Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[jdobbin]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html

The survey conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National for Easter, found 30 per cent of Canadians who believe in God also believe in evolution. Another 23 per cent of believers say they agree with ideas put forth by both creationists and evolutionists.

“As you get older, you become more accepting of possibilities,” says John Wright, senior vice-president of Toronto-based pollster Ipsos Reid. “There are now people who are prepared to accept both sides and don’t see them as necessarily being mutually exclusive.”

Overall, 31 per cent of Canadians believe humans were created by “a spiritual force” and not as part of an evolution from other species over time; 41 per cent believe that humans evolved “from lower species such as apes;” 21 per cent are on the fence, agreeing and disagreeing with certain aspects of each theory; seven per cent aren’t sure.

You can see that with people divided on the issue that it lends itself to trying to get creationism taught in schools.

And if creationism is accepted then why not all rules that separate church and state?

[tango]

Creationism is part of religious instruction, wherever that is appropriate.

I think what the survey shows is that most Canadians don't think creationism and evolution are incompatible.

There was a point in evolution when homo sapiens emerged, the beginning of human consciousness. I see the Bible's creation story as a literary allegory for that point in human evolution.

I don't think there's much of a debate here. One is science, one is literature, religious literature, taught in religious settings as 'doctrine', or in secular educational settings as literature for critique.

I don't think Canadians are divided, except those who isolate themselves by insisting that their creation doctrine be imposed on others, but they are an insignificant minority trying to create divisions where none really exist.

Edited April 11, 2009 by tango

[noahbody]

“As you get older, you become more accepting of possibilities,” says John Wright, senior vice-president of Toronto-based pollster Ipsos Reid.

It's called fear of death.

[myata]

75% of Canadians may believe that they'll win big in a lottery next year, so should this also be taught in schools? Creationism is not a science, not a theory, only a belief, by another name. There's not a single experiment, not a known scientific theory that something can be materialized out of thin air. Let's put the question right, should beliefs, superstitions and religious practices be taught in public schools? It would certainly have effect on the kind of society our posterior will live in.

[Kitchener]

41 per cent believe that humans evolved “from lower species such as apes;”

CanWest springing for a scientifically incompetent survey about evolution? Who could have called it?

[DrGreenthumb]

I would say the VAST majority of those that believe in creationism are Conservatives.

[Shakeyhands]

I would say the VAST majority of those that believe in creationism are Conservatives.

and not very bright.

[eyeball]

There's not a single experiment, not a known scientific theory that something can be materialized out of thin air.

There is a scientific theory that states everything materialized out of nothing. There are also experiments that are proposed that are intended to lend weight to the theory.

[tango]

There is a scientific theory that states everything materialized out of nothing. There are also experiments that are proposed that are intended to lend weight to the theory.

Not out of nothing, surely, but from random elements that randomly arranged themselves into matter... ?

[tango]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html

You can see that with people divided on the issue that it lends itself to trying to get creationism taught in schools.

And if creationism is accepted then why not all rules that separate church and state?

Creationism is not accepted as fact, just respected as religious belief.

[bush_cheney2004]

Creationism is not accepted as fact, just respected as religious belief.

No, it is excepted as fact for the foundation of many of the world's major and minor belief systems. Facts in and of themselves are not always immutable.

[tango]

No, it is excepted as fact for the foundation of many of the world's major and minor belief systems. Facts in and of themselves are not always immutable.

I mean in the larger community, as in the survey.

And I think religion that gets hung up on proving literal facts is not about God.

It's about people trying to prove one people - their own - superior to others.

imo

[bush_cheney2004]

...And I think religion that gets hung up on proving literal facts is not about God.

It's about people trying to prove one people - their own - superior to others.

imo

The same can be said for those who feel superior to the "Creationists".

Edited April 12, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[tango]

The same can be said for those who feel superior to the "Creationaists".

true!

I have no beef with anyone's beliefs that don't try to interfere with my own.

Thus, I have a problem with proselytizing and attempt to impose creationism in secular schools.

However, I don't think we're in much danger of that really.

[bush_cheney2004]

true!

I have no beef with anyone's beliefs that don't try to interfere with my own.

Thus, I have a problem with proselytizing and attempt to impose creationism in secular schools.

However, I don't think we're in much danger of that really.

Then I assume you have a similar "problem" with all "proselytizing", not just creationism. Lots of bullshit gets taught in "secular schools".

[tango]

Then I assume you have a similar "problem" with all "proselytizing", not just creationism. Lots of bullshit gets taught in "secular schools".

Here we are talking about creationism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here we are talking about creationism.

Of course....it's not fair to challenge the fact hucksters on other matters.

[WIP]

Creationism is part of religious instruction, wherever that is appropriate.

Where is it appropriate?

I think what the survey shows is that most Canadians don't think creationism and evolution are incompatible.

Well, that only proves that a lot of Canadians are stupid! Creationism, in any form, cannot be harmonized with evolutionary theory. Some of the fruits and vegetables commenting at the end of that Montreal Gazette article trotted out the old "missing links" objection to evolution by natural selection....something they learned at bible study I suppose. Creationists argue about fossils, but have nothing to say about why genomic analysis of humans and other animals, confirms the phylogenetic tree based on fossil evidence.

Judging by some of the comments at the end of the piece, it's more evidence that the majority of people in today's age of high tech, are ignorant about most of the basic findings in science. This Gallup Poll ten years ago revealed that 1 out of 5 Americans didn't know or were unsure of the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun!

[myata]

There is a scientific theory that states everything materialized out of nothing. There are also experiments that are proposed that are intended to lend weight to the theory.

If you mean the concepts of "many worlds in one" and "universe from nothing", I'm not sure they merit the status of hypothesis, or theory at this time. And I'm not aware of any experiments being planned now or in the near future to support them (I would be glad to discuss this in more detail).

But in any case, these concepts do not require any intelligent, sentient, active, any other sort of intervention at all, so I don't see how it could have any relevance to this discussion.

[eyeball]

If you mean the concepts of "many worlds in one" and "universe from nothing", I'm not sure they merit the status of hypothesis, or theory at this time. And I'm not aware of any experiments being planned now or in the near future to support them (I would be glad to discuss this in more detail).

But in any case, these concepts do not require any intelligent, sentient, active, any other sort of intervention at all, so I don't see how it could have any relevance to this discussion.

So the discussion is only relevent if it focuses on there being intelligent, sentient, and active intervention in the process of evolution?

Okay, I'll stop wasting bandwidth on it immediately if that's the case.

Choo.

[WIP]

There is a scientific theory that states everything materialized out of nothing. There are also experiments that are proposed that are intended to lend weight to the theory.

In brief, creation ex nihilo is not widely supported by many cosmologists in recent years since the discovery about 15 years ago that the universe's rate of expansion is accelerating, rather than slowing down. The significance of this shocking discovery was that the energy of empty space does not equal zero. The vacuum energy of space-time that has been overpowering gravitational attraction since about 10 billion years ago, indicates that the universe will end when this "dark energy" collapses and a new universe or a number of universes are seeded, and begin their expansions. What this means is that the Big Bang that started our universe was not a creation event that created space and time. The Bang started with a singularity of incredibly high energy, but it did not create everything, and was seeded from a break in pre-existing space-time. No cosmologists working on models that attempt to look back at the conditions before the Big Bang have a theory for how the original creation would have started, but we have to keep in mind that the notion that "something can't come from nothing" is taken from our intuitive sense of the world we live in, since our rules of cause and effect don't apply at the subatomic level.

I've taken most of this understanding of what are now referred to as Cyclic Universe models from reading statements and brief summaries from people like Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt; if you would like further information, I'll have to add a few links later.

[tango]

Where is it appropriate?

Religious instruction. Not in secular public schools.

Well, that only proves that a lot of Canadians are stupid! Creationism, in any form, cannot be harmonized with evolutionary theory.

Hey look, if religious people want to make up and believe an allegorical tale of Adam and Eve to explain the emergence of human consciousness during evolution, let them! Most know it isn't literal truth. Those who demand that it be treated as literal truth ... well ...some people prefer to keep their knowledge simplistic.

Such a tale is not necessarily incompatible with evolution.

But it isn't education either. It's dogma.

[benny]

Science cannot operate the transition from the elementary particle-level to the level of living organisms without the concept of intentional design.

[tango]

Science cannot operate the transition from the elementary particle-level to the level of living organisms without the concept of intentional design.

Or natural selection.

Link please?

[benny]

Or natural selection.

Link please?

S. Zizek, The Parallax View, MIT, 2006, p.239.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=je702bo2Pl...4#PRA2-PA239,M1