Americans open to teaching creationism, poll says

Creationism, the theory that today's life-forms look pretty much like they did at the beginning of time, is fairly popular, according to a poll conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and Press.

Forty-eight percent of Americans said human beings and other life-forms evolved over time, but 42 percent said they believed that life-forms have remained the same since the dawn of time.

Thirty-eight percent of poll takers said creationism should replace evolution in public-school curricula. Meanwhile, 64 percent said creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution.

Particular religious beliefs were more strongly correlated with creationism. Seventy percent of evangelical Protestants said they believed in it, while only 32 percent of mainline Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics agreed.

Pollsters, however, also found that most schoolkids have been unperturbed by evolution. Only 6 percent of kids were uncomfortable when the subject came up, according to responses from parents.

The evolution debate recently flared when President Bush suggested that "intelligent design," which states that life is so complicated that it must have been devised on purpose, could be taught in schools. By contrast, evolution states that things like opposable thumbs developed over time in response to genetic mutations and adaptation.

The Pew organization interviewed 2,000 people in July.

[Earl Benser]

Old myths die hard....

.... but among the adults, the myth believers are somewhat in the
minority. And it does look like the kids are smarter than parents
think. There's hope for the world yet......

[poster48150]

In other news

37% of Americans would support teaching "the Earth is flat"...

[M C]

Well, it may not be tech, but it creates page views for Cnet...

...what's next, a sports section?

[SeizeCTRL]

Sad...

Hard to believe we are in the year 2005 and people still believe in magical super beings that live in the clouds.

Perhaps this wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could make the next move of teaching science and history at churches on Sunday afternoons.

America, Land of the Bible Thumpers

While the rest of the industrialized world laughs at the way America
is becoming the land of junk science, we merrily quote scripture
and Jerry Falwell and pretend we have no free will.

[unknown unknown]

Make it in valid theory then we'll talk.

Is religious dogma not valid scientific theory. We have churches and private schools to that sort of thing. Not to mention it completely flawed. Creationist criticize evolution because they say it improbable that life would form at random muchless evolve into more complex forms like humans. Instead they want to say that since life and universe are so complex they must be the result of devine action or intelligent design.

The approach used to argue in favor of the existence of a creator can be turned around and applied to the Creationist position. If human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious beings must be immeasurably more unlikely?

Of course the envitable question "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was") or that the universe wasn't created and just is (or "was"). From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end.

Creationist like to compare the assertion that life formed at random to a watch. In the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.

Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

http://www.infidels.org

[Mr Custard]

Land of the Free - Home of the Bewildered

Science doesn't know everything is not equal to science knows nothing.

Apologies for that terrible sentence.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not in doubt. A scientific theory, by definition, requires rigourous coroborating data. Furthermore, the data must be independantly testable and verifiable, and not (in any realistic sense) open to interpretation.

A 'Theory' is not an hypothesis, and the difference is fundamental.

2005 - it feels more like the Dark Ages sometimes.

A problem Christians will eventually face...

...is that the Bible does not demand that the believer accept such
stories as the 'literal, historical' truth. As truth, yes. But not as
history. Jesus himself taught in the form of parable and allegory.
He never insisted that the listener take him literally.

Imagine: "There was a good shepherd who left 99 sheep to go
after the one wayward sheep. And don't even think that I'm
talking about my Father in heaven! This shepherd was a literal,
historical guy who lived down the road from me. I think he was
called Simon. He ended up losing his job, by the way."

Thus, the truth contained in the story is destroyed. The earthy
story of Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden just feels
right...it's pregnant with truth. But don't ask me to believe it's
history.

Now the great problem for Christians is this: if one doubts the
historicity of these early stories...after all, we have TONS of
fossils depicting evolution on Earth from the simplest to the
most complex creatures...then what about the historicity of the
bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Should this even be a maditory component of the faith? After all,
Jesus died on the cross; the atoning sacrifice was made. Mark's
gospel, the earliest one, ends simply in its oldest versions with
an empty tomb, not even mentioning the resurrection (altho
empty tomb implies resurrection).

Perhaps a more mature form of Christianity would its holy book
for what it is, not what believers have been told it ought to be,
and it would be stronger for it.

These are just the rambling thoughts of a Christian who believes
strongly in the Bible, but yet knows the universe is 15 billion
years old, not 6000 years old. We can date cities back farther
than that with tree rings, for Pete's sake!

If people weren't so stubborn!

People have argued creationism vs. darwinism for years,
probably centuries. I personally as a gay man would love to just
take this opportunity to slam the creationism religious reich
(oops); but I'll try to be fair and slam the scientists just as bad.
First, to the creationists camp, we many millions upon millions
of years ago, crawled out of some goo on this planet. We've
been genetically linked to the ape/gorilla clan, and that's the
way it started. Now, to the scientist/atheist group.....When we
separated from the ape/gorilla jungle types, and more
importantly, became aware of our decision making process, we
got a gift from God in the form of a soul. I've found that to be
logical to BOTH reality and personal beliefs. Hopefully, more
and more people will start EDUCATING themselves to allow for
personal growth with strong emphasis on "Reaching a Happy
Medium." Live and preach your case, loud as you can. But do it
out of love, and hope, not out of fear or wanting to prove others
wrong so you look better.

So, to summize. If people weren't so stubborn, particularly on
what happened in the bible and biblical times (because they
were there 2038 years ago) or stubborn based on what someone
found in a test-tube, mankind might just Evolve to a higher
quality of society.

The Princess

[Bob Brinkman]

or maybe

We wouldn't have to wait to evolve if education levels were higher, after all 1 in 5 Ameicans believes the Sun revolves around the Earth.

[Lindy01]

My Faith...

in cnet/news.com as being an unbiased technical news source is fading very fast. My faith as a Christian is ever lasting. I personally see the book of Genesis as how people of that time saw things and not as a historical book of facts.

I find it ironic that so many of the ?intelligent? people that comment here can so easily put down other peoples beliefs. Is your intelligence only technical in nature?

Earl I will include you in our family prayers tonight:)

Wow, and to think this isn't tech related...

Nothing to get "Techies" more stirred up than the assumption that "Tech" and "God/Creation" cannot exist together in todays society.

I have simple things to say, and I won't take a page and a half to say them, or jump up on a soapbox and scream "you are all wrong..." etc.

1. Whether you believe in God/Creation or not, you still believe in something. The belief of "nothing" is still a belief. Therefore the existance of "teaching" of your "belief" in schools implys that the "teaching" of my "belief" are not seperate, but equal.

2. 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"

3. There is NO physical proof of "Creation" which is the basis of Christianity. God doesn't need your "belief" if it is based in fact. There wouldn't be any need for FAITH! However, there is more and more HISTORICAL proof of (at least) the New Testament every day! Now lets get to the good part....there is NO physical proof of "Evolution" either. There are a lot of bones, a lot of theories, a lot of supposition. But there has not been a single instance of documented evolution AT ALL. Don't argue, National Geographic has admitted that so far.....zippo! Which is interesting, going back to point #1 and combining it with earlier in this point. A belief ALWAYS implies at least in part FAITH. Therefore making point #1 all the more valid!

3. Is there something wrong with the fact that "different" exists? Need we point fingers and laugh at others for having a different belief than we? If nothing else, God teaches Tolerance, Love, Understanding, Compassion, etc. but the "Evolutionist" find it necessary to giggle and chastize what the majority of Mankind as a whole (whether it be God, Budda, The Great Spirit, etc. I am referencing Divinity as a whole..) believes! The simple fact is that (whether you like it or not) for every person that believes there is no devine being of some sort, there are multiple thousands that believe that there is! It doesn't make them wrong, your "Evolutionists" wrong. It is simply what we "believe". Let's all at least "Evolve" communication and interaction beyond the need to waste precious communication time arguing about something we will never agree on. Let's get rid of pollution, global warming, nuclear waste, dependance on petrolium products, famine, war, terrorism (wow, that is a whole nother subject...) etc. and give credit to whatever/whoever we believe in when we find solutions to those problems!

Last but not least. I am a Christian, I believe in God, and I don't care what you say! God Said It, and that Settles It! It is not relevant that we believe it!

I pray to God for us all! And may He bless ALL of
Us

I pray I have done him a service with this post.

God Bless

sm00ter

[fosterini]

So, what's your faith?

I'm a Christian. My faith is in the God who created this universe, and man as his special creature created in his own image for the purpose of a personal relationship with Him. The God who loves us so much, that despite our rejecting him as God, he sent his only begotten Son, Jesus, to die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, so that we could have eternal life if we believe in Him.

I don't accept this on blind faith. I have spent many hours studying both the evidence for the claims in the Bible about Jesus, and the scientific evidence in support of an intelligent creator. I would point you to http://www.trueorigins.org as an excellent resource for learning that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, which has many flaws. As a computer engineer, I am particularly impressed by Dr. Werner Gitt's work in the area of Information Theory, and highly recommend his book "In the Beginning was Information".

The alternative to faith in God is, well, still faith. That is, faith that something can come from nothing, and that this something can go from disorder to order if given enough time, and that life can spring from the inanimate during this process. Faith that ignores the basic laws of universe.

[ddesy]

Teach creationism?

Okay, if we teach creationism, perhaps we should also teach some views from other religions. How about the idea that people came from a hole in the ground? Or from another planet?

It's okay to teach children that there are various views out there, but don't teach them as fact. Tell them that the different ideas exist. But tell them what science has found in theory and facts, too! After all, evolution theory can be better backed up than most of the religious views.

[Jack Huang]

But the Straw Man did once live, then.

There are diehard Creationists and diehard evolutionists. The two are equally foolish in the extremity of their positions. No well-informed and scientifically minded evolutionist will ever tell you that evolution is a fact. It is a theory that has been modified countless times, in countless ways. But, its core tenets have withstood the test of time and scientific rigor. This is what mkes evolution so powerful.

I am an evolutionist, but I ssay with complete conviction: Evolution is not fact, but it's sure as hell scientific.

[Jack Huang]

Hang up the phone.

Let's say that we DO teach Christianity, or its offshoot: intelligent design, in our schools.

Question: Why not teach Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Norse mythology, the Greek pantheon, Roman mythology, Hinduism, and Irish folklore.

They are all just as scientific and just as belief-based as your Creationism.

Why not?

If you put evolution (a theory that constantly molds itself to scientific evidence) and Creationism (a theory that constantly molds human doubt to its advantage) on the same playing field, why be bigoted and not teach all other religions?

This is a discussion not about religious tolerance, but about government-sponsored teaching of a single religious belief -- the teaching of a single religious belief as a scientific description of our modern world.

[Jack Huang]

Faith... in the unknown

Evolutionists and non-Creationist scientists do not claim that the universe came from nothing, that it snapped its own fingers and poofed into existence. Rather, they do not feel that they can already explain everything completely. They do not have the arrogance to assume that their theories must be correct, and twist fact to theory.

Scientists are not afraid to say "I don't know." Why? If they don't know, they'll try to find out. Creationists, on the other hand, hiss and spit at "I don't know." and instead say "I think I know exactly what happened, and because you don't know, I must be right."

"scientific evidence in support of an intelligent creator" : Of course this is true. EVERY POSSIBLE FACT supports an intelligent creator. EVERY POSSIBLE OUTCOME supports an intelligent creator. This is precisely why creationism is unscientific. It is logically impossible to disprove.

On the other hand, if a scientist found a fossil rabbit dated to the Precambrian, evolutionary theory would be blown out of the water. But, no one has found such evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has adapted to new evidence, but its basic tenets have withstood the test of time.