In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings
- Rad Manposted 11 years ago
0In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/0 … board-war/
This seems astonishing to me. Almost 50% of Americans think the universe is less than 10,000 years old.Well America is ranked (as of June of 2013) as #17 of 50 countries in Education Systems. With Science and Math falling below the Average.
Not all religions believe the Universe is only 10000 yrs old Rad but I get the point you are trying to make.
The point is the pole showed
46% of Americans believed in creationism
32% believed in evolution guided by GodSo does it show 78% of Americans still believe in god?
Polls usually have a slant on them for some reason or other, I do not dispute the numbers listed in the poll I just wonder why it would be useful.
How many Americans still believe in the tooth fairy? Asking those over 18 may give a different answer to those under 15.On the other hand it showed that 57% believe in evolution (if not abiogenisis), which I find quite encouraging really.
Hmm. In that 46%, is there any distinction between Young Earth Creationists and others who believe that the world was created but is far more than 10,000 years old? And is there an accounting for those who believe that there is a creator who set in motion natural processes (such as evolution) that have been happening for billions of years?
I'd just be curious to know how extensive the poll was.
Ha! Reading the article answered my question sort of. Do you wanna know what I find more disturbing about AIG than anything? That they spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising that could be spent doing what Jesus told us to do-like feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, giving drink to the thirsty, and clothing the naked.
Defending the faith has become so much more important than living it these days. Talk about messed up priorities. Doesn't matter one bit where we came from or where we're headed if we're going to miss the mark so badly while we're right here
Sigh.If only more thought as you do. Think of the Good that could be done. Really sad...
Ya, that ran through my head as well. They are spending 1/2 a million on advertising. Or at least I think that's what it said.
Well put, some believers here could learn from those words.
I'm actually a bit surprised that it's not more than 46% really. Perhaps that's just because I live in an area of America that lives and breathes Christianity and Christianity only...and I do mean nothing but Christianity...all the time, 24/7, 365.
Did I mention I live in the Bible SUIT? LOL
Not everyone who believes that God created the world believe it is necessarily less than 10,000 years old.
Why doesn't everyone who believes that God created the world believe it less than 10,000 years old? Do they not believe what scriptures says about it? Why would that be?
Does it actually say in the scriptures that the earth is only 10000 years old? I have never read it.
I have read that god created the earth in 6 days and on the 7th he rested, but my own personal belief is why would an entity that was eternal have a 24 hr. day? Of course the account doesn't allude to the time except for the 7 days, which many have seen as 7 literal 24 hr. days.
In the vastness of the universe do we measure anything in our own literal 24hr. days?
My thoughts are more about not how long god took to do it they are more about is there a god and if so why would he create these things."The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?"
http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis … years.html
Yes, we do, that is why it is called a "day".
But, if you believe God created the world, don't you also have to believe it is less than 10,000 years old? Are you saying you believe some things in the Bible but not others?The bible says man is 6000 years old, it even says that in your link, it then goes on to assert that because man is 6000 yrs old the earth must be as well. It doesn't actually say in the bible how old the earth is.
So how many days is it to the nearest star (not including our own).
So again where does it say god created the earth in 144 hrs? And no I don't have to believe its less than 10000 years old.Of course you don't have to believe that nonsense, you also don't have to believe that man has only been around for 6000 years because all the evidence says at least 200,000.
I am still working on that Rad, you told me to go away and learn something before (maybe not in those words) and that is what I am doing at the moment. maybe I will come back with an objection or agreement when I have learnt enough.
Are you denying biblical scholars findings? I can come up with an endless supply of sources that confirm what the bible says about that.
Distances such as that are measured in light years. The closest star is around 4 light years away.
It says a "day", which we all know is 24 hours, they knew that back then, as well.
That's fine, you deny the findings of biblical scholars and you don't believe what the Bible says. I have no problem with that.
The pole showed
46% of Americans believed in creationism
32% believed in evolution guided by GodIt's still an assumption to believe that everyone who believes in Creationism therefor subscribes to the theory developed and expounded by a man that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
Soooooo, do you have numbers that state "48% (or whatever number) of people in America literally believe the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old," or are you making an extrapolation that doesn't necessarily hold up?Ah, I take it you didn't read the article. The second last paragraph says…
"For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years."mea culpa.
I just knew that I keep hearing about the growing number of people who think that God used evolution. I don't know I'd personally go that far, but I don't know that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.What do you think? You should know that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and denying it is like denying that air exists.
I think that for me the evidence of God is overwhelming.
The rest I ponder and puzzle over.The odd thing about evidence is that when it is overwhelming, everyone usually agrees.
For example, gravity has overwhelming evidence.
Gods don't.True, gods don't. Couldn't be more with you on that one.
God, however, is another matter...It really doesn't matter which god you talk about, they all equally have the same amount of overwhelming evidence, which is none.
Again, if anything has overwhelming evidence, everyone would agree.Those who have the evidence agree. So you're right.
They might agree that a god exists, but they can't even agree on which one. There are hundreds of religions and hundreds of denominations within those religions and everyone thinks that they are right. So no, those with the "evidence" do not agree at all.
No offense, but I always have to wonder about that argument. You may not mean it that way but it implies that, since no two people experience God exactly the same way, everybody literally has a different God, which negates the existence of God.
Again, may not be your meaning, but...
I therefor could say the same thing about you (or you about me.) Since I experience you differently than even other people here on the forums, we must each literally hold a different Julie, which then would mean that Julie (or Chris) does not exist because no two people can agree on exactly who Julie, or Chris, actually is.I don't think that's a fair analogy. We all see and respond to Julie's posts. We all experience and read her posts. If however I was unable to see her posts and you were, what would we do to understand why? We could ask everyone else what they see, and if half the people respond yes and then have the people respond no, we could have the people who responded yes to repost her post. What if all the responses were different? What would or could we conclude? Does Julie exist or did you all make up the reposts in order to fit in or is there something about Julie that half the population needs?
If I constantly responded to someone named Jeff, but Jeff's posts never showed up would you take my word for it that Jeff exists or would you try to find out if there is a glitch in the software?If I were to behave like some of the posters here, I would say that you are not logical and would rather engage in a lie than face the truth.
Yeah, it's a fair analogy.
What argument are you wondering about? I didn't present an argument at all - I showed you the ineffectiveness of what you were claiming. You said that those with the evidence all agree, and therefore god exists, and nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not saying that since everyone has a different experience (or no experience at all) that there must be billions of different gods. All you did was erect a straw man, make assumptions about where I was going and then pat yourself on the back for arguing against a claim that I never made. Congrats.
No one agrees on anything. While a large majority of people would hold a belief in a god, they cannot agree on which god, how he speaks, what written words are his, which are false and how he wants to be worshiped - or if he wants to be worshiped at all. it seems like your entire argument is an appeal to popularity, and you're trying to say that since people all over the world have "evidence" for god that they must be correct - but they all believe in mutually exclusive gods to the one you're claiming, and they would argue with you about the validity of your god claim until the cows came home. They don't agree. Not even all Christians agree. Do you want to rethink your claim now?
What is the evidence that you have to present Chris?
And, now you are caught in a claim that can easily be shown to be false.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would have evidence that Allah exists.
If you were born in early Greece, you would have evidence that Zeus exists.
If you were born in Viking Norway, you would have evidence that Thor exists.
If you were born in America 600 years ago, you would have evidence that the great Water Spider exists.
If you were born in America recently, you would have evidence that Jesus exists.
In other words, depending on where and when you were born, you would have evidence that wouldn't agree with the evidence of others.
This is not overwhelming evidence at all.
Your claim has been debunked.Except of course that it hasn't.
Almost a nice try, though.Sure it has, and the fact you haven't rebutted in any way would show it was a valid debunking.
The argument that people have different experiences and therefor any one given experience can be completely dismissed is a logical fallacy. Whether you believe they exist or not, mystical experiences are often individual.
A question that is completely sidestepped is whether the statement, often made in many contexts, that some people receive this knowledge while others don't is true or not. The easy dismissal (which is not the same as a rebuttal) of someone else's claim (even when there are multiple claims, all similar, sometimes very similar) simply because it cannot be replicated or experienced by you, is not an exercise in iron-clad logic as much as it is in will.
Or to put it another way, since Saudi Arabians experience America differently than Canadians, or Belgians, or Koreans, then therefor America doesn't exist and neither do you. If you're not American, simply insert the name of your country, the principal would be the same.
A debunking that debunks nothing is not a valid debunking.But, the focus on the particular supernatural entity is the crux of the matter, not whether people have experiences or not.
It doesn't matter whether or not I have those experiences, it is the focus on the supernatural entity that is important.
You seem to have missed the entire point of the debunking. That's fine, you may have chosen to do so because it can't be refuted.
I thought it was expounded by the Bible, the official word of God.
The Bible is an official word of a bunch of nomad sheep herders that thought the earth was flat, never, heard of an atom, and had no idea where the sun went every evening.
Evolution was proposed by a guy who thought that if you practiced running and got really fast, that cells from your internal organs would travel to your testicles where they would pass to your child and insure that HE also ran really fast...because YOU practiced at it.
There's a point there... assemble it yourself.That certainly is not evolution, unless you are sarcastic.
I disagree, from birth on-wards education is about being logical and not making a fool of oneself.
Quite agree with you. But if a school drop out becomes an excellent farmer or businessman, we do not call them educated farmer or businessman, do we? Third world countries have many farmers who are quite knowledgeable about their trade, but they are not considered countries with high education.
No, they are not illogical skills, they are skills where logic is applied or where logic is not a factor. When a mad bulls charge at you, it is logical to escape though the one escaping is not thinking about logic.
please explain.
Education is indeed about thinking logically even if you do not like it.
No, critical thinking is not simply questioning the information, it is arriving at a conclusion by analyzing and following the logic.
Wrong examples, ethics and psychology is entirely based on logic and all others we cannot apply the terms logic or illogic.[there is a logic behind that too, simply throwing paint on a canvas don't make art or pressing keys in a keyboard won't make music]
Please demonstrate how.
Theories are not rejected based on philosophy or religion but showing contradictions and showing that the theory has not taken into account all facts. (hope you know what a theory is.)
Exactly, and the rules of the process is called logic.
Again straw man. Someone rejecting a theory because it does not go with their prejudice may be close minded but I am not talking about close mindedness but about someone who does not get educated. Someone who reject the the theory because they have not educated themselves, is the sort of people I am talking about.
It is not about believing one book over other, but believing stories verses getting educated.
Never said so. Unless someone get educated they cannot know about evolution to accept it. It is the learning process they underwent to accept or reject, called education.
Get the list of highly educated nations and get the list of % of atheists in those nations you will get the correlation. The more educated the nation is the more the % of atheists (who not only accept evolution but also reject god (not only creation) and get the list of nations which are in the bottom of the list and get the % of the theists (check the gallop polls there is more of a correlation) in those nations, you get the correlation.
How did you read the statement "you are prejudiced" to mean "you are prejudiced against me", if you are not prejudiced. I said you are prejudiced, not prejudiced against me. You do not even know me, why should you be prejudiced against me?1. I encourage you to actually read Darwin's theories.
2. I don't think we have a shared base on educational theory. Nothing personal, it's one of my things. A great place to start is with the works of Glasser and Rogers. Stiener is great. Malaguzzi is great. Even Montessori is an OK place to start. I really can't run you through the general principles of education in a forum post.
3. You really need to work on causation vs. correlation. In addition, before statements like " The more educated the nation is the more the % of atheists" you need to define what constitutes "more educated" From your previous statements apparently you don't consider agricultural studies an education. So what are we looking at here? Is your entire view of "educated" based on acceptance of Evolution? That's rather limited. It's also a circular argument. If you define education by acceptance of evolution, then of course only those who accept evolution are deemed to be educated.
I would still like to see links on your statement.
In addition, once again, you are confusing knowledge with acceptance. One can know all about the theory of evolution and still dismiss it. You are assuming that choosing creationism means an ignorance of the theory of evolution. That's the same as assuming that atheists don't believe in God because they are ignorant of the bible.
4. OK then, what are my prejudices?And I encourage you to study and understand it.
That will not change the fact that a drop out successful business man is an uneducated business man.
You need to read correlation as correlation not causation. One can learn agriculture by practicing it and learning it from ones ancestors, but that is not "educated" in agriculture.
I didn't say choosing creation means ignorance of theory of evolution, what I said is there are well educated people who reject evolution for various reasons and such "educated" people are a minority.
After all these you still want me to point it out?
PS: I don't know why the answers are coming out in bold letters, I didn't do it.I have read it and do understand it, apparently you have not. The example that I gave was indeed a part of Darwins theories. If you had read them, you would know that.
In addition, you don't get to move the goal posts because you were losing. The conversation, which is available for all to read, was whether critical thinking necessarily was logical thinking. It isn't. In addition, you further argued that education was about critical thinking. It isn't. Sorry you were wrong then and you're still wrong.
Furthermore, a successful business man is by definition educated. Just as a farmer that learns the trade from his ancestors. But, in addition, there are degrees in Agriculture. Just saying.
But yes, please do point out my prejudices against your arguments... you know other than them being wrong. What bias, except me apparently having more education on the subjects we are discussing, is apparent to you?
In addition, you implied causation not correlation... and you provide no evidence except your word on it in either case. I'm still waiting for those links.
While you are looking for links to back that one up... find me some that back this statement:
" I said is there are well educated people who reject evolution for various reasons and such "educated" people are a minority."Melissa wrote "Evolution was proposed by a guy who thought that if you practiced running and got really fast, that cells from your internal organs would travel to your testicles where they would pass to your child and insure that HE also ran really fast...because YOU practiced at it."
That is not evolution, may be that is what you studied, if you have studied.
If you practice running and if you survive, because of that the the traits that caused the increased speed will pass on to your progeny is evolution.
I said education is about logic.
And logic is part and parcel of critical thinking.
Yea by defintion,
education
ɛdjʊˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.
I know there are degrees in agriculture, how did you miss out the "school drop out" farmer part? Didn't it help your prejudice?
The part that you do not know anything about evolution and you accept creation and the argument is that those who do so are mostly uneducated, make you look uneducated.
I didn't imply, if you care to read the posts I have said correlation only.
It will be better if you yourself try to get educated instead of bragging about your "education"1. I'm going to explain this really slowly. The theory I described is called pangenesis. It is indeed one of Darwin's theories. If you had been "educated" or "studied" his theories, you would have known that. Apparently, you like to agree with Darwin's theories without actually reading them.
2. I said education is NOT about logic and suggested some basic books on educational theory... of which you obviously read none.
3. Thank you for the dictionary definition of education. Now, I refer you back to the list of giants in educational theory that you should probably look at. But I'm sure an online dictionary gives you all the information you need to know. Is that where you got your definitions of Darwin's theories as well? You do realize that systematic learning does not require a university?
4. Your prejudices are running away with you. I neither believe nor discount either evolution or creationism.
5. I did read your posts. Weasley words don't mask implied causation.
6. I won't list my degrees, but obviously regardless of education, I know more than you do about Darwin's theories. Like I said, maybe you should actually read them before accepting them whole. Yes?1. Then read slowly, I said EVOLUTION not darwin's theory.
2. You cannot understand simple things then how do you say you understood those books? I gave my definition, the definition that is commonly used and explained myself. If you cannot understand that is not my problem. Even art is logical, simply throwing paint will not make a drawing nor playing randomly make music. By education we are studying the logical steps behind the concerned field and only those people who took such systematic learning is called "educated". A successful businessman is not educated businessman just because he is successful.
3. Instead of recommening others try reading it and comprehending it for a change. And when discussing in hubpages am I supposed to use your definitions? If so, if you are the administrator, provide me the hubpages definition link that I may follow it.
4. Then there is no need for you to feel for the "uneducated" creationist. I would prefer" foolish" or "idiotic" anyday to describe a creationist (if he is not a charlatan or child), but I don't want to use it in a discussion.
5. Seeing only what one want to see is also included in prejudice.
6. If you know only darwin's theory try some modern books (hope 21st century reached your place), you will find that evolution theory has gone a lot from what Darwin first proposed it.(genetics was not known or was rejected then[don't jump to the conclusion that I say darwin rejected, Darwin didn't know])
A degree in literature is a qualification to talk about evolution?ROFLMAO.
I said Darwin's theory. Moving goal posts again.
Look hon, it's obvious that you have some deep-seeded need to feel intellectually superior to me. Have at it. Just don't expect me to agree. To yourself, you obviously have proven that you are more educated than I am. To me, you have proven your ignorance on several subjects.
As I don't particularly feel any great need to play the intellectual equivalent of "flop them on the table and measure them boys", I think we can just leave our conversation here. Feel free to claim victory if you like. Whatever helps you sleep at night.You said evolution was proposed by a guy..... and I asked is that(the statement) what you(not Darwin) think as evolution and you replied "implying" that you think it is and I am not educated in evolution as I do not think so. If you cared to check, I never mentioned Darwin's name but only evolution.
That might be what you think you are doing, but I think it is your prejudice , you see only what you want to see in other people's reply.
This is the reason why you get flared up when you hear that people who believe in creation are generally uneducated- you see yourself in them. I never said you are uneducated. I said there is a positive correlation between the level of education and the acceptance of evolution. I said the inference is, the less the education the more the belief in creation from the same statistics which means the converse, the more the number of people who believe in creation, the more the uneducated people is also true. Of course you wanted to show you are more superior and brought in all sorts of arguments, which has no relevance, to prove your point.
Isn't that what you wanted to say all along, that people who do not think like you or oppose you are all ignorant?
Huh? Is that what you wanted, claim victory? I was under the impression that we were discussing a point!Are you so great and famous a person that I get any merit in feeling superior to you? Why should I feel any superiority against a stranger? Is that the reason why you argue, to feel superior? Did you get that by calling me ignorant?
Do you always feel the need to use 'ad hominem'?
Maybe he was ahead of his time. LOL
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fears … -1.2448914
Is it any wonder that America is loosing its grip, with this many uneducated citizens?
Just pointing out, again, that not believing in evolution does not necessarily mean uneducated.
My two oldest sons could run circles around most adults in learned knowledge by the time they were 14 and they had never heard of the theory of evolution.
I think general knowledge would be a better indicator of academic achievement than acceptance/refutation of one single scientific theory. Actually, just about any marker would be a better indicator.
That's like saying that if someone constantly misspells a specific word, they are uneducated.What do you mean by "education"? Is it the ability to memorise?
No, I mean the ability to think. Memorizing is part of that, yes. So is spacial reasoning, logic/critical thinking, philosophy, emotional intelligence and a whole host of other thinking skills.
Scientific-type reasoning is only one thinking skill. Don't get hung up on it as the only indication of educational achievement."reasoning, logic/critical thinking
Logical/critical thinking will discount any sort of creation and if the person is still holding onto creation and discarding evolution the person is hardly "educated".
The point is that, if they can't accept the theory of evolution, then it's hardly likely they're knowledgeable in the sciences at all, and it puts into question what other elementary facts they don't accept.
That's bunk. Firstly, you are assuming that those who don't accept the theory of evolution are not knowledgeable about it. Secondly, it also assumes that those who don't accept evolution also don't accept any other scientific facts.
Are there a whole host of religious fanatics out there denying the existence of mitosis? Is there some great debate over centrifugal force? Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion being debated from pulpits around the US?
You are making the quite human mistake of thinking that if a person believes one thing you think is "stupid" or "uneducated" that everything they think ever is stupid or uneducated. If you want to believe that, feel free. Although it doesn't say much about your critical thinking skillsI am often reminded of a particular scene in The Big Bang Theory when Sheldon goes home and is having dinner with his mother (the buffoonish, stereotypical Southern Jesus Freak.) He says that evolution has been proven, she retorts that that is 'his opinion.'
In fell swoop, the show managed to completely miss the point all around and yet still make out like science has 'won' the argument.
So why aren't kids taught the Law of Evolution in school then?Sorry Buddy, I was up with you til right there.
An established scientific theory is the same to the scientific community as God's law is to the devout.
Sort of.
Except they use empirical evidence and religion uses holy text. Scientific theory is not the same as one of Sherlock Holmes theories. It doesn't mean "a good guess". It means it has survived the rigors of all that the scientific criticisms that the community has thrown at it and emerged unscathed.
Now, you don't want to accept it based on religious reasons. Which puts it squarely in the philosophical domain to you. That's cool. However, philosophical arguments don't swim in the domain of science. As I said, stick to the category in which you mind has stuck the question "How did we get here?"
Attempts at proving/disproving a philosophical point with science not only makes you look foolish, but it defeats the purpose of philosophy/religion in the first place. The same goes for the science minded. Science has no place in philosophy, and attempts to bring it there are often childish and agenda based. Science shouldn't have an agenda. That defeats the purpose of the scientific method.I have had Scientific Theory explained to me a number of times and so your explanation confirmed that I do understand it.
Doesn't change that once it's fully proven, it's a Law, until then, no matter how strongly they believe it and on what basis, it's faith that it's proven.
That's why it's the Law of Gravity, and the Big Bang Theory.And if they changed it to the "Law of Evolution" would you suddenly stop believing that God made the world and everything in it?
No, I wouldn't.
Which is a valid point, but the constant assertion that I am some kind of idiot because I don't simply accept that evolution just is doesn't hold water either.
And before anybody thinks they got me on that one ("And who is calling you an idiot?") the point is that many people, both in the forums and out in the 'real world' constantly make statements that make it clear they think that people who don't just accept evolution, for whatever reason, are backwards and anti-intellectual.Why don't you accept evolution, what is your reasoning and what do you find at fault with it?
Let me be perfectly clear, for what it's worth, that I don't completely reject evolutionary theory either. I find what I know of it fascinating.
Forgive me if I ramble a bit. Although Julie's explanation of Scientific Theory did illuminate a point I did not know (and more on that in a minute) it didn't change my basic point, which is that it denotes that scientists are comfortable that what we don't know for certain will fall into place. That's faith. It may be based on knowledge, but then again so is mine, even if some people dispute that.
And evolution is not thoroughly proven. There are still holes.
To kind of tie that last point in with my second paragraph, (and this is not as off-topic as you may think) the fact is that people who understand scientific theory look down on those who don't, but they don't explain it. That may be changing, I don't know, but historically you've had the "it's proven" camp versus the "it's still just a theory" camp and never the twain seem to meet. Honestly, to me it seemed a bit like the 'privileged classes' creating an excuse to entrench their snobbery. Both ways. And I'm not accusing you, or anyone in particular of that, it just seems that way to me. If more of an effort is being made to actually explain what scientific theory is (as opposed to the common usage of the word 'theory') then hooray! But the showdowns in Kansas and Texas over including creationism as an alternate theory in science texts to me just illustrates my point.Can you explain what you're talking about? What is it that scientists are comfortable with that is based on faith and other dispute? Can you provide examples and the disputes?
What holes are there in evolution? Please explain and provide examples.
Evolution is a very successful theory, it has facts contained in it that explain all living things on earth. What more needs to be proven?
I have been trying to meet that criteria and explain whatever I can. However, when claims are being made regarding holes in evolution and faith based science, it would behoove those making the claims to explain themselves, as well. Would you agree?
...And the theory of heliocentrism, cell theory, germ theory, valence bond theory, plate tectonics theory...
yes, it's still called germ theory, and it will always be germ theory because it is an explanation for something. Theories and laws explain truths in different degrees.
I'm not trying to be condescending by posting this - just trying to explain the difference:
"In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain. "
It's clear you don't the know the difference between a Law and a Theory. Theories do not become laws due to being proven. Laws describe analytical statements and provide formulas to calculate what something will do, like the Law of Gravity.
A theory will tell us why and how something happens, like the Theory of Gravity.
The are two completely different things and as such, we could never have a Law of Evolution.
Evolution is not a law, it is a theory, a collection of facts.
We were taught the theory of evolution. Perhaps your question should be "when did they stop teaching evolution in school?" I think the answer is when the creationists raised such a fuss. The administrators took it out of the curricula because they were afraid they would have to give equal time to religion-based creationism. Some states tried to pass laws to that effect.
It is a bad thing. It's yet another time when religion interferes with the secular world.
Of course. But if the secular world interferes with religion, that is just good good good, right?
How does that work Chris? Do Atheists show up and heckle your Sunday service? Do they prevent you from placing your child in a private Christian school?
Ah, hyperbole. Always effective.
Seriously, when in the modern wester culture does religion interfere with the 'secular world?' As long as we're going to answer a question with hyperbole, why hold back?How about teaching ID in science class? How about stem cell research? How about insisting public schools pray to start the day? How about showing up at my door and telling me I'm a sinner? How about not allowing me to shop or open shop on Christmas or Easter? Need I go on?
Come, come, Rad - anytime secular interests do anything at all do disrupt public display of worship or teachings by religion, it is grossly interfering with said worship.
Worship and beliefs are to be spread publicly as far, wide and often as possible; limiting those opportunities (taking ID out of science class, for example) is gross interference with that religious belief. They are to be allowed unlimited access to our own private lives and the lives and minds of our children. They are to be allowed to set outdated, barbaric morals for all citizens. They are to be allowed to proselytize anywhere and everywhere they wish, and require everyone in earshot to shut up and listen - think public "prayers" (sermons in disguise) here.
You just don't seem to have the proper attitude at all here...
Oh boy, where do we even begin?
Let's start with Blue Laws.Okay.
Then let's move onto drinking age laws and drunk driving laws.
How in the world does the secular world interfere in the practice of religion? I don't see anyone shutting down churches or handing out flyers about how people are not going to hell in front of church doors. I don't see mandating secular "prayer" in public schools, or preventing children from praying on their own as long as they're not guided by a teacher or school official or school-mandated. I see secular people standing up for the separation of church and state. Is that interfering with your ability to freely practice your religious beliefs? Does the atheist attack squad break into your home and tell you that you can't pray with your kids?
Does the religious attack squad break into your home and force you to pray with your kids?
Ever heard of the good news Club, Chris? Telling kids as young as six that they have dark hearts and are going to hell unless they find jesus? Can you who through a mall at this time of year without someone attempting to proselytize? It happens here all the time.
Do atheists knock on your door to try to deconvert you? Do you know how many crosses or jesus fish I see daily, but if I wear an atheist, scientific or secular shirt, I'm rubbing my atheism in people's faces?
I would agree it is not good, but if religions interfere with the secular world, that also can't be good and what we find is that religions do interfere with the secular in a number of ways. That's not to say that every religious person is included in the interference, but it does show a problem does exist, which is why we see the secular world taking a stand against that interference.
That is very often the case. Anyone who is knowledgeable about evolution certainly doesn't reject it on any valid or credible grounds that have anything to do with the theory itself.
That would be hypocrisy considering evolution is the most successful theory in science.Those who don't accept it, generally don't accept it on philosophical grounds. That's an entirely valid reason. There are all kinds of examples of things that are accepted as beneficial or correct by the scientific community that are rejected, in mass, on ethical or philosophical grounds.
The world does not live by logic alone.
In my opinion, Jonas Salks theories on virology were a bit more successful. Louis Pasture's theories on microbiology were pretty damn good as well. Hell, even Tesla was a pretty big deal.
Of course I prefer actual physical science to theoretical science. "Thinking shit up just 'cause." was never a big motivator to me. I prefer "Thinking shit up so that it does something" It's more my speed.Philosophy can't invalidate facts, no matter how hard it tries. It could be a valid reason, but it doesn't have valid grounds.
That could be part of the problem.And science can't invalidate philosophy, no matter how it tries (which it shouldn't in the first place.) Just as a country can't be ruled by committee, philosophy shouldn't be ruled by empirical evidence. Philosophy is the first step in the scientific process. Show some respect.
Nah, I'm kind of fond of emotions and imagination. A world of sociopaths doesn't appeal to me.Uh, here's the profile of a sociopath, nothing in there about logic.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.htmlLack of/shallow emotions. Emotions being the opposite of logic.
That's it? Out of the entire profile, you choose that one thing to determine a sociopath? Wow.
It does not say that if one is logical, they are a sociopath.It is one example of what happens when one is COMPLETELY logical, as you seem to argue would be good for the world.
It's not, and you know that.
If you seriously think that humans would be better off with a complete and total absence of all irrational thought... I'm not sure I can help you. Maybe you can spend some time trying to teach an autistic child emotion/non-linear thinking until you figure out the significance.
It should take about 30 minutes.I think it would be good for the world, there isn't much I can think of that can't be dealt with logic and come out wrong for the world, if it's logical. Running the world on emotion wouldn't be very productive. Good topic for a separate thread, though.
\
I suppose if there were some examples of how the world would be better off using irrational thought, I would consider that.
Are autistic children taught using irrational thought? Are they taught using emotion? Or, are the teachings based on logical thought?Actually autistic children -in general- have logic down pat. My 4 year old daughter can recognize patterns on a 6th grade level and do math on a 4th-5th grade level. She can't understand why it's inappropriate to walk up to a complete stranger and kiss them. She doesn't understand why rocking back and forth while screaming is socially unacceptable. She doesn't get why laughing at someone who is crying is wrong.
Now let's talk about the benefits of irrational thought. That includes all the things that don't make sense on a logical level. So most acts of heroism fall in there. If you can explain why someone would logically run into a burning building to save someone, have at it. If you could map out the logical process that goes on in an individual's head as he/she is actually in the act that'd be great.
If you could explain why I love my husband, that would be great too. Oxitocin release is not a logical act.
Logically, unproductive members of society should be killed. Those with hereditary diseases should be sterilized. The Sistine Chapel has no value, no artwork does really. Fiction writing has no value. The list goes on...
Good old fashion emotion has it's place. Intuition and instinct has it's place too.Perhaps, over time, logical explanations will help.
Uh, no offense, but I think you're shifting the goalposts here, you were talking about not wanting logical people, who you consider sociopaths, to run the world. Heroic acts don't fall into that category and they are very rare events.
I could also argue it's logical to save a persons life.
Again, I don't see how that example has anything to do with running the world.
That isn't logical at all.
Neither is that.
Sorry, but I don't see any logic in your logic.
Perhaps, if you could get back to your original statement about running the world with logic, then we might get back on track.I'm speaking strictly in terms of dealing with autistic people, because I have two autistic children. No, they don't. What you're more likely to achieve is a lot of frustration. Autism calls for the ultimate in patience and understanding. Some, and let me stress the word 'some', can be taught that certain behaviors are unacceptable but the likelihood that they will understand why is limited.
And just as an aside, there is a growing movement in the Aspie community that feels that the rest of the world should just let Aspies do whatever they do, no matter how it makes other people feel. They literally don't see the need to be patient with other people or to reign in any of their own impulses.Here's some good news for you.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/blog … /blog.html
I understand, I was involved with a band in which the lead singer, a mom, had an autistic daughter, who was always at our rehearsals because the mom couldn't leave her with a baby sitter. I got first hand experience watching the interaction between them and some of resulting consequences.
I think the mom I referred to was like that, she basically told us to let the daughter do her thing. It seemed like it was quite beneficial as the daughter found she would learn certain things much faster as a result.Thanks for the article. I'll have to remember that.
And yet, germ theory and cell theory are theories, just like evolution, the Big Bang, and heliocentrism.
Huh...I'm sure you have a point. I have no idea what it is, but I'm sure you have one.
It's this: Denying one scientific theory means you have to deny them all.
They all go through the same peer review system, therefore they are all equal.It means nothing of the sort.
The scientific process encourages questioning theories. If scientists never denied theories, we'd still think the earth was flat. Even the most well-established theories are open to scrutiny. That's how science progresses.
In essence, that's what peer review IS.
Once again... critical thinking.Flat earth was never a scientific theory; it was an untested hypothesis.
Scientific theories are a hair's breadth from being scientific law, if only because they may not always be true (evolution could cease, the earth could fall out of the sun's orbit, etc.). Other than those extremely-unlikely possibilities, scientific theories are nigh indisputable.*Grins*
Let's talk about the theory of the static universe...or cold fusion.
Yes, flat earth WAS a scientific theory. Read geocentricity. Greek and Chinese tested it to the best of their abilities and it survived the empirical evidence of the time.
Oh and the biggie, the theory of spontaneous life. Also survived peer review and empirical evidence.
I know what a scientific theory is. I also know that scientific progress would grind to a screeching halt if theories were universally accepted and indisputable.
Hell, the theory of evolution would have ground to a screeching halt if it hadn't been challenged. It's still being challenged and changed. You do realize the evolutionary theories today are quite a bit different today then they were even 20 years ago?
If Darwin's conclusions would have been accepted as "law" evolutionary science would be about as accurate as the theory of spontaneous combustion. You do have a firm enough grasp on this indisputable "Law" that you realize that... right?You say that, and then you turn around and say you don't believe in evolution? What kind of logic is that?
I never said I didn't believe in evolution. I said I don't care. I haven't formed an opinion one way or another. That non-formation of an opinion has not hindered me academically nor does it mean I am not knowledgeable about the theory. Obviously, I know more about it than you do. It doesn't mean that I am stupid. Nor does it mean I cannot function within a scientific world.
Like I said, my only comment was you all are basing entirely too many conclusions about individuals as a group and individually based on acceptance/non-acceptance of one scientific theory.
The fact that so many conclusions are springing from an opinion on one theory is, ironically, exceptionally flawed logic. Which makes the stereotypes hypocritical as well.
Uh, many theories are universally accepted by scientists and science continues it's progress unabated by that fact.
By whom? Who is challenging evolution? What is changing about evolution, exactly?
If they had never heard of evolution then they were uneducated about evolution. They may have been very well educated in math, English, history and biology, but not evolutionary biology. I am uneducated in a great many things.
That was kind of my point. Sort of.
Once again, being uneducated and not accepting are two different things.
In addition, the lack of belief in evolution does not mean a person is uneducated in general, as BuddiNsense was implying in Chicken Little fashion. That also holds true on a national basis. The lack of belief in evolution, even by the majority, wouldn't be enough to label a whole country as uneducated. Even the lack of education in evolution wouldn't do that.
I really do think you guys are putting too much weight on this as an indicator of anything. I don't believe it has nearly the impact that you are perceiving it to have.
Like I said, I don't care and have no real belief one way or another. I manage to get both shoes on the correct feet. I can even walk and chew gum at the same time.Anybody who has gone to school should understand evolution and by "critical thinking" should discard creation.
What the gallop polls shows is that people cannot get out of the "ancient beliefs" and prejudices they got from their birth. Education is getting above once prejudices and level of education is inversely proportional to the religious beliefs in the nation and America is slipping down from the top in every indicator including education but going to the top in religiosity. [I never said it is the only indicator but it is a sensitive indicator though lack specificity.]You show your own prejudice by asserting (even if by implication) that anyone who is 'educate' cannot believe in God. That's simply not true.
I guess I'm not really surprised. I live in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. The Christian religion here is predominately fundamentalist, and most of them take Genesis literally. I'm just glad my dad taught me evolution. He was an atheist and believed in the atheist version of evolution. I was raised in the Christian church of my mother and studied the Bible. I can cherry pick what I want to believe from both.
I've never heard of that version? I always thought there was only one version, the one that includes the facts and evidence from scientists originally theorized by Darwin?
Encephalodead, I think there are some nameless modified versions of evolution, but I guess here they are discussing straight Darwin.
Was there a category for "Don't care?"
I never really understood the raging debate on creationism vs. evolution. I know, I know great big important question. I just never understood why it was such a great big important question.
Once again, I don't need to know who built my house to live in it.
Don't get me wrong... I understand the SCIENTISTS reason for caring. They just live to figure s*** out. I just never understood why the religious cared... or why they cared enough to argue about it.
Maybe it's just me.Some think that genesis is fact and therefore think the universe is under 10,000 years old and during that time dinosaurs lived along side us because we were around from it's creation. By doing this they are saying most science is wrong. They look past the insurmountable evidence to justify their beliefs and they want to teach new generations to do the same. 46% of Americans think this way and I find that mind boggling. That's limiting the education and potential scientists of almost half the population.
I understand why some Christians believe the Genesis thing. I just don't understand why they care if others do not.
Personally, I never quite grasped beyond a high-school level understanding of evolution... probably because I really, honestly, truly don't care. It is an active apathy, if that's possible. I strive to not care.
Now, with that said, my high-school level of knowledge evolution has done nothing to hinder my intellectual development.
But, my complete and utter apathy on what/who created the universe/life/people hasn't really done anything to hinder my Christianity either.
Once again, I don't understand why it's a big point of contention.Well, one side wants creationism taught as science in science class while the other side doesn't want kids to have there brains shut down by the nonsense.
One side wants to throw out most of what we know about science and the universe because it conflicts with an old story written about the universe by people who didn't understand the universe a few thousand years ago while the other side is interested in a secular society.I love ya hon...
But accepting creationism doesn't throw out most of what we know about science and the universe. Its a disagreement about the origin.
One can believe that God created the universe without a whole lot of conflict with the rest of the scientific world. After all, 99.9 percent of science isn't based on evolutionary science. There is no conflict, for example, between molecular biology and creationism.
I don't believe Creationism should be taught as science, because it isn't. I also think Evolution shouldn't be taught as philosophy, because it isn't either. I don't think either subject is suitable for a child under the age of say 16 or 17. By then, they should pretty much be able to sort for themselves which answer to the big question suits them... If they even care.
The problem is when one side or the other wants to cross the line out of their domain. Both sides do it. Both are sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.Not only that, but creationism actually doesn't answer any questions or provides an explanation to anything. The whole story is contained on one page, in which the entire thing boils down to "Goddunit".
Some have mentioned that they believe creationism is God putting things in motion at the very beginning, such as the mechanics of evolution, but that in itself is not an answer or an explanation. It only serves to add more complexity and confusion to real answers and real explanations. We learn absolutely nothing from it.
So, why even bother with it?You're right. I agree. But, it one thing understanding what we learn from science and still believing in God and it's another to think that most of science is bunk and that one page written thousands of years ago is all we need. It brings up right back to the middle ages. It brings us back to someone looking up at planets and noticing that those planets have moons that orbit their planet and not ours and being told to keep quite.
If someone tells me they think God created the universe billions of years ago, I think that's a reasonable but wrong assumption, but it's still reasonable. It's simply not reasonable to think the universe is less than 10,000 years old when light coming to us from distant stars and galaxies take billions of years to get here.
Hello Rad. I would like to try a different approach, and set my views aside. I am interested in why you hold the beliefs you do. Let's start here:
Why do you believe this?I'm going to go out here on a limb and say because light travels at a specific speed and other stars are very very far away.
Hello Melissa. Thank you for the response. Everyone has their own beliefs and reasons for holding them. I would like to focus on those of one person, at least to start off. I chose Rad because we have a history of these conversations going nowhere, primarily because, as he stated in the OP, and in other comments, he finds my beliefs unreasonable, and it astonishing that I or anyone else could hold them. I don't know if anyone will find this surprising, but I can make the exact same statement about how I view his beliefs. Repeatedly we have both walked away from these encounters shaking our respective heads in bewilderment.
It is my hope that a slow, methodical approach might bear more fruit, helping me and others who share my views come to a better understanding of why those on the other side of the issue believe what they do. Perhaps along the way, they too will learn something about themselves. Keeping it to one person's beliefs may be our best shot at a more clear and productive exchange. I feel it is at least worth giving it a try.
First of all, I don't believe for a second you are setting aside your views. But that being what it is you can start with your education here as I'm not an educator nor do I have the time or energy to attempt to explain the simplest of sciences to someone who assumes it's all BS anyway.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question224.htm
Now why do I believe the stuff these scientist tell us as opposed to the stuff creationists tell us? Well the scientist don't have an agenda, they don't care if their finding conflict with anything written a few thousand years ago while the creationist do have an agenda. The science can be check and double and triple checked by anyone on earth or in space while the creationists spend there time attempting to alter the minds of those interested in science.
But you go ahead and tell me I'm wrong to believe that there are visible galaxies billions of light years away because a book written thousands of years ago says so.In retrospect, I'm not sure why I thought you might be interested in this conversation. Consider me appropriately dismissed. Sorry to have bothered you Rad.
Scientists from all over the planet believe that, many of them in the field of astronomy and astrophysics can make the same observations.
When it comes to religions, the question posed to a believer is why they believe in their certain religion and their god amongst many? Believers from all over the planet do not agree with each other, which is very different from scientists.
Why is that? And, why would you go away from Rad shaking your head when you also have to go away from the vast majority of other believers shaking your head who believe something completely different from you, as well?
Rad doesn't go away from other scientists shaking his head.
I once read in a book that the Earth was created by extraterrestrials as a supercomputer designed to calculate the definitive question of life, the universe, and everything. And the answer they were trying to find the question to was 42.
Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it's true. And I'll take the words of Douglas Adams more seriously than those of superstitious Bronze Age nomads.The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it.
Here the thing about those odds.
If you run those odds every 1 000 000th of a second you eventually get a winner. The fact that we are here is evidence of that.How did we arrive at that figure? And on what device, organic or otherwise, are we actually running that much information at that speed? And just how much information is that?
Okay, let's look at that number and provide some realistic facts. If only one sequential trial took place in the early prebiotic ocean, then the odds of forming life would be very improbable, however billions of sequential trials were taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were being churned by tidal forces and weather conditions.
The volume of the oceans being 10^24 liters and even a very dilute amino acid concentration of 10^-6M, we would have 10^31 self-replicating peptides forming in less than a year, let alone millions of years.What is the likelihood of a "lifeless" god forming from nothing?
What is the likelihood of formation of a "living" god from nothing?I am not to sure as I didn't work out the math it was Hoyle, I am sure if he was still alive he would be able to give you the answer you seek.
Why do use stuff which you do not understand?
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
I pose this question to those who "accept" evolution. Along the way during its study, certain elements have been proven, others disproven. To "accept" it as it's being presented here must mean that it is complete, entire, and absolute-at least that's how it sounds. If that is the case, there seems no reason to discuss or research or question further. It is and therefore it must be accepted by all-including those scientists who remain active trying to learn even more about it.
Contrary to that, nothing about evolution has provided every answer to every question, so why must it be "accepted" as evidence of one's intelligence when intelligent minds continue to wonder, ponder, and seek? One might be of the opinion that our understanding of it could conceivably change and "evolve" over time.
The proven evidence is accepted. Why continue to ponder and seek? Because there are still more questions that need answers. And if there is changes over time...Then those who accept this will change as well...
Religion stops at God and goes no further. No change, nothing new, regardless if there is new information or not.
IMHOReligion can stop at God for those who are content to seek no further. I don't think you're one of those, nor am I. I believe, but faith, as is any proposed answer to life's major questions, is falsifiable. I've found in religion many of the answers that I seek, but certainly not all. Anyone-no matter their chosen avenue of inquiry-who claims that THE answer has been found might as well head to Magarathea and stay there.
My point is that one who spends a lifetime questioning can't ever be satisfied with one answer, or even a mere handful of them. It's unfair and unrealistic to tell anyone that they are stupid (even when you politely use the word uneducated) because they are not content with the answer that satisfies you. If that were the case, there would be no debate between string theory and loop quantum gravity. There would be no need for more than one philosophy, etc...
I accept evolution as being valid. I also believe that there is a creator. At the end of the day, I'm neither deluded, nor uneducated. I'm simply a seeker. I'm also fairly unusual, I suppose, in that I don't feel the need to find an answer to life, the universe, and everything. Knowing the how and why of it all won't change it or me.I don't agree with calling people stupid...(Some are though or at least are bent on not accepting facts that disagree with their beliefs)...Just because one believes in God...does not make them stupid or uneducated...They just have some questions answered by faith, pending something else providing a solid answer that might change that.
I don't think we can equate education with intelligence. I personally am uneducated in a great many things as are all people, but that has nothing to do with intelligence. So saying that someone is uneducated in biological evolution doesn't mean they are stupid, it simply means they haven't studied it.
I agree with you completely, and if you or I were to use the word, there is a high likelihood that we would mean it just that way. Others use the word to deliberately shame people who think differently. Just as religious people accuse the non religious of "living in darkness," the hard core evolutionist accuses the other of being "uneducated" and living in the dark ages. What's wrong is wrong. At the end of the day, when an impassioned argument for or against something doesn't persuade someone to agree with someone else completely, they pull out the I'm better/more enlightened/more special/smarter/righter than you cards.
I'm not sure I even agree with that. Religion, both as an institution and ESPECIALLY on an individual basis is constantly evolving (see the pun there). The difference is pronounced on a global basis, but is still certainly visible on a nation-by-nation basis.
Hell, even the Bible is evolving... you know that as well as me. The interpretations of the Bible are even more influx.
Evolution is not about providing every answer to every question but answer to only two questions, how there is this much diversity among life and why we life behave the way we do.
It is chosen as a standard of education is only because only an educated person can know enough of it to accept it and reject the ancient illogical notion of creation just like a few centuries before accepting that the earth as round by rejecting the commonsense nonsense 'flat earth' was sign of education.
Yes our understanding regarding the exact ways by which evolution works may change but what do not change is that it is evolution that gave rise to diversity and not creation.Sure. Scientists can't agree in what it is, but they can agree on what it isn't. But that attitude isn't an absolute? And when exactly was it decided that one's rejection of any idea regarding the origins of life determined the standard by which their education is measured?
What scientists don't agree is the exact mechanisms by which it works and the exact routes, not what it is or it it is not but what we are discussing is not that but the relationship between evolution and education.
Those people who reject evolution doesn't know anything about it, that is they are not educated to know what evolution says which is quite evident from the posts above by the evolution deniers. Apart from that, as Melissa puts it, education is about critical thinking and anybody who think critically should reject creation which is nonsense and accept evolution. People accept creationism not because it is logical but because it is written in an ancient book.
If you reject that the earth is globular and say it is flat, will you be considered educated?Has anyone denied it? And does it change your understanding of it one whit if they do? And why must everything be rejected so completely if you are not speaking of absolutes? That's my point. We know without doubt or speculation that the earth isn't flat. We know that evolution is indeed scientific fact. As far as the origins of the universe, we do not have an unquestionable answer that has been proven again and again and just because there are some who acknowledge that, they are considered uneducated? Education- the pursuit of knowledge- teaches us only one thing for certain. There's a hell of a lot that we don't know. Period.
Who is talking about "origin of universe"? What we are talking here is origin of "species".
If that's all that concerns you, why the adamant insistence that the notion of a creator be rejected? There are those who believe that a creator is responsible for putting evolutionary processes in motion. You seem to be concerned then with young earth creationists-which is a whole different animal than someone who simply believes in creation. Not everyone who believes in a creator accepts that "poof" here we all are and that's that.
For one it is self contradictory, illogical ( and education is about being logical). Second it gets in the way of people getting educated. (god has told me everything is created so why do I got to study this nonsense evolution, stuff)
I find it fascinating that you believe the absolute truth of that statement. Most of the world does not see in such black and white terms, in my experience anyway. I suppose life would be much simpler if that was the way of things. And there would likely be little to no argument about anything. I just see a much wider smattering of inquiry between the two poles, I guess.
Why is it contradictory? You've stated it's about the origin of species, not the universe. If they are two separate issues, why must the answers be complementary?
And I've seen many who go into education with preconceived notions and are still capable of learning-even of learning things that contradict what they've already been taught. Is education only acceptable if it teaches what group A deems to be truth? You want it to teach what to think and what not to think, not how to think about the information presented.
Our discussion has a limitation - the gallop poll.
There are well educated people who reject evolution for various reasons but they constitute only a tiny fraction of the 47%.
I am not teaching what to think or what not to, but stating why the number of ill educated increase in America, why it correlate with the polls and based on that why America is going down from the top.
And education is not what group A or B thinks but what is logical and how to think logically.And the assumption you put forth is that a lack of education is the result of faith in a creator. Formal education in this country requires a great deal of money and time. Not everyone has those things in abundance. As a result, many educate themselves informally. They may or may not be degreed, but that doesn't make them uneducated. Add to that the fact that science is not the only course of study to which people are drawn and you have to account for those who do not choose to pursue it-not for lack of intelligence or the inability to reason or think logically, but because of other intellectual strengths and desires.
"not for lack of intelligence"
When did I say lack of intelligence, I only say "uneducated", and in the present world "education" is one of the defining standard, isn't it? I might be a big hunter and nobody might be able to beat me to it in my natural habitat, what is it worth in a corporate jungle?
Faith(faith in creator is nothing but a notion that the ancients are more intelligent and right though there is nothing to affirm such a notion) is a prejudice, education is about getting rid of prejudices too.
It's not that the 47% of Americans who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old were not educated in evolution, it's that they were first indoctrinated into thinking that thinking any differently is evil and a temptation from Satan or some such nonsense. Nothing more can be learned after that.
http://youtu.be/gHbYJfwFgOU
http://youtu.be/QSt9dYsQMi0If I study all the Physics in this world and still is not able to apply what I have studied, what education did I get?
I am not saying about failure in life, it is about applying what one studied to where it is needed. Studying physics is no guarantee of success, only a high education has a high correlation to success.
Education is NOT about being logical. That's a part of it, but it's not total. Not even close. Critical thinking isn't even completely about being logical. There is so much more to education than logic. You're being closed minded again. Education does not equal science education. Nor does scientific education equal acceptance of evolution. Like I said, you're putting WAY too much importance on acceptance of ONE theory.
In addition, religion does not necessarily get in the way of education. Not anymore than the limited view that logic equals education does.I guess the important question is why is it not being accepted when the evidence for it is overwhelming to say the least. If it's because it conflicts with the bible than I'd have to say it a rather big deal because it shows that religion is in fact getting in the way of education.
Religion doesn't necessarily get in the way of education, but it does when schools no longer teach evolution because they are afraid they'd also have to teach ID in science class.Well as I see it there's a couple problems. Firstly, we're working with standards of proof.
Each individual's standards of proof are different. You saw it with the controversy over plate tectonics in the '70s... and that was an entire community of educated scientists. When I mean educated, I mean highly educated in general and in their field. There is a bit of arrogance involve in the assumption that if everybody understands a particular concept, they should accept it. There are times that things are perfectly well understood but still not accepted because the opposing person has a different standard of evidence.
In addition, it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss a scientific idea on moral ground. There's a whole field dedicated to scientific ethics. It is almost unquestionable, for example, that eugenics would improve the quality of the human race as a whole. It's acceptance is also almost uniformly denounced on a moral basis.
So then we get into the question of what is an acceptable moral basis to dismiss a scientific claim. Apparently to you, the Christian belief of creation isn't a good enough moral basis. Then the NEXT question then comes down to who is in charge of what is and isn't good enough morally. That's a whole other can of worms.
In addition, the Bible isn't getting in the way of education. There is nothing preventing one from learning the theory of evolution. Once again, learning and accepting are two completely different things. I can learn all about say Satanism. I can know the principles behind it. I can understand the rituals and rites. I can become EDUCATED. However that doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with it.
The only thing that schools not teaching evolution gets in the way of is the teaching of Evolution. Personally, I don't teach it in my curriculum either. I also don't teach creationism. There are a billion other things I don't teach either. No education can include everything and the loss of the theory of evolution has no more impact on their education than those other billion of things I don't teach.
Personally, I would be more worried about the loss of teaching the scientific method in public schools. Oh wait, they still teach that. I would think that would be more important than teaching every single theory ever err...theorized.
Like I said...again... I think you're giving this ONE theory too much weight.
From when onwards education is NOT about being logical? Or do you mean logic is NOT the only thing in education? Education is not about studying illogical things anyway, is it?
When did I say education is studying logic only? How is critical thinking different from logic?
That is a straw man, I never said education is only about logic, and is there any need for such an accusation? So out of curiosity, is there any illogical education?
Literature is also education, but one thing is common to all education, it "opens up" the mind. It make people reluctant to accept things just because it is written in some ancient books. It makes people open up to new information and see the world as it is than seeing it through the eyes of the past generations. "Evolution" is one aspect of it and acceptance of it has a positive correlation to the degree of education - the more the people who accept evolution the more educated the people in general are and vice versa, NOT evolution is the only indicator of education. You are reading based on your own prejudice and accusing me of things which I have not written nor thought.I would say from birth on-wards education is not about being logical. Education is about learning. Sometimes you learn logically. Sometimes you learn logical things. Sometimes you learn by intuition and emotion. Sometimes you learn by rote memorization. Sometimes you accept things for what they are, sometimes you challenge them. We learn all kinds of illogical things. We study all kinds of illogical things. Limiting education to one small tight definition of "logical things" would create a very lopsided and biased human with little depth and no concept of how to exist within a social setting. I can't even begin to go into how many life skills would be crippled by the loss of those "illogical" skills.
Education isn't about studying either.
You said "For one it is self contradictory, illogical ( and education is about being logical)." "Education is about being logical" is essentially a quantified sentence. Education=logical.
Now as far as critical thinking being different from logic, wow. That's would require a huge conversation. However, I'll give the highlights. Critical thinking is simply about questioning the information put in front of you. You can use logical thinking to do that and in lots of fields that's a biggie. The hard sciences and math are good examples. Other fields, however, such as ethics, psychology, philosophy, literature, musical composition, physical arts... and the list goes on... require critical thinking using intuition and emotion.
Many other fields, including sociology, anthropology, political science... etc, require a combination.
What's funny is that on can discard the theory of evolution on critical thinking grounds. If one has been presented the information, one can certainly use philosophy (including religion) to reject the theory. If they have performed a deeper examination of the theory and applied their own observations and life experiences to their decision. If they have weighed all the evidence from all sources and found that they disagree, then they have indeed come to their opinion by critical thinking.
Whether you reach the same conclusion they did or not is irrelevant. Critical thinking is a process, not an outcome.
Yes you did. That was addressed above. The need was my disagreement with your statement. That's not really a straw man anyway... but I digress. Yes, there is illogical education. That was also addressed above.
I'm not entirely sure that you see the irony in saying that someone dismissing an established theory is closed minded. I'm also not sure you see the irony in saying that believing in one book is inherently more open-minded than believing in another book. You might want to do some critical thinking on that one.
In addition, I'm also not sure you see the irony of saying that acceptance of anything is a correlation to education. Especially since you seem so big on critical thinking, which is the opposite of acceptance.
Finally, I would love to get your sources on the causal link between the acceptance of evolution and the level of general education.
As far as my own prejudice, I can honestly say I'm pretty neutral here. I'm only arguing with what you've written. If you would like to believe it's personal, feel free. I'd love to hear your theories on why I would have a bias or prejudice against you though. Mind sharing?
Before the theory of evolution was proposed, most believed God created humans as they are today and no concept of God putting evolutionary processes in motion even existed. It was through education and the understanding of evolution that many of those believers changed their beliefs from humans being created by God to humans evolving as a result of God putting evolutionary processes into motion.
So, the original belief was indeed rejected for a more educated and understood idea, but the new concept still had the original "creator" contained within, even though the original concept had been rejected.
Today, scientists are working on abiogenesis theory, which will eventually be as understood as evolution and it will force believers to once again change their beliefs to one in which a creator did not require putting evolutionary processes in motion.Then it seems you need just be patient and allow the inevitable to happen in its own time.
Seems a waste of time and energy to fight about it, insulting people (however inadevertently) and eroding the good will that might exist at present, when eventually people will accept the proof available in their own time.
You can evangelize a non religious ideal as aggressively as a religious one and offend just as deeply.I don't see the point in being patient with people who refuse to acknowledge facts. How much time is it going to take before believers accept them?
Not only that, but since believers are forced to change their beliefs to something different, what does that say about the beliefs themselves, if they can be changed by facts? Aren't they denying the word of their God in favor of facts?
Perhaps, it is viewed as an insult to the intelligence of humans to reject facts in favor of beliefs and a further insult to change those beliefs in light of facts.
Why not just accept facts instead of changing the beliefs to suit the facts?
I'm not quite sure what you mean there, but facts aren't evangelized, science is not evangelized. And, if facts and science offend, then that doesn't say much about the education of the one being offended.Here is what I find interesting.
The Egyptian and Greek Gods were just as real to the people who worshiped them as the Christian God is to Christians or Allah is to Muslims. Atheists generally can see the irony in that, but most believers miss it entirely. They miss the similarities between Jesus and Horus and some are convinced they communicate directly with Jesus and some probably thought they could with Horus.
They are then willing to dismiss facts to maintain their beliefs. It must be human nature.
http://youtu.be/8uqiv3tCghAAs well as the similarities to Dionysus in Greece, Attis in Asia Minor, Adonis in Syria, Bacchus in Italy, and Mithras in Persia, just to name a few.
This sums it up rather nicely.
http://youtu.be/95iRvZOtUWA- LOL@ Mormontology...that one was my favorite I think.
Xenu....how in the world? Wow. Wild thought....what will thousands of years of Xenu belief and practice inspire? What will Xenu dogma and indoctrination be like? How "far-fetched" can far-fetched go? How far will it go? Sure seems crazy now....
All other Gods are silly superstitions with the exception of yours?
I think you did and then you avoid answering the question?
I'm unsure why you think I did.
Actually, I'm not unsure at all. But the operative word is 'think.' I've never said that I think other religions or faiths are 'silly superstitions.' I may think they are wrong, but I don't just dismiss them. And I do believe in the supernatural, so I don't doubt that something has happened in these people's lives.
I was not avoiding the question either. I am hoping to clarify in your own mind why your seem so keen to put words in my mouth or to assume what I think when what I write does not actually go that way.
I can see how you might miss the point of my statement. Oh well. You make valid points. And there are those who need to hear them. I wasn't expressing that I personally felt offended or insulted. Sorry for any confusion there.
At the end of the day, my point is that "force" is never an appropriate means of either education (as you insist that believers will eventually be "forced" to accept...) or evangelization (as believers tend to portray that at the end of the world we will be "forced" to accept...)
Y'all are gonna spend a lifetime "forcing" each other to change, and chances are pretty damn good that no one ever will. Don't be offended, please. I'm not being argumentative or downing you or your ideas-just making some observations about your process.I can see you're not trying to offend or being argumentative, you're just discussing stuff, which is a good thing.
I may have given the wrong impression using the word "force" as it wasn't really meant in the context of one person forcing another, it was used in the context of being forced to accept fact over belief. For example, if someone believes they can fly, they will be forced to deal with gravity.
In the same way, people who believed in a creator were forced to deal with the facts of evolution. If memory serves correct, that last three Popes were forced to deal with it, and they accepted it and not because someone forced them to accept it. They willingly accepted it because it was a fact.You just reaffirmed my point.
Acceptance of any idea can...well, should, anyway...come with critical examination and a consistent willingness to learn. People shut their minds off when they feel unfairly confronted and aren't given time or space to process things for themselves.
And, whether it's the intent or not, simply handing someone information and saying it's fact and they MUST align their thinking with it immediately isn't an effective means of education. And sadly, isn't all that different from the way some believers evangelize.
See what I'm saying?While I agree with you, it's worth mentioning that some are not getting the facts because they are being taught that the facts are an evil trick by Satan to snatch you up. I've have real conversations with people who have to me just that.
Oh, I hear ya. I am the first person to say that extremist religious views are often a hindrance to truth. Which is why I'm perfectly content to keep them out of any secular school setting. But things do change - sometimes at a pace that's close to glacial - and people do learn an awful lot once they get out from under the control of others. But there has to be a balance between teaching and helping people learn and force feeding them information and not allowing the m to process it. That's really a commentary on educational practices more than anything else, but it is an issue in both the secular and religious camps that keeps a lot of people from ever learning and growing.
How much time and space do believers need to process evolution? It's been around for over 150 years. How long does it take a person to read a book of facts? It would appear there is no willingness to learn.
Uh, no one is saying anyone MUST align their thinking with facts and information, people are free to reject facts, if that's what they choose to do. Education is the sharing of facts and information, no one is forcing you to learn anything if you don't want to.
It is VERY different from evangelizing, they aren't even remotely the same thing. I can hardly believe you would even make that comparison.I know you find it hard to understand. When you have been on BOTH sides, it's a lot easier to see. I have. I believe in a creator. I understand the basics of evolution, and accept it as scientific fact. Believers accuse me constantly of not being a true believer, of embracing Satan's lies, and of bowing to " the world" because I don't hold to the literal interpretation of every word of the Bible. Non believers call me crazy, deluded, irrational, and stupid because I don't stand with them in agreement that my belief is unwarranted and unfounded. At the end of the day, neither the believers nor the non believers know all of my thoughts, feelings, or opinions and have no right whatsoever to judge me, my beliefs, or my motivation.
And given that the world and its species have been existing and evolving for hundreds of thousands, if not millions and billions of years, you really think that 150 years is the cutoff for when something should be completely understood and accepted?Yup, 150 years is good. 6 generations should be enough. Once it was explained to a pope (don't remember which one) he said "okay I get it". Most modern Popes are very well educated intelligent delusional people. (kidding with the delusional part). Now, if a Pope (who's not know for liking change can accept evolution as fact after a good lesson, why do we need to wait 10 or 15 generations before the rest get caught up?
You don't. But repeating it again and again just seems to me like a waste of time. It's like watching a pot of water boil...or watching paint dry. It's gonna happen without the need for vigilance.
And keep in mind, Rad...most of those fighting-and I mean denying and fighting against even the concept of-evolution think the Pope isn't anyone special. In some instances, they think he's either the Antichrist or something close. His acceptance of the idea isn't a strong endorsement for them.
I understand perfectly well and see exactly what you see. But, that is not a valid reason to justify ignoring facts that have been around a long time.
I understand that, but that doesn't mean there isn't a contradiction in what you're saying.
I can use another example of that logic. I believe in Santa Claus, but I understand that my parents put presents under the tree and eat the cookies and milk.
I would hope you can trust me when I say, I'm not here to judge you or call you names. I certainly don't think you're stupid and applaud your stance with those who do judge you and call you names. It's very courageous of you to do so.
Of course not, but in 150 years, so much information and facts have been accumulated such that evolution has become the most successful theory mankind has ever understood. There are fields in science that wouldn't even exist today if evolution were even remotely false. Evolution is undeniable.
Now, evolution does not, and I repeat, does not preclude a creator. But, if we work back through evolution to the beginning when the Earth was young and the oceans were teeming with prebiotic
amino acids and their transition to proteins (peptides), we can see that the concept of a creator was not necessary and would only serve to cause much confusion and open a "Pandora's Box" of unanswerable questions.
It's not a problem to hold a belief in a creator, but I would certainly suggest that it should not impede or hinder one's learning about evolution and the origins of life on Earth.Agreed.
I may not be clearly articulating what it is I'm trying to get across.
Hmm. After a while, don't you just feel like it either will work or won't and you've done everything in your power to help, and all you can really do now is hope for the best?
And, thank you. I'm not really courageous, just okay with who I am and what I believe.
The point in being patient is multiple:
* You might be wrong yourself and sometimes if you don't decide to simply act as if people you disagree with are incompetent dolts you realize that.
* You may not be wrong but being impatient with other people simply causes them to dig in and eventually what should have been a decent conversation becomes a war.
* It helps society get along and function better. We can clearly see in Washington DC what comes of deciding you no longer need to be patient with people you disagree with.
* It's a bit of basic human decency and you would be absolutely amazed at how far a little decency and good will can get you in this world.
These, by the way, are all lessons that I have learned the hard way. I speak from experience.While I completely understand and agree with your points, they don't really apply to the teaching of evolution, which I mentioned in another post, has been around for over 150 years. Since then, the amount of information and facts is enormous in not only the field of biology, but in other fields of science as well. In face, microbiology would not even exist if evolution were not a fact.
I would submit that 150 years of waiting for believers to understand evolution is more than being patient. Would you agree?
I'm curious, what elements have been disproven?
The postulates of evolution are well understood, the continued study of biological evolution is to understand what species existed and how they all evolved.
Evolution is the answer as to how we evolved intelligent minds, but that doesn't mean there aren't any questions to ponder regarding everything else in the universe.
It does, but the postulates of evolution remain solid as a sound foundation to the theory.
I would have to ask if you understand evolution yourself?Not entirely. But it seems to me that understanding a concept isn't necessary to reject it or accept it, at least that's how it appears. I am not arguing for or against it. I simply tire of the superiority complex of those who support it. I'm not a scientist. I've no desire to be one. My argument isn't for or against evolution.
You here have the answer you are looking for, most people who reject evolution do not understand it and to understand it one need to study it and as evolution is not something that is taught in school (the bare basics are taught, of course) one has to go to college to study it a process we call education.
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago0
And just another thought: some people are cause oriented. Others focus on processes, and yet others on results. I tend to feel that the average believer is much more concerned with cause/result than process, while the opposite is true with the average non believer. IMO, it's why some religious people are so narrowly focused on the afterlife and miss so much of the wonder connected to THIS one. I think also that's why some who don't believe get more out of life-they don't convince themselves that what's coming is what's better than what is already here.
Ultimately, the problem is coming to an agreement about what's most important, I guess. So, in some cases, maybe it's more important to understand what a person's priorities are before presenting them with information about something they don't feel has any ultimate value.
Does that make any sense? It did in my head...lol
Related Discussions
- 22
Which is true - Creationism or Evolution? Can both be right?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 7 years ago
Which is true - Creationism or Evolution? Can both be right?It seems there are still arguments about whether the world was 'created' or whether it 'evolved.' What do you believe? Can you also accept the alternative view?
- 171
Who has the bigger impact on the world, Jesus or Darwin?
by Castlepaloma 12 years ago
Out of the whole world, it is probably only a tiny percent that believes in creationism. Yet most of the world's people and other Religions, study Evolution.
- 42
Americans Hold Atavistic Beliefs About The Origin of The Universe
by Sooner28 12 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/0 … 71127.html46% still believe in pure creationism. Are some people beyond hope? Are their minds so closed to scientific discoveries that it doesn't matter how much education they receive?
- 170
Evolution is a scientific fact.
by mishpat 10 years ago
On Episode 2 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, when host Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "Evolution is a scientific fact," is he going too far?One has to recognize the "scientific fact" is not fact in truth. It is "fact" based on hypotheses, therefore not really fact but...
- 20
Is teaching "Intelligent Design" as a philosophy still wrong?
by Capable Woman 15 years ago
My question is what's actually wrong with the Intelligent Design theory? I find many aspects of it quite forward thinking and interesting.I know it was roundly disparaged in the media as almost some kind of joke...but why? Is it because those who propound the theory want it taught in place of...
- 34
The Bible does not teach the world is 6,000 years old, but around 13k
by Mark Victor 10 years ago
According to the timetables of the Holy Bible it teaches that the flood was 4990 BC. It is now the year 2014. 2014 + 4990 - 1 (subtract one as there is no year zero) = 7003 BC years from the time God sealed Noah in the ark, to now. Before the flood, the ancient long forgotten wicked world...