CBS Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

[Urban Ranger]

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.

Not true. Some doctorates are much harder to get than others. Even a regular bachelor's degree in, say, astrophysics is probably much harder to get than a Ph.D. in Divinity.

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
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.

Being a chief executive of a business has no bearing on intelligence at all.

[Bosh]

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

There's no qualitative difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, its all just creationist obfustication.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.

Intelligent Design isn't Bible based is it? And I've read that there are other schools that are not Bible based.

[Urban Ranger]

@ Boshko

Originally posted by Kidicious
Intelligent Design isn't Bible based is it? And I've read that there are other schools that are not Bible based.

The ID movement is basically backed by a conservative group called The Discovery Institute. Here's some details on their "Wedge Project." It is not based on the bible on the surface, but that really makes little difference.

There are, of course, schools such as Islamic Creationism.

[Agathon]

Not true. Some doctorates are much harder to get than others. Even a regular bachelor's degree in, say, astrophysics is probably much harder to get than a Ph.D. in Divinity.

It depends where you get the Div Degree.

If the div degree requires you to learn Greek, Latin and Hebrew well enough to read the relevant texts, then it's probably harder than the astrophysics degree.

The sheer volume of stuff you would have to know pretty much by heart and in the ancient languages as well would be enough to weed out most people. I had it bad enough with my program, but the Classics people are masochists and if you were to do theology properly it would be pretty horrifying too.

[Urban Ranger]

That's true, there are enough paper mills around.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
1+1=3

Is that some sort of dark matter joke?

[Whaleboy]

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.

True, my point is that a theory is still contingent (for want of a better word baring in mind PSR) because it is subject to evidence to the contrary. Those data points are subject to the same doubt as any epistemlogical question, which is irrelevant here so for the sake of argument, those points are "fact".

Intelligent Design isn't Bible based is it? And I've read that there are other schools that are not Bible based.

Correct, ID as a theory can exist atheistically, though for obvious reasons it is most compatible with the creationists . It is basically looking at the fantastic complexity and unlikeliness of the universe and saying that because of those fantastic odds, it is more likely that there was an intelligent design of sorts. Hence, you may find this sentiment among a minority of microbiologists, who are subject to the sharp end of this complexity.

This is, however, easily dealt with by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient reason, which says that contingent possibilities aren't really so, and that deterministically, since the universe has already occured, the probability of the universe occuring is in fact 1. If you roll a dice now, the odds of getting a given number is 1/6. If you've already rolled, say, a four, then the odds of you rolling four with that throw were 1. Because it deterministically refutes contingent possibility, anyone who brings Copleston into this is going to get pwned .

[Dr Strangelove]

It appears that most of the posters on this thread missed the fact that most of the people answering the poll did not want to see creationism replacing evolution in the public school curriculla. Therefore it would appear that the majority of Americans are not hard-core fundies, but are happy to reconcile their religious beliefs with science.

[Boris Godunov]

Before Creationists wet themselves over one poll from CBS with a small sample size, maybe they should read this:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp

Public view of creationism and evolution unchanged, says Gallup

A recent article from the Gallup News Service reports on the pollster's latest results concerning public opinion on the evidence for evolution, creationism, and biblical literalism. Because Gallup's polls on public opinion on creationism extend back to 1982, its data are particularly useful. The results are overall consistent with previous polls conducted by Gallup.

To assess public opinion on the evidence for evolution, Gallup asked, "Do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or don't you know enough about it to say?" Polled in November 2004, 35% of the respondents said that evolution is well-supported by evidence, 35% said that it is not, 29% said that they didn't know enough about it to reply, and 1% expressed no opinion. These results are similar to those in 2001, the first year in which Gallup asked the question.

Demographically, the article reports, belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest "among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and ... Catholics," and weakest among "those with the least education, older Americans ..., frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans."

To assess public opinion on creationism, Gallup asked:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?
Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back to 1982.

The article explains that the 10,000 year date was included in the 1982 poll question because "it roughly approximates the timeline used by biblical literalists who study the genealogy as laid out in the first books of the Old Testament." It is perhaps worth remarking that not all biblical literalists agree on interpreting the Bible as insisting on a young earth: there are old-earth creationists, for example, who accept the scientifically determined age of the earth and of the universe, but still accept a literal reading of the Bible and reject evolution.

To assess public opinion on biblical literalism, Gallup asked, "Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man?" Polled in November 2004, 34% of respondents regarded the Bible as to be taken literally, 48% regarded it as divinely inspired but not always to be taken literally, 15% regarded it as a collection of fables, etc., and 3% expressed no opinion. Again, these results are similar to those from previous Gallup polls.

(Story from the Gallup News Service)

November 19, 2004

So, despite a massive, concerted effort over the last 20 years by Creationists to sway public opinion on the matter, people's opinions remain unchanged. I'm sure we'll here more intellectual-bashing over the evidence that educated people are much more likely to believe in evolution...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Correct, ID as a theory can exist atheistically, though for obvious reasons it is most compatible with the creationists .

It's very hard to suggest a non-divine intelligence that's adanced enough to design even cellular machinery, something that Behe suggested.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
This is, however, easily dealt with by Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient reason

You don't have to go that far.

Creationism brings in something vastly more advanced and complex than humans. If it is not conceivable that humans arose naturally, how could something far more complex come into being in the first place?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon

Not true. Some doctorates are much harder to get than others. Even a regular bachelor's degree in, say, astrophysics is probably much harder to get than a Ph.D. in Divinity.

It depends where you get the Div Degree.

If the div degree requires you to learn Greek, Latin and Hebrew well enough to read the relevant texts, then it's probably harder than the astrophysics degree.

The sheer volume of stuff you would have to know pretty much by heart and in the ancient languages as well would be enough to weed out most people. I had it bad enough with my program, but the Classics people are masochists and if you were to do theology properly it would be pretty horrifying too.

Astrophysics is a joke compared to real physics...

[dannubis]

yeah !!!

i completely agree ...

[Dr Strangelove]

The Bible says nothing about the age of the world. Biblical scholars have calculated the age of the world based upon the "generations of man" enumerated within the text. The Bible didn't tell them to do that, they thought that up themselves.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Most of the polling data presented so far seems to be in strong agrement, if we took 6 idealy random Americans

1 (Atoms and the Void) - Would belive in modern Scientific Theory (Evolution, Big-Bang) without the guidance/control of God in the processes. This Belive system dose not preclude the existence of a God but definatly implies a very distant/minamalist/non-interfering God. It would be interesting to see how this group breaks down into Deists and Athiests. I would expect most of these people to have very secular upbringings or to have lost what little faith they originaly had, church atendance is probably near zilch and Education is above average.

2 (Belive in Everything) - Would tacitly belive in the literal events as the first group but belive in a more active God who guides and controls the process much like a musician playing an intrument. For these people God is more personal and able to intervene in the mortal world through "soft" manifestations such as Fate and Angels, nothing that could be literaly observed to be in violation of know physical laws. People in this group likly have both High Education and atleast moderatly Religious upbringings and thus hold a world view that lets them belive both sides of the issue at the same time. These folks likly atend church infrequently to moderatly and dont interprit the Bible literaly.

1 (Moderate Beliver) - Would dis-belive or be ignorant of the major scientific Theories described above and would rely on a literal interpritation of the Bible instead. Their views on Gods invovlement and manifestation are similar to the preseding Belive in Everything group but they lack the scientific belifs of the Atoms and the Voider. The main point that distinquishes these folks from the final group is their moderation on social and educatinal policies most likly as a result of apathy more then anything else. These folks likly had moderatly religious upbringing and below average education. People in this group could potetentialy be swayed into other groups and are likly to support ID arguments.

2 (Creationists) - Would belive in a literal interpritation of the Bible and be un-opened to rational debate on the subject. God ranges from active to pre-eminent in control of the Universe and is capable of any and all supernatural manifestation including miracles though these are ofcorse very rare. These people likly had a very religious upbringing or a major life changing event that strengthened and solidified their convictions. Education is likly below average and Church atendance is at its highest levels. This group takes an active role in expressing its belifes and feels Secular institutions must be oposed and public education inconsitent with literal biblical interpritations should cease.



Dose this seem like an acurate accessment of the political territory?

P.S. I find that 1 in 6 is almost a magic number for a wide range of Political beliefs that I hold which corespond with the core secular socialist intilectuals in the US, I wonder what % of the European population is equivilent? Perhaps 2 in 6?