CBS Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
A Doctorate's of Divinity is just as difficult to get as any other degree and it takes an intelligent person to get one, too, so yes it does count.

And this pastor that I know, my pastor, he is so smart he could be the chief executive of a business. Yes, he is that intelligent.

If he was that smart, he would've picked a better job.

[Nostromo]

Anyway, the bible account of creation is demonstrably false. And a lot of american fundie creationists believe in it. Take, for example, the claim that God created the Universe 6000 to 20,000 years ago. We know today that the universe is a lot older than that. If you want to claim otherwise, you have the burden of proof. But prepare yourself to be pwned and make a fool of yourself.

[Whaleboy]

Wanna bet that you are just as "dogmatic" as I?

Not at all. If you can present me with superior evidence for creationism I'll accept it because I like to think that I'm an intellectually honest person. Until you can do so, I'll stick with the veritable mountain of pro-evo. evidence thankyou very much .

Oh come on, get a grip. It's certain that he believes in Creationism as a result of his upbringing, but to insult his intelligence and integrity or suggest that someone should not be allowed to earn a PhD because of their religious beliefs is just not on.

Well said. It's a theory, not necessarily a ticket to stupidity. While there may well be a correlation they are hardly mutually exclusive.

Bottom line: Creationists and Evolutionists are equally intelligent on average. We are all human and we all have the same capacity for learning. What makes the difference is our upbringing and where we get our education. This has the greatest influence on what we believe.

Actually I'd be willing to bet that creationists score lower in IQ tests, but basic relativism kicks in, one theory is supported by a mountain of evidence, the other is supported by bull****. With regards to people of PhD level being creationists, there is a place in the human being for belief and science, certainly those scientists who agree with creation as a science and not a faith are a statistical anomaly, which says nothing about the weight of pro-evo. evidence. Often in my experience the creationist tendencies form as a result of the extreme complexity and unlikeliness of life, which is dealt with by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason and some basic structuralism.

Determinism

I'll rephrase. I know lots of PhD-level scientists working in biomedical research who believe in creationism (in various forms).

See above.

A Doctorate's of Divinity is just as difficult to get as any other degree and it takes an intelligent person to get one, too, so yes it does count.

Yes but intelligence is fundamentally irrelevant to this debate unless you want to bring Ad Hominem into this. You could talk about the holocaust and say Hitler was intelligent, which indeed he was, but that says nothing about the holocaust itself.

Anyway, the bible account of creation is demonstrably false. And a lot of american fundie creationists believe in it. Take, for example, the claim that God created the Universe 6000 to 20,000 years ago. We know today that the universe is a lot older than that. If you want to claim otherwise, you have the burden of proof. But prepare yourself to be pwned and make a fool of yourself.

[Kidlicious]

Did you guys know that there is over a dozen schools of thought for Creationsim? Some of them aren't even Christian based. Here's some of the more ridiculous ones.

Flat Earthers
Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
Charles K. Johnson
Geocentrism
Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology.

Biblical Astronomer, Cleveland, OH

http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/

Gerardus Bouw


Creation Science Association for Mid-America, Cleveland, MO.

http://www.csama.org/

Tom Willis
Young-Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.

Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA.

http://www.icr.org/

Henry Morris (president emeritus), John D. Morris (president), Duane Gish, Steven A. Austin, Larry Vardiman, Kenneth B. Cumming, Andrew Snelling, ...
Whitcomb, John C. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1961)
Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1974, 1985)
newsletter: Acts & Facts (includes Back to Genesis and Impact)


Answers in Genesis (AIG), Florence, KY.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Ken Ham
periodical: Creation Ex Nihilo


Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO.

http://www.creationresearch.org/

D. Russell Humphreys, Wayne Friar, Donald B. DeYoung, Eugene F. Chaffin
periodical: Creation Research Society Quarterly


Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL.

http://www.drdino.com/

Kent Hovind


Carl Baugh
Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, TX.
Omphalos
The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth creationist writing. For example, Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 232) argue that earth's original soils were created appearing old. The position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an appearance of older history.

Old Earth Creationism
Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.

American Scientific Affiliation, Ipswich, MA.
(This groups has mostly OEC members, but it doesn't turn away members and has some YEC and Theistic Evolutionist members, too.)

http://www.asa3.org/index.html

periodical: Perpsectives on Science and Christian Faith

[Frozzy]

And this pastor that I know, my pastor, he is so smart he could be the chief executive of a business. Yes, he is that intelligent.

My dad could be the CEO of the drycleaners he owns... he just needs to change his title to it

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by nostromo
On the topic of bright people who are religious, here is the testimony of the philosopher Hilary Putnam, who's IQ is sky high:

Those who know my writings from that period may wonder how I reconciled my religious streak, which existed to some extent even back then, and my general scientific materialist worldview at the time. The answer is that I didn't reconcile them. I was a thoroughgoing atheist, and I was a believer. I simply kept these two parts of myself separate.

That's what I do, only my religious streak is dying.

[Deity Dude]

There is a very interesting book by a bio-chemist with a Phd who refutes the theory of evolution. (Im' at work and dont remember the title). He is not a creationist either.

His point is that while micro-evolution is proven, macro-evolution has not been proven.

I personally believe in evolution, but this book opened my eyes to the fact that maybe evolution or creationism aren't the answer. Perhaps, like so many other times in scientific history, the accepted scientific fact is eventually replaced by another theory not yet thought of or discovered.

[Whaleboy]

Ashby Camp? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

To my knowledge, population genetics and evolution has been observed to a sufficient degree to call it scientific proof, though I'll have to read some more before I remember specifics, the creationists hold that it can only occur within "kinds" which introduces a causal problem of the beginning of kinds, the creationist conclusion as usual contradicts the premise.

[Deity Dude]

no thats not the one I was referring to, Whaleboy.

[Whaleboy]

A link would be handy! I can't think of any arguments against other than those Camp and the fundies use.

[Deity Dude]

Like I said, it was a book I read a couple years ago. When I get home I'll post the title and author.

[Whaleboy]

Groovy

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
There is a very interesting book by a bio-chemist with a Phd who refutes the theory of evolution. (Im' at work and dont remember the title). He is not a creationist either.

Darwin's Blackbox by Michael Hebe.

No, his book did not refute evolution, because itself was refuted a large number of times, even by biochemists.

FYI, Behe belongs to a group of people who believes in Intelligent Design, but that's nothing more than rehashed Creationism. Behe's ID is not more scientific than, say, Duane Gish's Young Earth Creationism.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Did you guys know that there is over a dozen schools of thought for Creationsim? Some of them aren't even Christian based. Here's some of the more ridiculous ones.

There are two broad categories of Creationism (I include Intelligent Design as part of it): Young Earth and Old Earth.

I reckon OEC is a bit less ridiculous than YEC. But again, it's all relative.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Just as the Earth goes round the sun. It's a scientific fact, but it's not a universal "truth" because science is unable to provide essentially irrefutable theories.

There are no "universal truths," just facts and theories. You are right that there are no irrefutable theories in science - but you cannot refute facts, which are just measurements of this universe. Data points, so to speak.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
They do have a theory. You won't help the debate by flaming, which is unnecessary because it's an extremely weak theory.

It's not flaming if I am telling the truth... ah, a fact . There is no Creationism theory in the scientific sense, which is what matters here. They don't have anything that can explain the huge - overwhelming - body of evidence that supports evolution. Let alone making predictions.