quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Creationists' belief in the young earth "theory" is down from 46% to 38% in polling the past five years. More Christians are reckoning their Faith with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Creationists will believe what they want to believe. But they should know the consequences. Continued fighting to promote creationism is hurting religion’s credibility in an age when science and technology are perceived as reliable sources of truth and positive contributors to society. Anecdotal and polling evidence implicate religion’s anti-science reputation in the drift away from church involvement — especially among younger adults, nearly 40% of whom have left organized religion behind.

[SNIP]

Not surprising, in view of our growing secularization, the percentage of Americans taking the strict evolution view — no divine role — has grown significantly since the 1980s, from 9% to 19% in the latest Gallup survey.


Furthermore....

These tea leaves tell us that more people are refusing the all-or-nothing choice between faith and science and opting instead for a third way: Acceptance of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution while seeing a divine role in the process. “Divine evolution” is a term some use for it.

Some other interesting questions are proposed by the rejection of the binary choice of creationism vs darwinism:

If we were to apply this approach to other stalemated arguments and false binaries, what other possibilities might emerge? Can’t we support Black Lives Matter and police officers who serve conscientiously? Can’t we support the legal availability of abortion and strategies that would reduce its incidence? Can’t we accept the scientific consensus on climate change and acknowledge a role for free-market business innovation as part of the solution? In the ongoing tussle over health care, can't we envision a system that combines the best private and government solutions?

SOURCE

For me, religious belief and disbelief are personal choices. The only objection I have is with the coordinated campaign to take Darwin and evolution out of the Biology text books, or to give Creationism (in the guise of Intelligent Design) equal standing in the science curriculum. You can believe what you wish but tampering with the textbooks and curriculum is a binary no, no in my mind.

Your thoughts are welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have said this numerous times in my life, and here as well, and as long as this type of broad nonsense keeps appearing, i'll keep saying it:

on the whole, each side starts with basic assumptions--there is a god, there is not a god--and then its a question of the evidence supporting one side or the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have said this numerous times in my life, and here as well, and as long as this type of broad nonsense keeps appearing, i'll keep saying it:

on the whole, each side starts with basic assumptions--there is a god, there is not a god--and then its a question of the evidence supporting one side or the other.

You should stop saying this... it's completely wrong.
You can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution.

The problem arises when, like you, someone tries to pretend that your faith-based beliefs are equivalent to someone else's evidence-based conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have said this numerous times in my life, and here as well, and as long as this type of broad nonsense keeps appearing, i'll keep saying it:

on the whole, each side starts with basic assumptions--there is a god, there is not a god--and then its a question of the evidence supporting one side or the other.

You should stop saying this... it's completely wrong.
You can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution.

The problem arises when, like you, someone tries to pretend that your faith-based beliefs are equivalent to someone else's evidence-based conclusions.

Unless one has infinite evidence, it is no more beneficial to make conclusions from than faith. In fact, partial evidence is probably less beneficial since at least someone of faith acknowledges it is faith and doesn't assume they have all necessary information to make conclusions.

quote:


I don't think Darwin ever said that life began from a lightning bolt hitting a pocket of mud which just happened to be full of amino acids by chance. Similarly, I'd bet the old testimont left a few begats out of the story as not being relevant to the story.

I believe that the way this nation is set up, one central government shouldn't be dictating what the entire nation learns in the classroom. If parents want to teach that life climbed out of a lightning struck mud pool or was divinely created a few thousand years ago they should have access to the people who dictate the curriculum.

I've never believed the people pushing the young created earth theory were all that politically powerful. They've always been a boogie man for leftists to use to scare voters to the polls. I don't know where the polls referenced in this article came from, but I don't believe today that 38% of Christians believe in a young earth theory.

I have problems with this article beyond its simplistic presentation. I don't believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change that is nearly on par with the significence of the origins of man as a religious queation. Just the same as the left has always used fundamental Christian beliefs as a boogie man, this article seems to set very fundamental beliefs in creation (via what ever religion in whatever era) along side an unproven scientific, ongoing, investigation. That sort of thinking isn't going to bring about any simplistic resolution of any difficult problems now in the political field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have said this numerous times in my life, and here as well, and as long as this type of broad nonsense keeps appearing, i'll keep saying it:

on the whole, each side starts with basic assumptions--there is a god, there is not a god--and then its a question of the evidence supporting one side or the other.

You should stop saying this... it's completely wrong.
You can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution.

The problem arises when, like you, someone tries to pretend that your faith-based beliefs are equivalent to someone else's evidence-based conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have said this numerous times in my life, and here as well, and as long as this type of broad nonsense keeps appearing, i'll keep saying it:

on the whole, each side starts with basic assumptions--there is a god, there is not a god--and then its a question of the evidence supporting one side or the other.

You should stop saying this... it's completely wrong.
You can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution.

The problem arises when, like you, someone tries to pretend that your faith-based beliefs are equivalent to someone else's evidence-based conclusions.

Unless one has infinite evidence, it is no more beneficial to make conclusions from than faith. In fact, partial evidence is probably less beneficial since at least someone of faith acknowledges it is faith and doesn't assume they have all necessary information to make conclusions.

Conclusions about what?
There are scientific studies on the existence of God?

The reason creationism isn't taken seriously is because it's pseudo-science or cherry picked anti-evolution arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:


I don't think Darwin ever said that life began from a lightning bolt hitting a pocket of mud which just happened to be full of amino acids by chance. Similarly, I'd bet the old testimont left a few begats out of the story as not being relevant to the story.

I believe that the way this nation is set up, one central government shouldn't be dictating what the entire nation learns in the classroom. If parents want to teach that life climbed out of a lightning struck mud pool or was divinely created a few thousand years ago they should have access to the people who dictate the curriculum.

I've never believed the people pushing the young created earth theory were all that politically powerful. They've always been a boogie man for leftists to use to scare voters to the polls. I don't know where the polls referenced in this article came from, but I don't believe today that 38% of Christians believe in a young earth theory.

I have problems with this article beyond its simplistic presentation. I don't believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change that is nearly on par with the significence of the origins of man as a religious queation. Just the same as the left has always used fundamental Christian beliefs as a boogie man, this article seems to set very fundamental beliefs in creation (via what ever religion in whatever era) along side an unproven scientific, ongoing, investigation. That sort of thinking isn't going to bring about any simplistic resolution of any difficult problems now in the political field.

You raise some intelligent thoughts I would like to address:

Darwin's theory of evolution of species does not at all deal with the origins of life. That is a separate speculation called Abiogenesis (biological chemicals arising from inorganic minerals) Creationists felt threatened by Darwin because his evolution raises serious questions about Divine creation of species without intermediate stages. The creation of life forms happens in a "day" or two in the Biblical version but takes eons in the Darwinian version.

I never saw the Government's no-child-left-behind test questions on Biology so I can't speak to what role they played but before widespread testing the marketplace played a huge role in the battle of creationism vs darwinism. Textbook purchases are usually chosen by committees in large school districts like Miami or in States like Texas. Texas was (in my time) the biggest textbook market. Publishers tailored their books for the large markets. So, Texas had a huge impact. Darwin was not mentioned in some biology text books as a result. I kid you not.

You may have a dispute with the numbers in this poll but be assured there are religious/political organizations who have had varying success trying to push Intelligent Design into the science classrooms. The problem is that ID is nothing more than a criticism of evolution (we are too complicated) than a science (based on empirical observations). This was a revealing law case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Also see http://www.discovery.org/id/
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Science_Education_Act

Regarding your "ongoing, unproven scientific investigation" . . . . the word "theory" has a meaning different in science than it does to lay people. In the latter a theory is more or less a guess about something that is to be investigated but is not yet "proven." That guess would be a hypothesis in science whereas a scientific theory is a model constructed and supported by observation and testable evidence. Darwin's Evolution is a well established model based on an accumulation of observations from paleontology, embryology, comparative anatomy and physiology, and sealed by modern comparative genomics. The scanning of DNA of living things has confirmed where in the development various changes took place.

We have a model of our solar system good enough to send space craft to different planets but none of us has ever seen the solar system. The model works.

As for climate warming, I have trouble with the conflict between man made warming hypothesis derived from computer models and long term cycles seen in ice cores. That we are warming I have no doubt. I am just not convinced of the cause.

Scientists do not talk in terms of proving anything; they speak in terms of constructing the model that best fits the data. And there is always new data around the corner.

Thanks for contributing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have said this numerous times in my life, and here as well, and as long as this type of broad nonsense keeps appearing, i'll keep saying it:

on the whole, each side starts with basic assumptions--there is a god, there is not a god--and then its a question of the evidence supporting one side or the other.

You should stop saying this... it's completely wrong.
You can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution.

The problem arises when, like you, someone tries to pretend that your faith-based beliefs are equivalent to someone else's evidence-based conclusions.

and there is an even greater problem when people think science is anything more than 'faith' based [8|]


How Science Mimics Faith

People may use trust in science as others use religious faith to cope with life's uncertainties

Participants reported greater belief in science in both threatening situations, just as subjects in past studies have displayed an increase in religiosity in similar scenarios.

“It is likely that some people use their ideas about science to make sense of the world and for emotional compensation in difficult situations in the same way that religious people use their supernatural beliefs,” Farias says. “Our findings suggest that it may be belief itself, regardless of its content, that helps people deal with adverse situations.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-mimics-faith/



TAKING SCIENCE ON FAITH
By Paul Davies [12.31.06]

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

TAKING SCIENCE ON FAITH

SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term "doubting Thomas" well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into "non-overlapping magisteria," as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/paul_davies-taking-science-on-faith


It usually demonstrates their ignorance on the subject especially when they are ignorant enough to condemn religion which philosophy would prove is condemning themseleves regardless of what label ['ism'] they wish to sport.