Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Monday, December 20, 2010
Unbelievably 78% of Americans do not accept the teachings of Evolution.
From Gallup:
Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.
A small minority of Americans hold the "secular evolution" view that humans evolved with no influence from God -- but the number has risen from 9% in 1982 to 16% today. At the same time, the 40% of Americans who hold the "creationist" view that God created humans as is 10,000 years ago is the lowest in Gallup's history of asking this question, and down from a high point of 47% in 1993 and 1999. There has been little change over the years in the percentage holding the "theistic evolution" view that humans evolved under God's guidance.
Americans' views on human origins vary significantly by level of education and religiosity. Those who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view. Those with college degrees and postgraduate education are more likely to hold one of the two viewpoints involving evolution.
Every time I see statistics like this it absolutely makes my blood boil.
This is NOT accidental. It is the result of a concerted effort to vilify scientists, dumb down our children, and create conflict between the intellectual elite and the "every day Americans." (Yes Caribou Barbie, I'm looking at you!)
This is why I posted those videos last week and labeled what the adults were subjecting those children to as a form of child abuse. I absolutely believe that when you purposefully teach your children not to believe what scientific data proves to be true, simply because it does not conform with what you WANT your children to believe is true, that you are damaging them on an emotional, intellectual, and social level.
The question to ask is why don't these people deny the findings of Astronomers, or Mathematicians, or Botanists, or Chemists, or Physicists, or of any other scientific discipline they way they do Evolutionists? Why do they believe the scientific method works just fine in those fields but fails so miserably when applied to the origin of mankind?
Of course we know the answer. In order for certain religions to survive, they must defeat the science which proves the falsity of their claims. If people really started to use their critical thinking skills instead of simply believing the soothing allegories provided by religion, they would be harder to control, and much harder to convince to give a percentage of their money to support the organized religions which demand a toll with which to purchase their way to the promise of eternal life. A promise, by the way, that NOBODY can be sure will ever be kept.
So the choice being advocated by certain religions seems simple, think and risk being overcome with fears of your impending mortality, or believe, and live a life of blissful ignorance.
I know that a number of my visitors are people of faith, so I invite you to tell me how I am wrong, and what I am missing about the obvious attempts by certain religious movements in this country to deny the scientific value for the teaching of Evolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am ashamed to say I'm from the dumbed down States of America.
ReplyDeleteThere are 38% who do believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, so I think that the actual number who do not believe in evolution (with or without the "help" of a god) is 16%, as stated in the article.
ReplyDeleteThe 38% obviously do believe in evolution, but also believe in the existence of a god.
Huh? Humans evolved under guidance from space aliens. I saw it in the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey.
ReplyDeleteOh boy, I am one of those persons of faith who accept the theory of evolution. How to explain it? That is not easy because I firmly accept that science can, and will eventually explain much of the physical world. (I personally am fascinated with brain science.) But there is also a spiritual world that is not as easily explained. Mankind from very early on has been aware of this world. Some people have been more in tune with it than others. The history of all of the world's religions speak to this world. Yes, some is lack of understanding of the natural world, that science has since explained. But there is still that thread. Yes, some is superstition, and worse, much is manipulation of fearfilled people by those who would control them. But still, there are too many people who are aware of something, a connectedness that is beyond all that to just ignore spirituality or dismiss it. Can science eventually explain it? I don't know. In the meantime, I am both a spiritual being and an avid follower of Science. Does that make any sense?
ReplyDelete(Susie here)
ReplyDeleteYour headline should read that 44% of people believe that people have not evolved at all, not 78%. You added together the wrong numbers. 2 of the groups on the graph believe that people have evolved over time.
As Bill Maher often says, "We are a stupid country."
ReplyDeleteA few lines in a book written by men...
ReplyDeleteMen who didn't know what stars are or planets, galaxies, nebulae, pulsars...
Who didn't know what germs are, or molecules, atoms, quarks...
Men who didn't know what electricity is or why the seasons change...
Men who didn't understand metallurgy, chemistry, calculus - didn't even know the value of PI for chrissakes!
Men who were foolish enough to believe other men would be clever enough to understand that the 7 day creation as well as the story of Adam and Eve are METAPHORS.
And now - now we have a whole BUNCH of people that think the point of the story was the snake and not that the "apple" was from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE.
...sigh
The tree of knowledge, folks. Knowledge.
Look: the bible is a signpost pointing the way to kingdom come - but some of you are so obsessed with the SIGN and the POST that you neglect the journey!
You know every knot and sliver in the post and have deceived yourselves into thinking it's your duty to ensure the children all memorize every dent in the sign rather than seek the true salvation, the wisdom to which it points.
You poor, sad fools - no wonder Sarah is your queen. You deserve each other.
No Susie, I added the numbers correctly. 40% do not believe in evolution, and 38% believe that humans evolved, but only with God's guidance.
ReplyDeleteEvolution does NOT teach that there is divine intervention on behalf of evolution, therefore to suggest there is does not respect the science without introducing a qualifier.
If the theory of evolution embraced the idea of a divine hand magically making things run smoothly behind the scenes then those 38% could be categorized with those who respect the science without a dollop of monotheism added to the mix.
Nicely done Randall.
ReplyDeleteAnd an amen to you brother.
Elizabeth said...
ReplyDeleteI am both a spiritual being and an avid follower of Science. Does that make any sense?
------------------------------------
Yes it does. Thank you for saying what I couldn't figure out how to say.
There is room for both science AND the spiritual.
The hate groups in some religions are not a part of the spiritual. All they have is their fear and hate. They are not long for this world and they, on some level, understand this. This is why they are so loud and aggressive. They cannot keep the world from changing.
I believe in evolution without a qualifier because I feel my head exploding quietly at how dumb an unimaginable group of us have become.
ReplyDeleteBut a year ago I would have felt my head exploding quietly AND I would have started screaming.
See, evolution.
G, you are wrong and they are too.
ReplyDeleteBoth parties are wrong because most of mankind has not comes to grips with the human make up.
Modern day humans are driven by three distinct systems: Physical, intellectual (mostly knowledge, critical and rational thinking) and belief systems (mostly emotional).
When we give thought to why we existence, what motivates us to get up every morning or what determines our will to live, we easily get confused about what we know and what we believe.
Humans have a great desire to “know things.” Knowledge leads to human growth, better living conditions, healthier and long lives, etc. So we need to continue to “learn baby learn” to continue our existence.
Humans also have a great desire to believe that our existence cannot be an accident and that there must be a really power force that created this world, which floats in space, is being heated by something 93 million miles away, provides food for all creatures and ask nothing in return. Considering that the solar system is a very, very, very small part of the universe, we need to “believe in something”.
The confusion comes when we try to reconcile what we know with what we believe. Our belief system is based on information given to us by people who lived here thousands of years ago and did not have the knowledge that we have today. So please believers, give yourselves more credit for knowing more than your forefathers.
Two wrongs do not make one right. So G please use your knowledge to explain to people why they believe what they believe and don’t suppress your belief system because you will need it one day.
Chas. R
Oh, Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time believing that 40% of Americans believe the universe is a few thousand years old. And I don't disagree as to the nefarious control tactics of religion. But I don't see any great tendency to denigrate the findings of science in our society. And as you yourself point out, that is not really happening in the other disciplines.
Look, science is not done by consensus, and the consensus has been wrong many times in the past. The reason for the resistance to Darwinian evolution is that it is an atheistic theory, and about 90% of Americans believe in God. Furthermore, this topic was a hobby of mine for about two years, and I am fully satisfied, not only that the evolution theory you were taught in school is wrong, but that it is only a matter of time before the theory falls; it is weakening by the day as the arguments against it become more compelling.
Why do they resist this theory more than other scientific theories? Because the theory is full of holes, that's why. It does not stand up to scrutiny.
And as for me, I didn't care too much either way and had no judgment until I read up on it for myself. Reading the arguments for both sides convinced me (I believe in Intelligent Design).
It is - did I mention this - an atheistic theory, and while many people have tried to make peace with it by becoming Theistic Evolutionists, that isn't really what the theory says. The theory says it is random mutation and natural selection which are capable of bringing forth all the life forms without any other input. It is an UNGUIDED PROCESS. This is what is taught.
Those who are unhappy with the encroachments upon their turf use certain talking points, like being "against science" and you, Gryphen, have picked sides and are using their talking points for them, which is just what is expected of you. But maybe someday you will look into it for yourself.
There was a secular and atheistic movement in intelligent circles around the time of Darwin, and it stands to reason that they would need a creation story, a story of origins, just like all people must have. But it takes faith to believe in the theory of evolution as currently taught and guarded by the academics. I don't have that much faith and I have too much incredulity.
I feel a bit sorry for the evolutionists as everyone should have a place to practice their religion free of interference. A church has no such interference. But the problem is that science is the common property of mankind, and it is in the halls of academia that this turf is held. At the same time, I think of that side as a bit predatory, because they control the schools and universities.
Anyway, in case you're curious, I don't find the idea of God and the evolution of life to be separable, as God is/has an an intelligent and loving energy (Holy Spirit) which generates life and fills the universe and is the source of existence. Life evolves, but not without intelligence. How this is accomplished I have no idea.
Sad, isn't it? We have no idea yet, how it happened. Those who are religious but also believe in Intelligent Design, in my own personal opinion, still anthropomorphise God and the process too much.
I don't have too much patience for the two extremes - the staunch Darwinians or the young earth creationists, because both are metaphysical, faith-based positions. But in the middle there is a group who are pursuing the evidence where it leads.
So it is a religious war and I don't care for either of the religions. Evolution theory is not neutral. The inner core have an agenda to prove and validate their preferred worldview, which is atheism. I hold the Christian religion responsible for igniting this war, due to the dismal theology, about which Darwin said, "no decent person would want it to be true."
I have not, on other blogs, been able to persuade the Christians to own up to this cause.
One problem is the common use of the word "theory" and the scientific use. I try not to scream when students say "it's only a theory". So is quantum mechanics, and it seems my tech gadgets work quite well.
ReplyDeleteNot touching this one with a ten foot pole. You state that you want others to comment, but if someone takes issue with even a small part of an evolution related post, not even the conclusions, you are accused of being a troll, a religious fanatic, dogmatic and your character is assaulted. Some of the commenters on this blog are much too prone to attack folks who have a different belief system or don't share the same exact view. I thought the ideal was freedom of religion and tolerance for the beliefs of others but there is usually an over the top reaction that seems unnecessary. No thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong--but not because I'm not an atheist...I am. But I think you're focusing too much on the half empty glass.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt, 40% of Americans believing in the one about the talking snake is a kick in the head--but that IS the smallest number measured yet, and the numbers for that belief are going down. And sixteen percent showing the KNOW what they are talking about is a jump up....
Just my personal opinion, the number of "goddless" evolution people would jump considerably w/o the mealy mouth middle option of god "guiding" evolution. After all, what does "guiding" mean? That could be everything from god yelling "Let there be CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION!" to god just periodically peeking over a cloud, and nodding the spirit's head on occasion....
So--on balance, I see the situation as getting better. But then again, I'm old enough to remember when the Apollo Seven (I think it was seven) astronauts read from Genesis while in space, and "atheists" were represented by folks like Madalyn Murray O'Hair
The Bible says that the heavens earth and man were created in 7 days... what is a "day" in the timeline of God?
ReplyDeleteSo while I believe in intelligent design, I don't preclude the idea of evolution either... There is so much science though, that 1000 years ago was "wrong" and who is to say a 1000 years from now, some of the things we believe now will be proven wrong again... (earth is flat, gravity, etc) ....
I keep an open mind, which is what good scientists are supposed to do..
I've never understood the dichotomy between the two. If you believe in God and that God is God, then evolution doesn't disagree with God, and neither does creation.
ReplyDeleteIf God is the beginning and the end, and She is that She is, then time means nothing. She could create and evolve and we still wouldn't understand it.
I vote with Einstein...."All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."
sadly, Science is not a subject taught in schools anymore until the HS level, if that.
ReplyDeleteThe only theories students get to hear are in church.
When evolution is discussed, it is stressed that it's only a THEORY. Add to that the numerous fake 'museums' that push Creationism over evolution and you can easily see how the wool has been pulled over people's eyes.
It's sad, all the way around, how far down we've dragged our younger population.
Those who do not believe that God created the world in seven days are simply not as noisey about their beliefs as those who do.
ReplyDeleteSo more people hear the myth - growing into more people who believe the myth.
It's exactly this premise that's helping Sarah morph into a religious icon.
As predicted, after asking for people to respond, Gryphen is already correcting those he doesn't think see his wisdom and congratulating those who he views as brilliant. Nothing like shutting down the dialogue with behaviorist responses. Also, love the words completely capitalized so you can really SHUT DOWN those who disagree.
ReplyDeleteYou solicit responses from readers regarding evolution, and then smack down when they don't necessarily agree. This is the third time I've seen this in posts related to evolution.
I gotta say, though, it's only 40% who believe in strict creationism, the story from the Bible.
ReplyDeleteTo represent this polling any other way is to distort it, sorry.
That means 60% believe some modified version of this. As in, as Elizabeth above tries to explain, we have evolved as science tells us, but we at the same time believe this is through the dynamic of a guiding higher power, the origin of all existence.
These two views, believing in God and also believing in scientific research - are not, in fact, mutually exclusive for many of us.
Getting angry that some people are literalists is also rather narrow-minded and prejudiced, I have to say.
Many Americans are religious and/or spiritual, yet also feel perfectly comfortable with the teachings of science. The vast majority operate under this dual belief system.
The ones who don't are still very much in the minority, and they are not - as a rule - changing the educational system in this country according to their religious beliefs.
I would like to see a statistic showing how many of our most fundamentalist citizens are actually even enrolling their children in our public schools anymore. Home schooling is the educational path of choice for many of these families.
Just like gay marriage isn't a threat to heterosexual marriage, I personally don't think homeschooling Fundamentalists are a threat to public education, for the most part anyway.
I agree with the commenter at 5:03. I accept and believe the science of evolution and I also believe that there is a creator. When you force people to choose just one answer to the question of creation they will not ditch their faith. My God is an awesome God.
ReplyDeleteYou know what is interesting? Several people who commented on this story on the Huffington Post said that evolution is taught in Catholic schools...they teach science in science classes and religion in Bible study. And it's obviously not hurting the Catholic Church at all.
ReplyDeleteAs a mathematician, I thrive on logic, reason, and evidence. As a Christian, I love God and try to follow his Word. There is no reason the two cannot coexist. So no, I don't understand the threat.
Elizabeth, I so agree with you. I believe in the scientific method and it is at best disingenuous when people pick and choose their "good" and "bad science." Too often those adjectives are made by people who have no clue how science works and the methodology that underlies science. Or they are made by industry that doesn't want to accept the cards they are dealt by science showing results they don't want to accept and respond to.
ReplyDeleteAs to the spiritual, I am in awe and yet skeptical. I can't describe my sense of the spiritual yet I have great respect for people who sense it. But, I see a great disrespect of spirituality when people use it to control other people.
Science has proven many things. Science has proven evolutionary behavior in many species. Being an astronomy buff, I am still amazed that physics and higher math cannot explain the missing 98% of matter in the universe. We call it "dark matter" and it cannot be quantified by any measuring tool that humans currently have at our disposal.
ReplyDeleteWe've pretty much figured out Earth and it's terrestrial inhabitants. However, a major percentage of the ocean environment still remains unknown to us.
So, a major percentage of the universe remains unknown, and a major percentage of our ocean environments remain as an unknown.
I will never write any of this off to a "god" but to the fact that our scientific knowledge still must develop the tools necessary to answer some of the questions that we are at this present time unable to.
As we evolve as humans so do our tools to inspect our environment.
I'm with you Gryph. The mind boggles. I'm a man without religion, with faith only in myself and the kindness in others -our better angels as they say. I was raised with religion but rejected it - what was being taught did not comport with what I read and felt. So it amazes me to find out many others feel/think so differently. Guess it takes all kinds...sadly you'd hope some things would be universal.
ReplyDeleteFor all who are on the fence: I suggest you all take a geology class and go out in the field and look at fossils for goodness sake! There is no "theory" here — there is straight-up "science" out there in front of your faces if you would actually look! And, it is incredible! The world we live in is here to explore. Whatever happened to intellectual curiosity and the satisfaction it provides? Take yourselves out of your chairs, put on some hiking boots and get going!
ReplyDeleteOnething: Science is not done by "consensus." It is done by the scientific method. You need to attend a meeting of scientists.
ReplyDeleteOkay it has been pointed out that I have emphasized the negative and disregarded the positive demonstrated by this poll.
ReplyDeletePoint taken.
I guess it is good news that those that accept the teachings of evolution has increased by two percentage points, and that those who accept the data with a God spritzer is up by two, while those who dismiss it entirely is down by four percentage points.
However good news is a relative term when America is compared to European nations, of which 80% have no difficulty trusting the science of evolution. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html
So yes, this is better news. But I am still quite embarrassed at the level of understanding in this country.
http://failbook.failblog.org/2010/12/08/funny-facebook-fails-speaking-of-whackos/
ReplyDeleteBest response. Ever.
Anyway, I think that instead of focusing on evolution versus creationism, I wish most devoutly they'd teach critical thinking in school and how to apply it to ALL walks of life.
It's healthy not to believe scientists' word for everything; that's how scientific theories are created and refined, and, on occasion, changed.
However, dismissing information out of hand because previous assimilation says that information is incorrect without investigating and applying logic and critical thinking abilities is how wars are started.
I believe that religious leaders should be charged with the crimes against humanity that their followers commit. (That includes Sarah Palin's Pastor)
I also believe politicians should be held to the same standards.
I saw a suggestion on factcheck.org that factcheck should start rating political commercials and giving them a 1-5 star rating on factual cohesion. Unfortunately, Factcheck.org does not have the resources to complete such a project, so they had to respectfully decline.
Thanks for all the work you do, Gryphen, and keep on at 'em!
5:51 What an eloquent post.
ReplyDeleteThat's weird. Just today, HP was reporting that only 40% of Americans still believe in creationism. So, which one is correct?
ReplyDelete"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
ReplyDelete--Carl Sagan, Contact (via Dr Arroway)
onething - you couldn't be more wrong.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not an atheist theory. It is a scientific theory. It has no interest in religion and takes no stand. Scientists, however, are another matter. They come to their own conclusions after learning and reviewing evidence. Evidence is the only thing scientists are interested in.
The theory of evolution makes no claims on where everything came from. That field of study is called abiogenesis. Evolution is only concerned with explaining the diversity of life.
The theory of evolution is not full of holes. The scientific community around the world is about 99% united in their understanding and acceptance of the theory. The research community (especially in the biological sciences) uses evolution as the basis of their research because the theory is so sound and holds up under scrutiny, time and time again. I suggest you take a poll of university, oceanic, botanical, medical, and pharmaceutical research teams.
The only religious people in America who object to evolution are those that force a literal translation onto the Old Testament, especially the book of Genesis.
I suggest you get out of hobby mode and enroll in some college level science courses. Learn what evolution really is and what it really says. You have obviously been reading right wing garbage and failed to seek out the rebuttals from real scientists. A good college professor can help you with that.
I'm glad you are staying on this subject, Gryph.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the comments, it's good that you note how the percentage of Americans who believe in the myths perpetrated and perpetuated by young Earth creationists is quite high, perhaps the highest of any country in the world.
Our leadership in science, technology and other important signs of a culture's viability are doomed if these nuts have another swipe at total control of the USA.
Meanwhile, I'm going to get ready to set up my telescope on the deck by 10:30 tonight for the eclipse. The last time we had one of these babies on the night of Winter Solstice, Princess Elizabeth was a prisoner in the Tower of London and there were less printing presses on the entire planet than there are now computers at a typical Anchorage high school.
No offense Gryphen, but your numbers are off. Take a closer look at the stats. Unless I am misreading
ReplyDeleteHi Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your efforts. Look forward to your postings daily!
Hopefully your readers are mixing in the fact that Darwin's "theory" is only 150 years old. So we have three to four generations of people getting fragments of information on evolution, whereas the Church is thousands of years old...and people get inundated with preaching weekly. Pretty hard to compete.
I wasn't taught evolution in HS...and never took science in college. However I am a life-long learner and picked it up somewhere and now fit in your middle category. I believe God/evolution are two sides of the same coin and not sure why you are implying this is negative. I actually looked at the numbers and thought your 78% was wrong, and even though I see your argument, think it might be better to rephrase your headline...because, to me, it is a higher proportion of those who do validate evolution than you are giving credit.
Gryphen, you are making the assumption that those of us who feel a belief in God and a belief in evolution aren't, in fact, contradictory, somehow lack "understanding".
ReplyDeleteUnless you have access to some top secret information that the rest of us don't, then you shouldn't assume that your science is the truth and our belief is automatically the opposite.
The real truth is that neither side knows, for sure, about any of this.
I don't think you truly know whether there is a higher power or not, or whether there is a God (he/she/it). Stop acting like your intellectual certitude is all, and I won't ever make the assumption that it absolutely isn't.
I don't know, but I can believe what I believe and you can believe what you believe - and neither one of us lacks "understanding". I am tired of hearing your condescension, based on no more knowledge than my own.
Save your righteous anger for Sarah.
I think this is a valid point to be taken under consideration, a random blog comment about polls, in this case election polls:
ReplyDeleteI trust no polls, whether they support my views or not. I've never felt that the opinion of a "random" selection of 1,000 (or so) Americans could adequately match the outcome of anything that involves the voting of a possible 300,000,000+ Americans.
We're talking about these people polling well under even 1/100th of 1% of the American population, and then being callus enough to go on the news and say "X% of Americans", never mentioning how many people they actually polled. Just using the generalized term "Americans", leading us to believe they polled more people than they did.
GenieO,
ReplyDeleteYour post, as bad as it is, was the only one worth responding to.
Intelligent Design is also a scientific theory. It is possible for scientific theories to disagree. They both use the scientific method.
It is simply naive to think that scientists are only interested in evidence. If that were true, Semmelweis would not have been hounded into an early grave for trying to save women's lives and providing impeccable evidence.
When you say that scientists only care about evidence it tells me you have no idea what is really going on in the scientific fray and you are stating a faith in the religion of scientism. How am I to distinguish you from a proponent of any other faith?
This is so tiresome. Human nature does not change. Why be so naive?
Not one post here, and including yours, gives me the impression of the person having more than the most glancing of familiarity with this subject. Personally, this is the most frustrating aspect. I find this topic so fascinating, and have put in thousands of hours of reading, and blogging with persons who have PhDs and all that, on both sides of the issue, and yet most people will not read on this subject despite often having passionate opinions.
People feel entitled to an opinion before they have deserved it.
The reason the theory of Evolution makes no claims on where life came from is because the problem of accounting for a living cell via random processes is totally boggling and unsolved. Yet the presumption of the theory is for it to be a random accident.
Did God create the first cell or not?
World scientists 99% united? I think not. Most of them are not in the field, and like most people have no real interest so their opinions aren't worth much. And those who have doubts, and there are many, cannot speak up if they value their careers. And like I already said, science is not done by consensus!
The theory of evolution is not important to the studies you mentioned, most especially medicine and pharmaceutical research! The theory of evolution makes no difference to drug study! That's a canard.
Some more informed religious people might object to evolution theory because it insists that God was not necessary, which is a position incompatible with a belief in God. Most religious people are not Biblical literalists.
I do know what evolution is and what it says, and why do you insult my reading time I put in? Have you done the same? Is it not possible to educate oneself? I do not read right winged garbage, I am not a right winger. I am quite a leftist progressive, and yes, I have actually read what the scientists are saying, and the rebuttals, at the cutting edge of this topic, yes, I have read their papers.
Why is your only method of arguing to call me names and make such ridiculous assumptions?
and we wonder why as a country we are falling behind the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteTo think that in the 60's we sent a man to the moon. If we brought that up today these thumpers would reply that the moon is made of cheese and would melt if we tried to land on it.
I keep hearing that fewer and fewer people go to church or embrace religion. I believe it to be true but unfortunately the believers are the squeaky wheels and are stacking themselves on school boards and other local political offices. Until we take back those boards and offices the country will continue to be run by the bible brigade.
"Intelligent Design is also a scientific theory."
ReplyDeleteWrong. You obviously do not know the scientific definition of theory. You do not get to redefine terms.
"The reason the theory of Evolution makes no claims on where life came from is because the problem of accounting for a living cell via random processes is totally boggling and unsolved."
Wrong again - please reread my statement regarding evolution and abiogenesis.
"The theory of evolution is not important to the studies you mentioned, most especially medicine and pharmaceutical research!"
Wrong again. You obviously do not know anyone researching in these fields. I am surrounded by them.
You are trying to convince yourself that you are practically an expert based on thousands of hours of reading. You know better than people who have spent lifetimes in the industry.
Your ignorance is almost beyond comprehension. Your critical reading and thinking skills need a lot of work. I'll tell you what. Come back after you get at least a bachelor's degree in biology, and we'll talk again.
Or, you could pop on over to Pharyngula and take on PZ Myers, biology professor extraordinaire.
Or maybe Dr. Richard Dawkins. He has a forum at his web site. I'll just bet the folks over there would enjoy talking with you.
I'm just extremely envious of Phil and his telescope. I can't even get on any of the lunar eclipse live feeds.
ReplyDeleteHappy viewing, Phil, and anyone else who is fortunate enough to live under clear skies at the moment.
Not to worry. The hackers will get the un-redacted e-mails of the Palin clan. Julian Assange will survive his legal tangle and become a hero. There are many more who will follow both Assange and Manning. Why should people put up with all the lies we are being told ? they are destroying everything. Politicians aren't getting the message that they are to work for the people and how necessary and critical transparency is. The bad players will not be indefinitely tolerated.
ReplyDeleteIf we want good journalists that also means they need access to material. The political system now in place works for the corporate world. Things are not as Fox wants you to believe, it is not about for the people. It is for corporate and the few with massive wealth.
Some churches are not worthy of a tax exemption and that is money the bad ones steal. Pay attention and start somethings at your local level.
What many churches are up to these days is child abuse and adult abuse. It must end. Good and authentic Christian deeds will go on forever with or without any church, religion or cult.
Is religion only a theory?
ReplyDeleteEven as a young child I never could believe in the stories like the earth was created in 7 days. Science has it's flaws but there is a better chance of having them exposed. As for religions that tell you it's their interpretation or you are doomed to hell fire for eternity, that is Godlessness for charlatans.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how the zealots insist that it is only non-believers who have the obligation to prove that God does not exist as a matter of somehow "validating" their point of view.
ReplyDeleteI am still awaiting solid proof of God's existence by those that believe in it so. Of course, empiricism need not enter into the conversation because we are talking about matters of faith.
That said, I have the utmost "faith" that God does not exist. There, now that we are on the same level, do your worst. All things being equal, faith-and lack thereof-cancel each other out and we are left with nothing but ourselves.
It is at this point that the fanatics become desperate, looking for a way to have it over the atheists in this world. Aside from cruelty, prejudice, and stupidity, they've nothing in their arsenal.
We have science and rationality...and I'll take that-and physical monism-over ignorance any day.
5:13 - you are certainly not alone. Right there with you in being someone with both a spiritual aspect and an appreciation of science.
ReplyDeleteScience is not a dead-end. It is evolving as mankind does, as technology does, and as our ability to understand and synthesize complex relationships does.
Spirit addresses the intuitive side of us, the part that cannot be quantified, cannot be totally proven or classified. Spirit interacts and evolves. It lives and drives us to seek answers through it, through scientific inquiry, through our very nature. Both can live in easy harmony because both help us define what we are, where we've been and where we may end up. Neither Science nor Spirit have definitive answers because we are not definitive nor is the world we exist in. It is changing as we breathe and walk through it. How exciting and vibrant we are and it is.
What I do not relate to is organized religion. Things of the spirit? Yes. Tenants of organized religion. No.
Like science, religion has been hampered, held back and harmed by mankind's darker nature and limited understanding. But those who follow science tend to ask questions, do experiments, seek answers. Those who follow organized religion tend not to - unless they are truly also of Spirit.
Religion, is generally very slow to change, is not usually receptive to criticism and has evolved over the centuries into Big Business. Almost every faith in every nation begins to focus upon hierarchies of power, accumulation and distribution of wealth and treasure. I often felt as a child that churches, synagogues and temples were more monuments to power to generate awe and submission or desires to be a part of that power than tributes to spirit. I often asked my parents why people simply didn't worship outside in the creation they said their God(s) had created?
For fun, try researching the salaries of most American Protestant church leaders and you will be hard-pressed to deny the analogy to Big Business. Of course, you need not limit yourself to the Protestant faith family - it's just the one I first explored. I was floored by the amount of money paid to regional leaders of almost every faith community not to mention benefits, retirement packages, health care, et cetera.
Not that I am saying they don't deserve fair compensation, but really, helping the poor? feeding the hungry? Yeah, right. What is even more unfair is that the rank and file ministers, priests and such often earn next to nothing and may never see health care or retirement packages. Organized religion is great for those at the very top who can live a life of ease and for the those at the very bottom who can use promises of future rewards to get them through the suffering this life may deal them. I guess what I am saying is that there are significant inequities and hypocrisies in what organized religions say and what they actually do.
Give me a simpler, more spiritual individualized way to commune with the energies that bless us with life, health and growth. Let me live with gratitude to be amongst the creatures and other people of this world and open to learning about the way the world works with an open heart and mind.
Anon 5:08.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I do think earth and we on it are some suoersmart alien kid's science fair experiment!!
To say that scientists are only interested in evidence seems as foolish as to say religious leaders are interested only in God. Many things influence people in both science and religion.
ReplyDeleteScience, in all its myriad variations, has a reputation for being more open to criticism, but is not always welcoming of change.
Religion, in all its myriad variations, is touted as being the succor for man's suffering or the path to redemption but has as often as not caused suffering and death.
Organized religion all too often is devoid of spirit; concentrating itself on gaining and holder power and wealth. All religions devoid of spiritual values and curiosity crumble eventually due to their lack of humanity and their inability to evolve as their believers evolve in understanding.
Both organized religion and organized science are creations of our limited understanding and our desire to seek meaning, to feel comfort in certainly and understanding, to simply know answers to our questions. If we are not perfect, how can we expect our methods of seeking answers to be?
That said, I will embrace organized science over organized religion while infusing it with my intuitive sense of spirit. I see and feel no conflict of one (science) with the other (spirit) because I chose not to limit either - only that way may I be open to where the questions lead.
Many of these folks are superstitious simpletons whose brains stopped registering chronologically past about the year 33 C.E. (Yeah bitch, I didn't use A.D.!)
ReplyDeleteThey are too stupid to realize the absurdity of their argument that scientific facts may be viewed as optional. Many of them hang on their errant understanding of what the word "theory" means in the field of science. They see "theory" and think "totally unproven." That's because they're stupid.
However, lest you think that a total lack of understanding or being entirely unencumbered by the thought process might give them pause and render them mute, they just scream away at the top of their lungs that "EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY!"
It is long past time that we stopped indulging these ignorant superstitious peawits who cling to First Century beliefs about a petulant sky wizard who wants to kick our asses if we all don't conform. The Evangelical infestation of state and local school boards is the single greatest reason that our children don't perform well in science in comparison with kids from other Western democracies. Get the Evangelical buffoons out of the education process and the system will improve quite quickly.
They can worship the Great Radish in the Sky and I could care less. However, when they start trying to give metaphorical lobotomies to our nation's youth, they are fucking around with our national security. These goobers are so stupid that they are actually dangerous.
The cartoon on this page says it all, really:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html
(and all of talkorigins.org is worth a read)
Don't blame the schools, blame the parents. Did they take their kids to museums or planetariums or stick them in front of the TV. It's work to educate your children.
ReplyDeleteTook my kids to the Chesapeake Bay to hunt for sharks' teeth and wound up with a circle of children around me fascinated to hear about prehistoric sharks. Parents ignored them.
Interestingly, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution. In fact, the book of Genesis opens with a description of the earth in its original form that is pretty much the same as evolution's description: it was covered in water.
ReplyDeleteSo these people don't even understand the Bible, much less evolution.
Randall, beautifully stated.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, one can be spiritual (a word that has become a catchall meaning everything from emotions to non-quantifiable components of human experience).
ReplyDeleteCount me in as a person who believes in God and also legitimizes evolution. I like to think of in this way: God did it, science gives us glimpses into how he did it. And what amazing glimpses they are. There are many, many necessary conditions of specific balance needed
ReplyDeletefor life to exist. Life is so complicated, in fact, that I have more difficulty believing that it came about through random chance. If you are interested in how spirituality and science connect, I would suggest watching Rob Bell's "Everything is Spiritual" tour.
onething is, to put it politely, a creationist apologist - I'll leave it to others to put that it impolite but more honest terms.
ReplyDeleteEvolution has been finding more and more fossils that SUPPORT and fill any gaps. ID (Behe et al) have been disproved again and again and again, both the Panda's thumb AND the flagellum argument, or the eye i.e. argument from complexity.
Yes, evolution is an unguided process - the correct term is non-telelogical. And humans, in their narcissism (individual exceptionalism) find that disappointing - and frightening(try reading some Freud on why that is so.
In addition, onething, if it is being "taught" then how is it that we are guarding it? Self-contradictory much?
No, it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution. All it takes is a little scientific knowledge. Heck, seeing a Prezwahlski's horse at the zoo in oh, about 2nd grade, then examining the ergots and the bone structure of a horse skeleton (ergots are visible vestigial "toes" before the bones fused) were confirmational of evolutionary theory.
WHAT arguments against evolution that are not religion driven? Remember, we have a copy of "the wedge document."
Even if one believes in ID, there is little that suggests (and much evidence in the world that is aganst) this Supreme Being is a kind or loving being (monotheistic Christian view.) If you want to subscribe to a Deistic viewpoint (Thomas Jefferson) then this being could just as well now be non-existent (dead), off in some other world and no longer interested in this plaything, earth and man, or a really evil Being.
ID is a sham to insert religion into the public education system.
Take a quick trip over to infidels.org
anon @ 6:19 - go look at what is happening in Texas with education and their influence nationwide - then tell us it isn't a threat.
ReplyDeleteHuffpo had an article this a.m.
Well, 40%, not 78%. I don't think you should include those 38% of us who fully accept evolution, yet still believe there is a force in the universe that somehow has a grand plan. I'm on the fence on this; certainly the universe itself could have evolved out of nothing, to the point where it can now observe itself through sentient beings, including us. But....but....I still would like to
ReplyDeletethink that there is a grand plan that I am just unaware of, which I will discover eventually, and it is in that sense that I can understand evolution, yet still see that something I call "God" has had a hand in it somehow. It's the definition of "God" that we all have different takes on.
I believe there is meaning in the universe, and we create the meaning. Now, why we should have evolved to become beings who create meaning may suggest that the universe, and us a part of it, has an even larger meaning, and it is that that I think of as "God". The best summation of God is that God is Love. We, therefore, are part of God when we love each other and take care of each other.
Belief in a version of "God" is not incompatible with a belief in evolution.
So make that 40% who do not accept the proof of evolution. Those people have to believe that "God" purposely made it look like the earth is millions of years old, and the universe billions of years old, just to fool us all. That is truly whacky.
"Intelligent Design is also a scientific theory."
ReplyDeletebwahahahahahahaha
stupid has no boundaries.
@ anon @ 6:24. ANd that's great. You really are welcome to believe that. Just as you are welcome to believe YOUR spouse is the best-looking/most loving and YOUR kids are the most intelligent. Honest, we'll even help you decorate their birthday cake saying so.
ReplyDeleteThe problem arises when you want everyone else to crown your spouse with "BEST BEAUTIFUL SPOUSE OF THE WORLD" and genuflect to them daily - and we can't help but notice the beer belly, missing teeth, empty refrigerator, malnourished kids, piles of laundry and bruises on you and the kids.
That's when real ethics kicks in.
Excellent point 6:37 -
ReplyDeleteImagine where we would be if religion really controlled science breaking free:
We'd not have germ theory and see illness and disease as punishment
Thus we'd have no antibiotics - and no theory of how they work - and why they stop working - you know the EVOLUTION of superbugs like MERSA.
@7:57 p.m.
ReplyDeleteLook at GenieO's post. Science does have "probability approaching certainty" about evolution.
We're getting there with abiogenesis.
Seems the same with the "birth" of the universe.
ANd yes, most of us would say that if you want to slap a god as first mover (a position first articulated in part by Aristotle and made compatible with religion by Thomas Aquinas) of evolution - go ahead. That isn't part of the theory - yes, science is compartmentalized that way.
Understand it and deal with it.
OK, I refrained, but "onething" is ridiculously, laughably wrong.
ReplyDeleteOoooo, you've emailed PhD's - what ones that work for the Discovery Institute? Because REAL PhD's are busy working in the lab - and woudl tell you what GenieO has told you - go take a biology class and stop wasting their time.
And take a logic course - particularly inductive logic - dependent on an acceptance of falsifiability - which ID doesn't acknowledge - which makes it NOT science, but a worldview preference - akin to a child's view of Santa(in the face of all evidence - uncle's disappearance every xmas eve, the too small chimney, the no hoofprints, the multiplicity of Santas seen at shopping venues) yet the child believes. Unfortunately ID'ers and Creationists seem to have been arrested in their logical development.
Wow, Sheila… you crack me up: the Church is older than man's study of evolution, thus must be more true?
ReplyDeleteThe Egyptians worshiped jackal gods and sun gods and falcon gods for 3000 years versus Christianity's 2000. does that make jackal gods more true?
That is about as lame an argument as the one I got from a "born-again" family member: "So many people believe in Christianity, it must be true!" Yah, right!
And funny, onething - while you claim you do not read right wing garbage - yet I see no citations to back up your claims.
ReplyDeleteSheila! I apologize as I completely mis-read your comment. I do get what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this topic makes me see red!
AH curiouser, we have teh telescope - and a snowstorm last night :-(
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, at least Chuck Jr. seemed to be on the right page talking about the fossils.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, one can be spiritual (a word that has become a catchall meaning everything from emotions to non-quantifiable components of human experience).
ReplyDelete5:43 AM
Sorry Elizabeth, meant to finish that sentence before hitting send - and still be a scientist or accept the theory of evolution.
Happy Holidays to U Genie?
ReplyDeleteMy best guess at describing my religious philosophy is a "scientific panthesist" - that is someone who believes that everything in the universe is "God" to put it in the simpleway.
ReplyDeleteI am also an environmental educator and a scientist. It makes me crazy when I confront extreme religious types who pick and choose their science to believe. Someone I know is a jet aircraft engineer. He works on engines so big he walks inside them. Yet he doesn't believe in evolution. I ask him how he can reconcile the science he uses daily in his work to keep those huge machines in the air with his denial of this other science. He has yet to give me any kind of answer.
It's pure willfull ignorance and I have no patience with it.
- Hedgewytch
RIGHT ON THE MONEY GRYPH... Don't change a thing...NOTHING.. You are drawing an un-movable line between fact and fairy tale that can be put to bed, once and for all with one word - FOSSIL.
ReplyDeleteEnd.
"That said, I have the utmost "faith" that God does not exist. There, now that we are on the same level, do your worst."
ReplyDeleteWhether or not you believe in God has only minor relevance to one's spiritual life. IMO. No worries.
"We have science and rationality"
Lack of rationality is a common human problem, and no group has a lock on rationality.
Behe is unrefuted, although the rumor is spread far and wide that his arguments have been addressed. I would like to know where. The Miller paper ain't it.
I tried and tried, eight against one, to get some of the guys at Panda's Thumb to read the paper that their hero wrote, and its rebuttal, so that we could discuss it, but somehow all those degreed-in-biology guys wouldn't do it. But they did spread the rumor that Behe has been refuted.
I don't know why they wouldn't read it, the papers were quite interesting.
"In addition, onething, if it is being "taught" then how is it that we are guarding it? Self-contradictory much? "
Not at all sure what you're saying here. I didn't say hoarding, I said guarding.
"No, it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution."
Yes, because it is a constant stream of unlikely miracles.
"All it takes is a little scientific knowledge. "
Exactly, but when you get a lot of knowledge, the theory falls apart. So long as you don't look too close, it's believable.
So how come you can decide based upon a second grader's impression, but I need a degree in biology? And if I need a degree in biology to legitimately decide, then why are we bothering the American public with this?
"WHAT arguments against evolution that are not religion driven?"
I'm not aware of any arguments against evolution that are religious. Some of the people are religious, but then some of the Darwinians are atheists, and that is also a metaphysical position.
"Remember, we have a copy of "the wedge document."
Certainly there are numerous similar such articles from the science institutes, but the vast majority of ID authors had nothing to do with that. The arguments against evolution theory stand on their own merits. By the way, neither I nor many other skeptics of evolution theory disbelieve that we evolved over time, we just don't think random mutations are an adequate method for it to occur.
"Imagine where we would be if religion really controlled science breaking free:"
But the sad thing for me is to witness the lack of insight into human nature here. It looks like religion is the cause of suppression, because it recently was; however, in reality it is people and their emotions, when they get adequate numbers, want to shut others down. And several posts here, the level of hostility expressed shows that if they could, they would shut down the ID inquiry and shut me down for voicing my opinion. And this makes me very sad. And they would do so by rapid and emotional judgment without really hearing the other side. Not interested.
Separation of church and state, and 1st amendment rights are the reason we have progress in this country, not the open and just attitude of the scientific community. We need laws to prevent the worst aspects of human nature from ascending.
""Intelligent Design is also a scientific theory."
stupid has no boundaries."
There you go, proving my point. Is that the best you can do, calling me stupid? Do you really think that I am stupid? No, I did not say I emailed some PhDs, I said I participated and read on a few blogs for a few years in which many of the participants have degrees in biology and other sciences and argue till the cows come home over the finer points. And as I read, and read books, I am always getting this impression: That the evolutionists speak in generalities, and the ID people speak in specifics. And reality is made up of specifics, one atom at a time.