial dimensions than what we see in order to reproduce one of themselves? How would they relate to our "values"? For such beings one eyelash could render a town meeting. The eye shadow humans have might be seen as a declaration of war.. Our reproduction system would be a puzzle..(Where's the rest of them?)
The pits and lands of the CD might have no more meaning to them than something for their pet to bury after it is curled up to fit snuggly into another hidden dimension..
Their response could even be one of offense.."Those arrogant fools! It is bad enough that they try to choke the rest of the universe with their human chauvanism..Can't they take a hint? We left them alone to grow and develope by scrambling all our outbound radio signals...Why can't they do the same?
Last edited by blueshift; 2005-Sep-11 at 10:01 PM. Reason: spelling
Bad Post-Doc
you do know that "democracy" literally means "rule of the people," right? no one named "Democritus" gave his name to it. they just took it from Greek words, like so much of English. further, there's no "founder" of atheism, as that would imply a codified belief system, which atheism obviously doesn't have. (it literally means "a belief in no gods," or some variation thereof.) I'm not disputing your point, mind, just your history.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
No. Democracy comes from demos = people and kratein = to rule (rule of the people). Demokritos comes from demos and krinein = to judge (he who judges the people).
No. it was on an analogue disk played by scratching a needle over it (aah, the old days). The point is important, because you do not know how to decode the disk - you just have to play it and listen. The manual for using the attached player is provided.
Established Member
I think blueshift was being tongue-in-cheek.
... I think.
Established Member
scary thing is here in australia the fundy christians are also on the upswing
from memory it was the western australian education minister and one of the federal ministers that were recently pushing for id to be taught as science..
R.I.P. Bad Astronomy
Established Member
I conducted an anonymous poll in one of my classes today, and 72% of my students indicated a belief that "humans were created directly by God, and have never undergone any evolutionary process." Obviously it is a small N study, and there are some other methodological problems, but of my approx. 200 students, 72% are creationists. Incidentally, one of the options was a brief description of intelligent design - very few went with this option.
It is an American government class, so I'm not going to get into the fact that they are horrifically wrong. But there are the numbers.
Aporetic
Established Member
I like all of the replies here and I say yes to Kesh for pulling on my intentions correctly..
The concept that a purpose was intended for our being can be traced back to simple observations in ancient times. Genetic science was not around to explain why a seed grew into a flower or why a child grew into an adult and not a bush..Therefore, they had to give cause and effect a two-way arrow, letting effect predetermine cause at times..For them there had to be a destiny or some purpose that dictated that seeds grow into flowers.
Secondly, by observing the final months of a pregnancy to a birth some quite strange behavior had to be explained into some cause and effect scenario..The poking away that a fetus performs from the 8th month (or thereabouts) on woould have raised some serious debates by campfires in the night..Simple comparisons would have raised eyebrows..
"Why do children outside of the womb, obviously older than those still inside wombs, behave so far out of control, breaking things, screaming, running around, crying and being anything but careful? They fear the dark..New borns come out making racket..Meanwhile we can all see that this poking in her belly is so controlled and methodical...Further, why don't any of us remember what is was like in there? Perhaps, something else is in there doing the poking, teaching the infant how to move, sacrificing itself to give life to the new born while it shrivels and dies."
What did the umbulical cord and afterbirth signify to the ancients? Why do you think there is a worship of snakes? It could be that observational science was responsible, in part, for bringing religion and sacrifices into the world..
Member
As a Christian, I don't see why scientific people are so intensely opposed to the concept of Intelligent Design. It all comes to the same end whether God guided it or not, doesn't it?
While I don't agree with Intelligent Design being singled out to be taught alongside "traditional science", I don't see what the problem with it is. Isn't it essentially a way for religious people to agree with the theory of evolution without compromising their religious beliefs? Surely there's nothing wrong with that, in itself.
Personally, I believe in Creation and evolution and both at the same time; either way it has no real impact on the world today. I believe science, and I believe in God. There's no conflict in it.
Administrator
Hi JessM, I don't think that Intelligent Design, as expressed on the ID websites and other sources agrees with modern science. If the position of all churches was that "there is a God, and he made things happen as we see them, and that science can resolve these things more clearly without contradiction because the the church and all scientists should be in awe of what God has done", there would be no problem.
However there are people that believe that man was created in God's own image in October 4004 BC. This position embraces ID, and rejects many branches of science. There is no middle ground on that one.
On this forum, we make a strong effort to be nice to everyone. This is a dangerous topic for us because there are many people with very strongly held beliefs on one side of this or the other. You seem to be in a middle position.
Forming opinions as we speak
Vulcan Administrator
Well, I think there are several reasons why mainstream biologists are so up in arms about ID.
1. Most of those behind ID are creationists, i.e., they are not truly interested in the evidence, they're just looking for a way for religious beliefs to be taught in schools.
2. So far, ID is just a "God of the gaps": if you can't explain it, then God must have done it. You can't do science this way. If the answer to every unsolved scientific mystery is God, then what's the point of doing science?
3. ID so far has been about 80% politics and 20% real science. Organizations like the Discovery Institute focus most of their energy on ways of getting ID-related issues with evolution taught in the classroom, shortcutting the scientific process, which involves getting actual evidence for your case before even considering having your hypotheses taught to unsuspecting schoolchildren.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Order of Kilopi
Yeah, And Welcome ....
Both, to The Board, and To The Position ...
"Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to The Right," Indeed ....
Quite Frankly, I Think BOTH Extremes, Should Listen, to Those, Who Share, your Point of View!
Established Member
The point of doing science is to move more and more unanswered questions out of the "God box" into the "scientificly explainable" box.
Established Member
Actually, no. And that's the problem.
The biggest groups pushing ID (such as the Discovery Institute) are Young-Earth Creationists, which not only pushes evolution out the window, but geology and a number of other sciences. ID in the USA is inherently anti-science.
And the trouble is that most folks don't hear that on the evening news. ID is dangerous because of that. It draws in well-meaning folks like yourself, who have integrated their faith and science into a reasonable world-view. It's only once you look into who's funding and driving this movement that one finds they're quite happy to sweep your views under the rug in favor of their own.
Make no mistake: ID is about wiping away all our scientific findings and methods in favor of one specific religious viewpoint.
I've been following the Pharyngula blog for a while, which neatly gathers up most of the ID information and talking points, showing how they're strictly anti-science.
Last edited by Kesh; 2005-Sep-13 at 11:27 PM. Reason: Minor error corrected
Order of Kilopi
Okay, I have to do some more research into this ID thing. Y'know, I think a psychologist could make a statement of wry humor just based on them calling themselves "ID"... anyways.
I'll do some more research after I finish with Scientology. Man, that's cracked. Anyhow, thanks for the information on Intelligent Design. It seemed SORT OF reasonable at first, but I still wasn't interested in seeing something like that accepted into any sort of science class. Teach science in science class, teach religion in the church or in a class based on teaching religion (but I think that the two should be taught differently).
Anyways, yeah.
Established Member
Here is another interesting result from the study I posted above. The higher one's level of eduation, the more likely one is to disgaree with Creationism and agree with Evolution. BUT, of those who agree with evolution, those with a higher level of education are more slightly more likely to agree with ID (and far more likely to agree with natural selection). Note that some of these numbers are within the margin of error of the poll.
Here are the results to which I refer:
"Humans and other things have existed in their present form only:" Agree - High School or less, 50%; Some College 42%; College Graduate 27%
"Humans and other living things have evolved over time, guided by a supreme being:" Agree - High School or less, 15%; Some College 21%; College Graduate 20%
"Humans and other living things have evolved over time through natural selection:" Agree - High School or less, 18%; Some College 26%; College Graduate 40%
Established Member
Yet, the result of letting creationism into the school curricula simply to demand "equal time" opens the door for all other belief systems as well..My point of allowing science equal time in church services on a Sunday is to point out how both schools and the churches would have to shut down since EVERY point of view must be considered..There wouldn't be enough time to conduct funerals, weddings, confession, etc. since too many speakers would gobble their share at the pulpit. The same condition would bring havoc to the school system, making it impossible to write one equation on the blackboard due to lack of time..
We separated church and state in order to preserve both..
Order of Kilopi
I honestly don't see how you drew that conclusion from the data. Replying "yes" to the second question is not the same as believing in ID. What ID says is that science alone cannot explain biology (irreducible complexity, and all that), therefore there must have been an intelligent intervention. I may believe that there was intelligent intervention in the creation of life, but that's not the same as saying that the physical data prove there was.
P.S. On the other hand, I took a look at the survey's results, and the following replies are cause for concern, even if the trend seems to be encouraging.
Of course, the word 'responsibility' is a bit ambiguous...
Q64 Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism ALONG WITH evolution in public schools?
[...]
64 Favor 57
26 Oppose 33
10 Don't know/Refused 10
Q65 Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism INSTEAD OF evolution in public schools?
38 Favor 33
49 Oppose 54
13 Don't know/Refused 13
Last edited by Disinfo Agent; 2005-Sep-13 at 09:14 PM.
Established Member
That is one of the biggest misconceptions people seem to have about ID. It is not equivalent to theistic evolution - that god is the cause and evolution is the method. ID is a political and ideological movement to force religious belief into science and into the classroom in the name of science. ID asserts that the methods of evolution are not sufficient to account for the diversity and complexity of life on their own, and that some "divine influence" is required. This divine influence is masked under the name "design", but it really is just supernatural intervention. The stated goal of the Discovery Institute (main proponents of ID) is to put religion back into science.
The proposed justifications and methods of identifying "design" are faulty and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Irreducible Complexity has not been demonstrated - Behe's proposed IC elements have been shown by others to not be irreducible, and the principle is flawed because it assumes things about evolution that are not true. Similar flaws apply to the other ID concepts. The science there is goal driven and not credible - it does not stand on the merits. ID is not science, and it is not a benign religious backing to evolution, it is a political agenda to replace evolution with "god did it".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote