Half of Americans believe in creationism and just 15 percent accept evolution

Jun 5, 2012 Read more: Daily Mail 46

Nearly half of Americans believe God created mankind in a single day about 10,000 years ago, a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to a new survey that shows the view toward evolution in the United States hasn't changed in 30 years.

Read more

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#21 Jun 15, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>I thought I said that?
Perhaps that is what you meant, but it looked backwards. ;)

Level 4

Since: Feb 12

Belfry, KY

#22 Jun 15, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
And to think 52% of Hebrews don't even believe their OWN God anymore...kinda makes you wonder doesn't it
They're going to! Doesn't make me wonder, makes me realize how true the Bible is.
Now, about Science, Evolution, etc., I believe that Science tries to explain what God has done and is doing without giving God the credit for it.
This is my only post here--I was just passing through this thread. Nevertheless, my statements are what they are--full of reason, sense, and truth.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#24 Jun 17, 2012
Lissen Ta This wrote:
<quoted text>They're going to! Doesn't make me wonder, makes me realize how true the Bible is.
Now, about Science, Evolution, etc., I believe that Science tries to explain what God has done and is doing without giving God the credit for it.
This is my only post here--I was just passing through this thread. Nevertheless, my statements are what they are--full of reason, sense, and truth.
Does anyone else notice that the more vacuous the post, the more the poster is convinced that it is "full of reason, sense and truth"?

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#25 Jun 17, 2012
Lissen Ta This wrote:
<quoted text>They're going to! Doesn't make me wonder, makes me realize how true the Bible is.
Now, about Science, Evolution, etc., I believe that Science tries to explain what God has done and is doing without giving God the credit for it.
This is my only post here--I was just passing through this thread. Nevertheless, my statements are what they are--full of reason, sense, and truth.
I always wonder how anyone believes the buybull is full of reason.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#26 Jun 17, 2012
“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#27 Jun 17, 2012
Lissen Ta This wrote:
<quoted text>They're going to! Doesn't make me wonder, makes me realize how true the Bible is.
Now, about Science, Evolution, etc., I believe that Science tries to explain what God has done and is doing without giving God the credit for it.
This is my only post here--I was just passing through this thread. Nevertheless, my statements are what they are--full of reason, sense, and truth.
No, you are dead wrong...as are most fundamentalist Christians.

Science is trying to explain the natural world. Religion is superstitious baloney and science has nothing to do with superstitious baloney.

Can you give god the credit for making hundreds of medicines that let us live longer more productive lives. Medicines for Polio, Small Pox, Chicken Pox, Measles, heart problems, making progress against cancer even, and many more...god never even told early mankind about germ theory, did he??

Did you know that up until about 100 years ago at least 50% of newborns died. Did you know that most couples had a hard time having enough children that lived to replace themselves??

Science has given the human race more then you can probably imagine to make our lives easier. What has religion given us?

Well lately it has given us war and aggression, bombing and murdering of innocents. In past years religion has given us burning of witches both here in the US and in Europe and Asia. It has given us killing of innocents in Inquisitions all over the old world.

Wars between Catholics and Protestants or un-believers has probably killed over a million people. There are present day ongoing aggression's between Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants and other religions all over the world. In Egypt the Muslims were killing Christians just a few weeks or months ago.

Religion has in the past, and even in present times, killed or maimed people for expressing disbelief in gods or god. Christians (and others)have killed people for blasphemy, heresy and other 'crimes' against the church. The churches have promoted slavery and misogyny...actually the churches STILL promote misogyny.

There is even a movement called Dominionism that is working among evangelical fundamentalists (Republican Party) here in America that wants to return OT religious law to our country.

So my considered opinion is that religion is a force for evil in this world.

And by the way, the God of the Old Testament is the most evil, monsterous, egotistical, life destroying concept of a god that man has ever made up.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#30 Jun 18, 2012
conservative crapola wrote:
“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week.“And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”
Shhh, don't tell the zealots too much about the Mormons or they won't vote for him, wait until after the election.

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#31 Jun 18, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Shhh, don't tell the zealots too much about the Mormons or they won't vote for him, wait until after the election.
You mean they don't know about the "garmies"?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#32 Jun 18, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>You mean they don't know about the "garmies"?
They seem to have forgotten that part. I could tolerate a Mormon president though, if you learn of their history, you may find that they aren't that bad really.:p

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#33 Jun 18, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what they say, 52% of all statistics can be made to say anything, and 68% of them are made up on the spot.
the 68%...wasn't that in a Todd Snyder song?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#34 Jun 19, 2012
Eighthman wrote:
Communists hate the idea of God.
That might surprise half of Russia.

Oh, and Jesus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35 Jun 19, 2012
IRYW wrote:
That was the point of the definition. If the definition of supernatural is so broad to include everything you mentioned (and more) is loses any meaningful value for discussion; sort of like the pantheistic 'god is everything.
Bingo. Hence why it's not science - it's too vague to make specific scientific predictions which can then be tested and potentially falsified.
IRYW wrote:
I beg to disagree. I have had discussions with many, many believers who claim to accept evolution and categorically they treat man as a special case, not bound by the 'rules' that govern what we know as evolution by purely natural means (random mutation, natural selection). They see man's evolution as GUIDED by a god.
Like I said, the specifics will vary from believer to believer. Though while none can demonstrate their particular claims, none are actually necessarily actively denying the theory of evolution until they deny common ancestry.
IRYW wrote:
That is a total violation of cause and effect by natural means.
Not at all. God pushes a rock. Cause and effect.

Now, the idea of a God that is eternal, that however DOES violate cause and effect (though most fundies are too daft to realise it).

Mind you I myself am not too worried about violating cause and effect, as long as it's still scientifically demonstrable that is (unlike the supernatural). Quantum physics deals with this all the time (seek poster called Polymath our resident math and physics guru if you wanna get into details).
IRYW wrote:
I agree that scientists do not make the POSITIVE claim that there is no god. But the default position is that everything is natural. There is no debate on this if you understand the scientific method. EVERYTHING is assumed to be observable, testable, and subject to definable natural behavior.
Correct. That's because that for practical reasons, the scientific method relies on **methodological** naturalism - not to be confused with **philosophical** naturalism. That is, science doesn't reject outright the possibility that anything supernatural exists. It's simply that the supernatural has not made itself amenable to the scientific method. If there WAS such a thing as methodological SUPERnaturalism, science would gladly be open to it. It's just that no-one has ever been able to make it work.

It doesn't claim that there definitely is no God because the concept can't be subjected to any scientific tests that would either confirm or falsify it. But what it WILL point out is that scientifically speaking, there is no reason to presume it exists if one cannot provide evidence.

The reason for this is that falsifiability is important to science. Example, rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution. Therefore science won't dogmatically state that they definitely don't exist, as that would make evolution not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. But it WILL point out that there is no reason to presume it exists since there is no evidence.

It also predicts based on the evidence that the rabbit **should** not exist. But as the God concept is too vague, no predictions can be made from it, and evolution would be fine whether a God was responsible for it or not. Whether fundies are fine with it is another matter, but then that's their problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36 Jun 19, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
It appears the "Daily Mail" has some reading or comprehension difficulties as it pertains to the Creation/Evolution/ID controversy.
That's because it's sensationalist trash which hires idiots.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37 Jun 19, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism is science education.
No, science education is science education.

Saying "There is no God!" is not science education", it's merely a statement backed up by nothing. I can easily counter that by saying "There IS a God!", and back it up with nothing. Both statements now carry equal weight.

Saying "If one proposes there is a God, they must provide objectively verifiable testable evidence using the scientific method. Without which there is no *scientific* reason to presume such a thing exists. However since the concept makes no valid scientific predictions science cannot comment on the likelihood of such a thing or not, unlike the pre-Cambrian rabbit for example." - IS an example of science education. Of course to fully understand the statement will require explaining the concepts of evidence, the scientific method, falsifiability and why they are all important in science.
Mykro wrote:
Ask Stephen Hawking. I'll guarantee he's way smarter than the "smartest" teabagging fundie.
And I guarantee any theist scientists who accept evolution (and the other sciences) are also way smarter than the smartest teabagging fundie. But even some fundies understand the fallacy of simple appeal to authority.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#38 Jun 19, 2012
Lissen Ta This wrote:
<quoted text>They're going to! Doesn't make me wonder, makes me realize how true the Bible is.
Now, about Science, Evolution, etc., I believe that Science tries to explain what God has done and is doing without giving God the credit for it.
This is my only post here--I was just passing through this thread. Nevertheless, my statements are what they are--full of reason, sense, and truth.
The Bible is true in some parts (existence of Herod for example), false in others (Adam and Eve, global Flood), while the rest cannot be determined so far either way (Herod's alleged executions, and pretty much all the magic bits).

Scientifically speaking, there may or may not be a God but its existence cannot be determined either way. Nothing in science gives credit to any gods, as the concept provides no practical benefit to the scientific method.

All are welcome to their religious opinions, and they may even be of personal philosophical benefit to some, however it's a totally separate subject to science. Kind of like football and 8-ball.

:-)
soso

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#40 Jun 19, 2012
soso

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#41 Jun 19, 2012
soso

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#42 Jun 19, 2012
Maccoat

Erie, PA

#44 Jun 21, 2012
Eighthman wrote:
Communists hate the idea of God.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." doesn't sound capitalism friendly.
LGK

Hodnet, UK

#45 Jun 23, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
I would argue that the scientific method depends on the non-existence of the supernatural (supernatural being defined as a conscious entity that may arbitrarily change the 'laws' of nature). Admitting the possibility of the supernatural as defined would mean that the meaning of 'natural' would have to be changed to "most of the time predictable unless 'god' decides otherwise". In other words, only because we have such a pious society and because religion is almost as old as mankind, do we shy away from admitting that science de facto 'denies' the supernatural.
<quoted text>
If supernatural simply refers to those natural phenomena that are yet unexplained then I agree with you. But if supernatural means what I said above then I disagree.
<quoted text>
Again I disagree. Unless one is a 'pure' deist (claiming there is a creator god that set the physical laws in motion and does not interfere with them) the claim of theistic evolution is almost always (at least in this country) that man is 'special' and that the abrahamic god not only specifically guided the physical evolution of man as distinct from other species but that it imbued man with a soul.
<quoted text>
Ditto.
How does the natural even come to exist without the supernatural, given what we know about cause & effect? Here are 2 little points:

(1) A thing can't cause itself to exist without existing 1st. This rules out the natural as the cause of the natural.

(2) An effect can't be greater than its effect. This virtually rules out the natural as cause of the natural. It's insufficient so we we neeed a cause than the natural i.e. super-natural.

So science pre-supposes the supernatural otherwise there'd be no natural on which to do science. And supernatural does not refer to as yet unexplained. It means transcending nature.

As for theist evolution, this is complete nonsense due to lack of nerves. It's supporters are afraid of being called unscientific so they compromise. They also want to have both ways. I am a YEC & on this point have more respect for atheist evolutionism.

Finally, whether evolution is true or false has nothing to do with how many believe ir disbelieve it. It's either true or it isn't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min Chimney1 160,047
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr Aura Mytha 178,545
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Dogen 18,495
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr Dogen 1,118
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr lozzza 13,650
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 hr Paul Porter1 141,222
Humans DID evolve from apes! (Oct '14) Apr 17 Chimney1 68
More from around the web