- Related Stories
-
Is Canada the cradle of life?
August 10, 2005
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.
See more CNET content tagged:
evolution, poll
minority. And it does look like the kids are smarter than parents
think. There's hope for the world yet......
classroom does with Science.
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.
is becoming the land of junk science, we merrily quote scripture
and Jerry Falwell and pretend we have no free will.
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
two possibilities - order and chaos. Those parts of the universe
which were developing an orderly interaction formed the proto-
galaxies and galactic clusters. Those parts which were chaotic got
hammered into order. Give any system a little bit of time and it
becomes naturally ordered. or is eliminated.
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.
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!
As a person who believes that all matter exists at the pleasure of a Creator, I would agree that there is poetic license in the Genesis creation account. Much of this poetry is simply an attempt to make truths as large as the cosmos understandable to finite human beings. That some of it seems simplistic to sophisticated, modern sensibilities may say more about the limited imagination of our prosaic minds than it does about the Bible's presentation of science or history.
The fossil record contains many mysteries and curiosities. However, this record is a relatively sparse, pointillistic sketch with numerous, often inexplicable spaces between markings. The modern interpreters of the sketch insist that the connections which they draw from point to point are, for the most part, indisputable -- and even when considerable corrections are required to reconnect improperly connected dots, we are assured that the overarching interpretation is indisputable.
I am not willing to disregard the modern interpretation altogether, but there are odors of self-righteous dismissiveness and self-assured smugness in its advocacy that mirror, remarkably, religious zeal -- a zeal perhaps less informed by knowledge than by certainty.
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."
The obvious follow-up question would be, atonement for what purpose? If death ends it all, what need is there for forgiveness? The Apostle Paul argued, quite reasonably, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&verse=14&version=47&context=verse).
Obviously, in a pluralistic society, you can believe whatever you want. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense, or that it is true.
Christianity will either adapt or it will die. Ironic that "survival of the fittest" applies to world beliefs!
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
quality of society despite the bible.
Now what if we found intelligent life in a distant part of the galaxy? Would Jesus need to travel to that planet and die yet again for some alien species' sin or is man on planet Earth the only creature in the entire universe capable of entering the kingdom of heaven?
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:)
proper context. Believe what you will. Teach what you believe in
your churches or equivalent settings. Pray to who ever you wish
in private, or in your churches. That's for myths to be taught as
science freedom.
But don't push your beliefs on me. Public schools are not the
place for myths to be taught as science, be they yours or anyone
else's. When you do push on me, I push back. When you claim
that your myths are fact, I have no choice but to demand proof,
and I am not about to accept one 'self justifying' book as proof
of anything. (It's not bad for post-Mosaic archeology, however.)
I appreciate your position on the technical accuracy of the Old
Testament. Moses and his writing staff would be pleased, I'm
sure.
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
But when people want to push the creation myth on my turf, I will
push back. Teach what you will in your church, that's your
privilege. But in public schools, myth has no justification, except in
philosophy courses.
Yes, you will find your militant anti-religious people out there, and it's unfortunate that they are the loudest. Most people of any belief set just wish to be left alone, to practice or not practice as they see fit. The same holds true for the religious: there are plenty of people who want to push a certain belief on the whole world. Be it Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, whatever, I'm not okay with that.
There is a place for everything. Unless you're going to a Catholic or otherwise religious school, religion has no place in the classroom. Time with God is meant to be personal, anyway, so why force it into every facet of everyday life? The teaching of sciences in school is justified as it is merely an observation of the world around you (except for Physical Chemistry - they made that up). Teaching children to approach the world scientifically is undeniably good for the species.
Those who look for it, though, can find that God and science are quite compatible. It's often said that "anything we don't understand is God," and that's perhaps true to a point, but true understanding of God comes from within, not from without. What I find most unfortunate, though, is that most of organized religion is looking for ways to undermine science, whereas they should be directing their efforts embracing it and working with it. It took the Catholic Church how long to finally admit that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe?
Religious scientists are out there. I should know, I'm one of them.
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.
"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."
This process violates no laws of physics. You have yet to learn
about entropy and chaos theory and many other things which
reduce your claim to absurdity. But then, you don't dare learn
about these things....
I'm pretty sure dirt and humans don't share any of the same DNA.
You say evolution is flawed, but you fail to mention that there are many aspects that are proven fact. Like it or not, organisms change to their environment and that change is part of an evolving state to climate and environment. That is why Eskimos appear different than Ethiopians. Each have adapted to their surroundings.
Creationists like to point out that evolution can't be proven in a lab. What do they suggest, keeping people locked up in cages for 5,000 years and make adjustments to temperatures until noticeable changes occur?
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.
However, that shouldn't be in science class. Make it a humanities course.
I am an evolutionist, but I ssay with complete conviction: Evolution is not fact, but it's sure as hell scientific.
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.
- Faith... in the unknown
- by Jack Huang September 9, 2005 10:47 AM PDT
- 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.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Creationism
- by soundman1024 January 1, 2006 11:48 AM PST
- I am of the opinion that Creationism is indeed religious not scientific. The idea that the Christian God made the universe specifies the Chrsitian God, which by nature is religious. Science seems to be afraid of religion interestingly. My guess is because it offers the only alternative to explain the world. Quite often religion makes blind guesses based on ancient texts. Perhaps Creation doesn't belong in our science classes as it isn't observable or testable. Intelligent Design, if taught purely, is scientific by nature. It uses observation and logic to draw a conclusion. It isn't obervable, but there is evidence that supports it. So long as a designer isn't specified it doesn't go into the realm of religion. Besides the designer for the universe would have outside the universe, somewhere science itself will say it doesn't belong.
- View reply
Processing -
(71 Comments)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.