More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

[cybercoma]

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27847

Americans who say they do not believe in the theory of evolution are highly likely to justify this belief by reference to religion, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between high levels of personal religiosity and doubts about evolution.

Let's see here, in matters of science, should our children be taught by priests, imams, rabbis, etc or perhaps by scientists currently studying the subject matter.

Evidently, religion seems to have more of an impact than scientists. Most Americans believe their church rather than doctors and scientists.

[betsy]

Oh thanks for the info, Cybercoma. That's good news!

[BC_chick]

Best part is right here.... it should've been the first sentence, it would've set the tone for the rest of the article....

The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.

Those must be the progressive creationists.

[myata]

Well, it's quite a normal situation, only in the quantum world: Shroedinger's cat. As usual, those Americans are lightyears ahead.

[Figleaf]

I find it frankly horrifying that a majority of people in the world's supposed leading liberal democracy can be so devoid of reason.

[Bonam]

Ya, scary.

[myata]

Or maybe they're simply very, very nice people and didn't want to disappoint anybody on either side?

[jbg]

I do agree that setting up creationism and evolution as equal theories is a false dichotomy. Personally, I believe that one is science, the other religion. I think that the religious fundamentalists are fooling themselves if they think that mixing government and religion is ever a good idea.

[cybercoma]

I do agree that setting up creationism and evolution as equal theories is a false dichotomy. Personally, I believe that one is science, the other religion. I think that the religious fundamentalists are fooling themselves if they think that mixing government and religion is ever a good idea.

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore."

-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993. Let's see, now: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How could the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting an establishment of religion be anything but the separation of church and state?

"Here is another example of the way Robertson would mix church and state, rather than keep them separate. Let's say that a Christian thinks God is directing him or her to blow up an abortion clinic or kill a doctor who performs abortions, and this Christian does in fact commit such a crime. In a September of 1984 edition of The 700 Club, Robertson suggested that special church tribunals could be called upon to discern if a believer had in fact received an authentic word from God which compelled him to break a civil law. According to Robertson, if this church tribunal did determine the believer had in fact received an authentic message from God -- how they could reach this conclusion without issuing God a suboena wasn't made clear -- then, Robertson said, the church tribunal would have the civil authority to provide the believer with immunity from prosecution."

-- Gerard Thomas Straub, speech before the San Fernando Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, September 11, 1995, quoted from Harry Schwartzbart, "Pat Robertson Proposes Immunity From Prosecution For Criminals Who Commit Crimes On Instructions From God"

[ScottSA]

Best part is right here.... it should've been the first sentence, it would've set the tone for the rest of the article....

The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.

Those must be the progressive creationists.

Neither evolution not creationism is as simple as the article makes them out to be. Some variants of creationism go hand in hand with evolutionism.

[cybercoma]

How are there "variants" of creationism?

God created us as we are, or we evolved from simpler life forms.

Or are you suggesting that some believe God didn't create man, but instead created simpler life forms (which debunks the claim that God has to exist because we're too complex to evolve) and we evolved from that?

[ScottSA]

How are there "variants" of creationism?

Or are you suggesting that some believe God didn't create man, but instead created simpler life forms

Yes. And no. I erased your simplistic strawman for you to spare you the embarrassment of having to defend it.

[BC_chick]

Neither evolution not creationism is as simple as the article makes them out to be. Some variants of creationism go hand in hand with evolutionism.

Perhaps.

But there is no way something can be millions of years old and 10,000 years old at the same time. Did you read the passage I quoted?

[Electric Monk]

Neither evolution not creationism is as simple as the article makes them out to be. Some variants of creationism go hand in hand with evolutionism.

In all fairness, the article includes this paragraph.

"Without further research, it's not possible to determine the exact thinking process of those who agreed that both the theory of evolution and creationism are true. It may be, however, that some respondents were seeking a way to express their views that evolution may have been initiated by or guided by God, and told the interviewer that they agreed with both evolution and creationism in an effort to express this more complex attitude."

I am curious to see the other variants of creationism you mentioned.

[ScottSA]

Neither evolution not creationism is as simple as the article makes them out to be. Some variants of creationism go hand in hand with evolutionism.

In all fairness, the article includes this paragraph.

"Without further research, it's not possible to determine the exact thinking process of those who agreed that both the theory of evolution and creationism are true. It may be, however, that some respondents were seeking a way to express their views that evolution may have been initiated by or guided by God, and told the interviewer that they agreed with both evolution and creationism in an effort to express this more complex attitude."

I am curious to see the other variants of creationism you mentioned.

The usual comicbook version of creationism is the 6000 year earth thesis, but variants of creationism start with the initial creation of the universe, to the creation of life, to the creation of human life, as qualitatively different from animal life, through the young earth creationists, to the old earth creationists, to the so-called "progressive" creationists. There are also evolutionary creationists.

To simply mock and parody a well developed field of enquiry because we have been encultured to see the scientific method as paramount is crazy.

[Mad_Michael]

How are there "variants" of creationism?

God created us as we are, or we evolved from simpler life forms.

Or are you suggesting that some believe God didn't create man, but instead created simpler life forms (which debunks the claim that God has to exist because we're too complex to evolve) and we evolved from that?

The "God as watchmaker" analogy is officially accepted Roman Catholic doctrine. This form of 'creationism' is compatible with evolutionary theory.

[Mad_Michael]

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27847

Americans who say they do not believe in the theory of evolution are highly likely to justify this belief by reference to religion, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between high levels of personal religiosity and doubts about evolution.

Let's see here, in matters of science, should our children be taught by priests, imams, rabbis, etc or perhaps by scientists currently studying the subject matter.

Evidently, religion seems to have more of an impact than scientists. Most Americans believe their church rather than doctors and scientists.

According to the link/study cited, only a 'plurality' of Americans don't accept evolution - not a majority - and the difference in result appears to fall within a magin of error. It would appear to be more accurate to describe the two views as 'evenly split'.

[jester]

Just for an opposing view.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i20394

TheSpoof.com : Gods to go on strike! funny satire story

[Electric Monk]

The most interesting part for me was when they broke down the results between Republicans, independents, and Democrats.

From the article "Being religious in America today is strongly related to partisanship, with more religious Americans in general much more likely to be Republicans than to be independents or Democrats. This relationship helps explain the finding that Republicans are significantly more likely than independents or Democrats to say they do not believe in evolution."

I guess I just hadn't seen the differences shown so clearly before. I wonder if the Canadian breakdown is similar?

[Mad_Michael]

The most interesting part for me was when they broke down the results between Republicans, independents, and Democrats.

From the article "Being religious in America today is strongly related to partisanship, with more religious Americans in general much more likely to be Republicans than to be independents or Democrats. This relationship helps explain the finding that Republicans are significantly more likely than independents or Democrats to say they do not believe in evolution."

I guess I just hadn't seen the differences shown so clearly before. I wonder if the Canadian breakdown is similar?

While I don't have data at hand for the same study in Canada, I'd be willing to bet that Canadian numbers would be significantly different on the basis that Canadian 'weekly-church-going' figures are usually about half of what they are in the USA, suggesting that the 'creationists' are probably a lesser percentage in Canada.

Like I said though, this is speculation/projection - I've never seen any decent data on this particular question.

[guyser]

Like I said though, this is speculation/projection - I've never seen any decent data on this particular question.

Last I saw....US = 50+% weekly

CA = 17% weekly

[Leafless]

I do agree that setting up creationism and evolution as equal theories is a false dichotomy.

""The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

[Mad_Michael]

I do agree that setting up creationism and evolution as equal theories is a false dichotomy.

""The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Pointing out that the theory of evolution is not as yet complete, or may contain theoretical flaws, in no way shape or form puts it on the level of creationism.

The theory of evolution is ultimately falsifiable - every proposition can (ultimately and theoretically) be tested, verified or falsified. Thus, it is a valid scientific theory until such time as it is sufficiently falsified.

The theory of creationism is not in any way falsifiable. It can never be verified, falsified, proven or observed. Thus, it is not a valid scientific theory.

Thus, no matter how many flaws one may presume to point out in evolutionary theory, it is still a scientific theory in a way that creationism isn't. Ergo, creationist theory and evolutionary theory are not competing theories in any way. They are like apples and oranges.

[ScottSA]

The theory of creationism is not in any way falsifiable. It can never be verified, falsified, proven or observed. Thus, it is not a valid scientific theory.

Thus, no matter how many flaws one may presume to point out in evolutionary theory, it is still a scientific theory in a way that creationism isn't. Ergo, creationist theory and evolutionary theory are not competing theories in any way. They are like apples and oranges.

Agreed, except that design theory has some interesting scientific applications as well. But in general, holding one to the criteria of the other will always create a tautology. Demanding that Creationism be held to scientific standard is as profitless as demanding that design be found in evolution. For my part, I believe in the existence of an afterlife and almost certainly a God or higher design. I also happen to believe in evolution via natural selection. My jury is still out on whether we evolved from apes or whether there is a qualitative and ordained difference between apes and sentient beings, but for the most part I agree with much of what Darwin said and much of what design theory says.

[Leafless]

The theory of evolution is ultimately falsifiable - every proposition can (ultimately and theoretically) be tested, verified or falsified. Thus, it is a valid scientific theory until such time as it is sufficiently falsified.

It is only a valid theory if it is proven to be an 'established theory' backed by laws as with Ohms Law, Newton's Laws and the laws of thermodynamics. Currently evolution has no credibility.

"If the theory gains general acceptance in competition with others, then it may become an established theory. Its credibility is improved if it leads to the development of other theories and ultimately to a general advance in scientific knowledge. Established theories are sometimes called "laws," as in Ohms law, Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm