Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 Americans still hold creationist views
Science on MSNBC ^ | 12/19/2010

Posted on 12/20/2010 7:19:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind

If you're in a room of 100 people, odds are likely about 40 think God created humans about 10,000 years ago, part of a philosophy called creationism, according to a Gallup poll reported Friday (Dec. 17). That number is slightly lower than in years past and down from a high of 47 percent in both 1993 and 1999.

And 38 percent of Americans, the poll estimates, believe God guided the process that brought humans from "cavemen" to today's incarnation over millions of years, while 16 percent think humans evolved over millions of years, without any divine intervention.

This secular view, while a relatively small number, is up from 9 percent in 1982, according to Gallup.

Like most American attitudes, Gallup wrote, views on human origins have political consequences. For instance, debates and clashes over which explanations for human origins should be included in school textbooks have persisted for decades. And with 40 percent of Americans continuing to hold to an anti-evolutionary belief about the origin of humans, it is highly likely that these types of debates will continue, according to Gallup.

The findings also stand in stark contrast to another announcement Friday, this one by John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The memo was issued to federal science agencies to guide them in making rules to ensure scientific integrity.

The Gallup results are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 10-12 with a random sample of 1,019 adults, ages 18 and older, living in the continental United States. The findings were weighted by gender, age, race, education, religion and phone lines to make the sample nationally representative.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: History; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: 2010polls; academicbias; creation; creationism; evolution; gagdadbob; gallup; oldearth; onecosmos; pravdamedia; scienceeducation; timingissuspicious; youngearth; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-419 next last

1 posted on 12/20/2010 7:19:16 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Still”?


2 posted on 12/20/2010 7:20:51 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I consider Creationism to be logical and I consider Evolution to be too fantastic to believe. Both sides require faith, but Evolution requires more faith than I have.


3 posted on 12/20/2010 7:22:14 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So 78 percent believe that God is responsible for humans. The “how” varies.


4 posted on 12/20/2010 7:23:50 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ahhh, glad to see the unbiased MSM assume that Christianity requires that one believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.


5 posted on 12/20/2010 7:23:53 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Looks like the Commies still have a lot of work to do! Those pesky Christians and their freedom...

sarc/

6 posted on 12/20/2010 7:23:57 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Merry Christmas to all of my FReeper FRiends!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

RE: “Still”?

One can editorialize under the guise of presenting news using just ONE WORD as the above example shows.


7 posted on 12/20/2010 7:24:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In many cases, Anthony Wiener comes to mind, man appears to have descended from monkeys.


8 posted on 12/20/2010 7:25:37 AM PST by IbJensen ("How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think"-A. Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Creation Museum

http://creationmuseum.org/

Went there and LOVED it!


9 posted on 12/20/2010 7:26:59 AM PST by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I agree


10 posted on 12/20/2010 7:28:45 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Does anyone know who is responsible for coining the word “creationism”—?? It wasn’t by any chance Karl Marx, was it? Like, maybe the same day he invented the word “capitalism”—??

I’m 61, have believed in God my entire life, live in a nation BASED on God’s existence and teachings, and yet I have never thought of myself as a “creationist.” It’s not a word I would ever speak out loud.

“Creationism.” I could see living out the days remaining to me and never again using this word.


11 posted on 12/20/2010 7:30:49 AM PST by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t believe in Creationism.

Nevertheless I have some respect for it. Not because of its scientific credentials, but because unlike Anthropogenic Global Warming it is not an attack on my wealth and freedom.

AGW really pushed the bar way, way down in the West, completely debasing the word ‘science’ just as Lysenkoism did in the East.

So when it comes to left-wing critiques of Creationism, I have to retort that the left are the enemies of Science/Reason. Creationists are honestly wrong, while the AGW-supporters are dishonestly wrong.


12 posted on 12/20/2010 7:30:54 AM PST by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not sure why I need to believe humans began 10,000 years ago in order to believe God created the world.


13 posted on 12/20/2010 7:32:58 AM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be ustained under the constitution"-Obama official)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

For the THEORY of evolution to be true, it would have to trump the second LAW of thermodynamics. It does indeed require tremendous faith to believe that.


14 posted on 12/20/2010 7:33:20 AM PST by Spudx7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

When you’re not a Christian, no one you know is a Christian, and you hold Christianity in contempt, it’s pretty easy to see how MSNBC reporters and editors get that wrong (on purpose or otherwise).


15 posted on 12/20/2010 7:34:07 AM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“...about 40 think God created humans about 10,000 years ago”

Idiot!

A large percentage of creationists don’t buy the young earth theory!


16 posted on 12/20/2010 7:35:39 AM PST by G Larry (When you're right, avoid compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

or

Which expert would you trust? God was there. God told us what happened. I'm willing to take His word for it.

17 posted on 12/20/2010 7:36:50 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCause
We are hoping to go next summer, can't wait! We went to an AiG family apologetics conference a couple of years ago and it was literally life changing for us.
18 posted on 12/20/2010 7:37:07 AM PST by Spudx7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Would love to see the breakdown by race. In my neck of the woods, black folk tend to be big believers in creationism, white folks not so much.


19 posted on 12/20/2010 7:38:04 AM PST by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaleoBob

The article identified another 38% who believe - as I do myself - in Intelligent Design, or non-random Evolution. As I understand it Creationism centers about the concept of a young-earth: whereas ID is about evolution in a 4.5 billion year old Earth not being random, but the work of God.

I hazard a guess that you belong to one of these two schools of thought. Taken together that’s ~80% of the population who have a God-centered view of creation. That’s got to stick in the Marxists’ collective craw.


20 posted on 12/20/2010 7:38:34 AM PST by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mylife
“Still”?

I noticed that too! I can very easily imagine the exhale of pained exasperation by the secular elitists toward those who "still" hold the creationist view.

21 posted on 12/20/2010 7:40:05 AM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Where did they get these numbers from? A room full of liberal monkeys with a hand full God created people


22 posted on 12/20/2010 7:41:14 AM PST by PLD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

RE: Not sure why I need to believe humans began 10,000 years ago in order to believe God created the world.


Some Christians have been arguing that you HAVE to believe in a literal 6 day creation, otherwise if you claim to be a Christian, you aren’t taking God’s word seriously.

See here for one 6 day creationist argument :

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp


23 posted on 12/20/2010 7:41:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

One of the three scientists who cracked the Human Genome had this to say about those who think creation was an accident. He said you would have a better chance of a tornado running through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747 than the Human Genome being an accident.


24 posted on 12/20/2010 7:41:51 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Strawman to divide us.


25 posted on 12/20/2010 7:41:57 AM PST by Sybeck1 (Memo to Mitt Romney: Just go away.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spudx7
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!
26 posted on 12/20/2010 7:43:28 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Evoloserism requires more faith than anybody should have. Rastafari or voodoo would be better choices.

The problem is with the basic laws of mathematics and probability, with which evolution is essentially incompatible. The (proportionally) biggest group of people not buying into evoloserism is mathematicians, and not Christians.

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a system for pivoting flight feathers so that they open on up strokes and close on down strokes, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through lungs and a high efficiency heart, a specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters, a beak (since you won't have hands any more...) etc. etc. etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening at once (which is what you'd need), best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. For the pieces of being a flying bird to evolve piecemeal would be much harder. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now:
OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools.

2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.

The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:

The don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"

They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!

Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

27 posted on 12/20/2010 7:43:36 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Creationists are a whole lot less honestly wrong than the evolosers and leftists. Our planet viewed as a pile of rocks is probably a few million years old but our living world, particularly in its present conformation, is likely not much older than the Bible would indicate.


28 posted on 12/20/2010 7:45:52 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal

??? I know plenty of Christians and I do not hold anyone’s religion in contempt.


29 posted on 12/20/2010 7:47:10 AM PST by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal

Belay my last. I just figured out what you were saying. My bad.


30 posted on 12/20/2010 7:48:32 AM PST by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Once again we're at the argument of a metaphorical day or a physical day.
31 posted on 12/20/2010 7:54:58 AM PST by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

hmmph...Science on MSNBC? contradiction in terms


32 posted on 12/20/2010 8:04:40 AM PST by smartymarty (When you know why you believe what you believe, leadership is inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal
When you’re not a Christian, no one you know is a Christian, and you hold Christianity in contempt, it’s pretty easy to see how MSNBC reporters and editors get that wrong (on purpose or otherwise).

Good point. They need to get out more.

33 posted on 12/20/2010 8:08:13 AM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I think God has revealed that the young earth theory is erroneous.


34 posted on 12/20/2010 8:09:24 AM PST by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Looks like the Commies still have a lot of work to do! Those pesky Christians and their freedom... sarc/

The left envies religious Americans because of their advantages, such as increased happiness, optimism, hope, longer life, bigger families and everything bigger that goes along with that. Envy is mostly size envy. Envy does not seek to have a good that others have, but to spoil and destroy that good. Leftists are evil.

35 posted on 12/20/2010 8:12:36 AM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Americans still hold creationist views, SeekAndFind wrote:

RE: “Still”?

One can editorialize under the guise of presenting news using just ONE WORD as the above example shows.

Great point.

36 posted on 12/20/2010 8:13:01 AM PST by Skeez (O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Six out of ten choose not to consider (i.e. choose not to think [about]) where the universe came from. Ask any evolutionist how the universe got here, and you will only get insults in response.


37 posted on 12/20/2010 8:15:49 AM PST by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Wow, great explanation.


38 posted on 12/20/2010 8:19:47 AM PST by Gvl_M3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

RE: Ask any evolutionist how the universe got here, and you will only get insults in response.


Some are now even willing to accept the faith based idea that the Universe came from NOTHING ( See latest musings from Stephen Hawking for instance ).


39 posted on 12/20/2010 8:20:13 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: starlifter; G Larry

Read up boys - some of the best evidence for creation. Of course, you’d need to start w/ the Bible and determine for yourselves the the Genesis creation account is literal and not any other type (anlogy, metaphor, simile, irony, etc.).

Then you’d need to realize that just like GW it only takes a handful of loudmouths (i.e. newspapers and scientific hucksters) to mix truth and lies and repeat ad nauseum. Lyell preceeded Darwin by about 50 years in getting the general public to believe the 1st lie - the age of the earth and universe.

Best agrument I’ve seen against Lyell and his uniformitarianism:

101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264681/posts

Then Darwin carried it much further and asked us to believe how far evolution could go with millions and billions of years of pure chance.

Best defense for created kinds being limited to change within their own kind (just part 1 tho):

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html


40 posted on 12/20/2010 8:22:18 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Global Warming gods and goddesses will not be happy about this report. Unless we send even more ‘love offerings’ to their prime oracle Al Gore we can expect even hotter weather on the East Coast next week.


41 posted on 12/20/2010 8:24:28 AM PST by Infralutheran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Interesting and occasionally amusing, but neither is credible.
42 posted on 12/20/2010 8:30:07 AM PST by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When presented with a highly ordered complex universe it is only logical to believe that it is the result of intelligence of some sort. I believe that evolutionary processes occur but I also believe that evolutionary science is filled to the brim with subterfuge and religious fervor with a willingness to take a handful of bones or fragments of recovered dna and craft wild fantastic stories that are nearly wholly the product of the imagination not empirical research of a scientist.

Scientists who know better still insist on claiming human beings share 98% or better genetic commonality with apes which is at best misleading and at the worst a purposeful fraud. Human beings in particular have 2 less chromosomes than alleged nearest relatives. Chromosomal fusion has been used to explain this but even with that epigenetic gene modifiers controlling gene expression have shown than only as much as 60% of genetic expression is shared between human beings. Studies of gene expression in the human brain alone show that 90% of expression is up-regulated in comparison to apes. Also things like telomeres are much shorter.

I think my sentiment on the reliability of evolutionary science is captured by this quote:

“Chimpanzees share about 98 per cent of our DNA, but bananas share about 50 per cent, and we are not 98 per cent chimp or 50 per cent banana. We are entirely human and unique.” -Telegraph columnist Steve Jones

The key problem is the level of intellectual dishonesty and the desire of many scientists to present a degree of certainty on the exact nature of evolutionary processes that the evidence just does not support. We see the same thing across the board whether it be environmental science, sex science, etc. We unfortunately have science presented far too often as not an expression of what we know but as a bludgeon to force compliance to a narrow liberal progressive worldview.


43 posted on 12/20/2010 8:30:42 AM PST by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat; SeekAndFind

And let’s not forget that they begin their evolution theeories after life is already introduced (i.e. DNA and single celled organisms). They have no credible explanation for the approx 3 billion lines of living code that compose a single strand of DNA.


44 posted on 12/20/2010 8:30:48 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

Good scientific research considers all of the data rather than picking and choosing only that which supports one’s bias (i.e. Radio Isotope age-dating for rocks - couple that w/ a google of Mt. St. Helens).


45 posted on 12/20/2010 8:33:54 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Alamo-Girl; alstewartfan; betty boop; Blogger; Blood of Tyrants; cheee; ...

It was 6 in 10 just a few years ago, so I doubt Gallup’s analysis, but if true we are surely well into the “falling away” that leads to his coming!
.


46 posted on 12/20/2010 8:34:28 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“Evolution requires more faith than I have.” ~ClearCase_guy

Sooooo...

“Which theory of evolution are you talking about?

“...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.

A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them.

By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.

Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider _the spirit_ as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ...”

Excerpted from:

Theories of Evolution
John Paul II
First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29. bttt http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1839540/posts?page=22#22


47 posted on 12/20/2010 8:35:28 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Exactly.
48 posted on 12/20/2010 8:35:32 AM PST by starlifter (Pullum sapit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Both require faith...one in God and one in man.

Since man routinely lets us down and in many cases deliberately and God has NEVER let us down the smart money is on the big guy upstairs.


49 posted on 12/20/2010 8:38:26 AM PST by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Both require faith...one in God and one in man.

Since man routinely lets us down and in many cases deliberately and God has NEVER let us down the smart money is on the big guy upstairs.


50 posted on 12/20/2010 8:38:47 AM PST by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-419 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson