You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.
Add me! / Remove me
Posted on 08/21/2006 2:16:59 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
(AgapePress) - The president and CEO of a creation apologetics group says the U.S. is ahead, not behind, in science, as claimed by a recent worldwide study on belief in evolution.
A researcher from Michigan State University studied beliefs about evolution in 34 countries, including the United States. The study found that in most European countries, at least 80 percent of adults believe in evolution. However, in the U.S. only about 40 percent were whole-hearted believers in Darwin's theory -- and 39 percent called it "absolutely false."
Jon Miller, the MSU researcher who conducted the study, attributes his findings, in part, to the influence of what he calls "fundamentalist religious beliefs on attitude toward evolution [and] pro-life attitudes" as well as the politicization of the evolution issue in America. Miller observes that "... individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God -- and who pray frequently -- were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views." He also blames a "lack of genetic literacy" among American adults.
The team conducting the study indicates that overall, this is a bad sign for American science education, suggesting it indicates current science instruction is not "effective." But Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis sees it differently. Ham says it is really a sign of good things in the U.S.
"[Americans are] actually ahead of the curve because they're really taking real observational science into account and understanding that the science of genetics does not confirm that man evolved from ape-like creatures," explains the Christian apologist.
And as to the implication that American science education is lagging? "One of my interpretations of this particular study is this," say Ham. "In America, people have been exposed to different views and exposed to the observational science -- real science that you can observe in the present."
Ham says people in the U.S. have been exposed to more critical thinking about evolution and are no longer just believing in it without question. "They've been exposed to that to see that there is evidence that confirms the Bible's history is true," he says.
In addition, Ham says the U.S. should be encouraged that people are thinking critically about evolution because that encourages more study that will likely continue to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
Dang, missed again.
...too bad about that missing flood evidence...
"[Americans are] actually ahead of the curve because they're really taking real observational science into account and understanding that the science of genetics does not confirm that man evolved from ape-like creatures," explains the Christian apologist.
Many Americans don't know the difference between lies such as this and real science, and that's a sign of good things in the U.S.????
Apparently it's better to believe in theologically-comfortable tripe than theologically-uncomfortable evidence. Just like a candidate with the (R) next to their name is automatically the good guy.
Many Americans don't know the difference between lies such as this and real science, and that's a sign of good things in the U.S.????
Scary, isn't?
"Ignorance is Strength" for these guys, apparently.
Such things are a matter of opinion, not scientific fact. Thus, public opinion polls are relevant.
Same evidence you look at, mate, just from a different perspective.
Yes or no: much of the fossil record indicates chaos, some sort of disaster, yes? In fact, fossils have to be formed quickly, thus it takes catastrophic burial, yes?
Agape Press? My mouth is hanging agape at the stupidity of this argument. I often find myself agape at such stories.
Science is, indeed, suffering in our schools. Personally, I doubt it is because of evolution or creationism at all. I think there are other reasons for it.
But, I'm still agape.
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
If I read this definition correctly, what Darwin had does not match the definition since there is no fossil evidence to substantiate his guess.
To the extent that Creationism is a theory it has no more proof than Evolution. However, there are lots cultures that came up with that explanation. So one is as valid as the other. Both are based on a person’s faith in their chosen explanation for the world as we find it around us.
At least the creationists have the moral courage to admit that their ideas are based on their faith.
What's this, chopped liver?
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
One of how many species in the world. Now fill in the blanks at the beginning and in the middle. Then we can talk.
That tower of Babel is pretty much nonsense too.
1) No.
2) No.
Your response makes no sense. Please restate.
Because the chart give ages for each skull but not age ranges he thinks there is a gap in the middle.
Also I believe he wants you to show evolution from microbes to proto-humans at the beginning. Basically he needs the education he missed in grade school.
Also I believe he wants you to show evolution from microbes to proto-humans at the beginning. Basically he needs the education he missed in grade school.
Not today; I'm on vacation.
I have watched many threads on the same theme develop. It usually ends up with people from a scientific perspective baiting and torturing Creationists and the supporters of ID. It would be funny if the debate were not so one sided.
As a person of faith I have grown weary of this debate and I want to say most strongly that I am conservative, I am a republican and I do support science. More important, I am personally offended and angered when it is suggested that conservatives and people of faith cannot support or trust science.
Finally, I want to say that I do not not know if ID is good science or bad pseudo science. I always struggled to keep up with my science studies and so I really do not merit opinion on the matter. However, I can say and believe myself qualified to know that ID has been spun out of a really horrendous hidden theological framework.
The grade school information you think I missed does not exist. The theory is only a theory (if that) no more. I don't deny you the right to believe in Darwin, I am just skeptical. Or in language you may find more to your liking: Darwin is a theory, not proved science.
Evolution is a theory. There is no such thing as "proved science."
Check out these definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread) and you will do better next time:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 7/16/06]
For one thing Darwim isn't a theory he was a man who postulated one.
Genesis is a story and it is certainly not proven history, or science, actually it's not even a particularly good story. I think "God" could come up with something better than that.
No, in his time there was something called the Law of Faunal Succession, which was the observed fact that certain fossils are limited to certain strata, the older the stratum the less the fossils resemble modern ones, and other regularities.
A number of scholars, including Buffon and Lamarck, came up with theories to explain these facts, but these all postulated phenomena which have never been observed; Darwin and Wallace came up with an extremely elegant theory based essentially on the experience of livestock breeders. It postulated no new phenomena (ie it passes Occam's razor), and has been verified beyond a reasonable doubt.
At least the creationists have the moral courage to admit that their ideas are based on their faith.
That's nice, but they should also have the integrity and courage to admit that their ideas are useless at predicting what will be found in experiments and in the field. (ie, they're not theories)
When an evolutionist is told that a genetic marker (ERV, pseudogene, etc) is found in the same place in the genome of pigs and cows, but is not found in horses, he can tell you that it will definitely be found in the genomes of deer, sheep, hippos and whales, it will definitely not be found in the genomes of rhinos, elephants, people, platypuses, and porcupines, and that there isn't enough data to make a prediction camels and llamas. (Needless to say, the biologist's predictions are correct; ie ToE is falsifiable). Maybe DI or AiG could sponsor research to find examples where the ToE's predictions are false
What will an anti-evo advocate say in the above scenario?
I have read it and lets just say that if a person read Genesis and believes that it is literal truth then they may need medication for that problem.
If they read it as an allegorical tale based on Sumerian mythology retold from a Jewish perspective then they may be on to something. As for being a beautiful story I beg to differ its a story about an Angry God who sets his creation up to fail again and again.
Well, the world needs test-tube washers, too.
I agree. Just another &*(*& red herring to keep from acknowledging the obvious: that students who can't read fluently or do math well can't learn anything worthwhile.
I will repeat my first statement. Darwin’s Theory is more a belief than a theory, this time using your definition. It is hardly “well –substantiated” although it may be well accepted by a large number of people. It does not contain a “tested hypotheses" but rather partial results that people have wanted to use to prove the “theory”. Nor is it “scientifically testable” which I believe was another test to see of something is a theory.
So maybe Darwin is a hypothesis that appears to explain observed similarities in fossils. Like the similarity in form (but not size) of ancient deer-like creatures found in Irish peat bogs to modern fallow deer. The similarity would appear to say that modern fallow may have gotten smaller over centuries for some reason such as diminishing food sources. But I wouldn’t care to stake my life on that being true.
Incidentally, your definition of Data sounds more like the definition of a validated Database. Raw Data does not have to be organized. Nor does it, strictly speaking, have to be factual.
Yes and I find the vedic hymns of the Hindus inspiring, or the Buddha Dharma inspiring, or the works of Robert E. Howard inspiring or Tolkien inspiring. But Genesis is sort of pale compared to real masters of the written word. Maybe it doesn't translate well and possibly the Hebrews who copied and incorporated the work into their religion didn't fully understand the meaning and in such lost the inspiration of the original Sumerian myth cycle which is much better written even in translation.
You mean that part of the "geologic Column" is missing? What part? It must be a nasty hole!
Stands to reason that faith in evolution would make one weary of this debate. The godless will have no refuge.
“It postulated no new phenomena (ie it passes Occam's razor), and has been verified beyond a reasonable doubt.”
And this phenomena has a name? And how does it support the evolution from a single celled life to a monkey or a human.
“When an evolutionist is told that a genetic marker (ERV, pseudogene, etc) is ……”
OK! And a Sika is related to an Axis, and probably to a Muntjak. Please see my response further down. Also, please use your scientific objectivity. I am neither pro nor anti Evolutionist. Had you read the thread, you would see I am skeptical. Just like I was when PHDs who worked for me wanted to release untested product to the field.
Example: Evolution
I love the new creationist ploy of I'm just skeptical. :) Its a gem and a keeper.
People are actually thinking critically about what they are taught instead of blindly accepting everything? bad news for the liberals
There is an inverse relationship between intelligence and biology knowledge.
"Stands to reason that faith in evolution would make one weary of this debate. The godless will have no refuge."
It is wrong to assume that a person who supports the findings of a scientific theory is godless or a person without faith.
Unfortunatly many of your co-religionists seek to use their imperfect knowledge of science and imperfect knowledge of their own religion and it's origin to undermine a host of scientific learning. For the most part the pro-evolution crowd is happy to refute the nonsense and misinformation spouted on this forum about evolutionary theory and go about their buisness.
I personally could care less what people believe except when those people wish to force their beliefs down my throat and also force those beliefs into the classroom where they are not wanted.
They do this by falsly claiming evolution is a religion (it isn't) they try to back door their belief system into the classroom by wrapping their belief in pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and calling it "ID". When that doesn't work they try to marginalize evolutionary theory by linking it with hate groups, or claiming evolution is a conspiracy of the devil, democrats, liberals, Santa Claus you name it they have tried it.
Evolutionists keep saying the same thing and creationists keep lying, calling names,and attacking the personal lives of those that disagree with them. When we fight back you guys get bent out of shape.
Well let me tell you something you want to put Evolution under a microscope and pick it apart fine it can stand up to that. Can the Bible stand up to it?
No... because the Bible has things that are patently false throughout the old testament and either people grow up and realize that the old testament is an allegory and as such a series of tales to educate and enlighten or you wallow in a literal translation that keeps you stuck as far in the primitive past as Islam, and many of you shout to the rooftops about primitive Islam. We evolutionists (as you have named us) see the literal bible thumpers as just as primitive and backwards.
You can't have it both ways either you're civilized and live in this century or you can stay in the past and live with the other swine who can't get past their primitive superstitions.
I disagree; I have actually studied a lot of the data pertaining to human evolution. The hypothesis that humans evolved from ape-like critters was tested many times, and many intermediate species have been found. Genetics provided another, and entirely independent test of the hypothesis. This kind of testing is what leads us to call evolution a well-substantiated theory.
Another test was the entirety of the hominid fossil record; when Darwin published there was only one good fossil, and that was the original Neanderthal from Germany. Everything else came later. Finding the wrong fossil in the wrong place could have upset the entire theory, but that didn't happen.
So maybe Darwin is a hypothesis that appears to explain observed similarities in fossils. Like the similarity in form (but not size) of ancient deer-like creatures found in Irish peat bogs to modern fallow deer. The similarity would appear to say that modern fallow may have gotten smaller over centuries for some reason such as diminishing food sources. But I wouldn’t care to stake my life on that being true.
Darwin is a corpse. His theory, as developed and modified over 150 years, explains a huge amount of the observed data, and is contradicted by no important data. As for diminished size, that has happened to many species. Pygmy mammoths on Santa Rosa Island, off the coast of California, as well as pygmy humans in several locations most likely exhibit the same response to limited food supplies.
Incidentally, your definition of Data sounds more like the definition of a validated Database. Raw Data does not have to be organized. Nor does it, strictly speaking, have to be factual.
Actually, these are both good points. I will reexamine some web definitions and see if I can do better.
Gee I thought the first 75% of your post was outstanding but you lost me a little in the conclusion. I agree you have clearly identified the root problem. Many posters attack evolution from a religious bias and, you are correct, they display an appalling lack of understanding of the meaning of their own sacred texts. It is easy to call them primitive and backward, but I am not sure it is instructive. It bothers me that the debate conjures up the image that in order to be conservative and republican it means your anti science. So, for that reason, I think there is a greater weight placed on the people with a scientific background to be patient. I don't think your antagonists will change. So, it is up to you to ensure that you be patient and keep explaining without undermining the confidence of those of us who are supportive of science and content within our faith.
And??????
"Yes or no: much of the fossil record indicates chaos, some sort of disaster, yes? In fact, fossils have to be formed quickly, thus it takes catastrophic burial, yes?
1) No.
2) No."
Uh, no.
"What will an anti-evo advocate say in the above scenario?"
He will say what he always says: "Goddidit."
"Ah, but it is also a learning God who comes to love Creation. After the flood He sends a rainbow as a sign of his fidelity with Creation."
Oh, phooey. Do you know how a rainbow happens? Do you understand the optics of it and the rules of refraction of different wavelengths of light?
If you do, then you know that as long as there has been sunshine and rain, there have been rainbows. If there is sunshine and rain, there MUST be rainbows.
It's a nice story to tell young children, when they ask "Mommy, why is there a rainbow." That is all it is. When it rains and the sun is shining through the rain, a rainbow MUST appear. It's the laws of physics.
If you do not understand the science behind a rainbow, then you will believe childish explanations. If you do understand the rainbow's scientific explanation, you will recognize those explanations for what they are.
Try explaining refraction to nomadic shepherds.
"Would it cause you too much pain just to concede that the meaning of these stories are sacred to many people. And because they are held as sacred by your neighbours they should not be trivialized."
That the stories are sacred does not make them true. Many stories are sacred, and in many religions. I respect them as religious stories. I do not accept them as explanations for natural phenomena.
It's two different concepts, you see. For example, the story of the rainbow as a sign of a covenant between the Hebrews and their deity is an excellent story. It has no validity, however, in explaining the rainbow, which is well understood by any student of optics and refraction.
It's a sacred story. It is not an explanation of why there are rainbows. It is an allegory.
They've been, "exposed" all right. Creationism is fine, just don't push it down our throats. We're nice enough to let folks believe in it, so leave me alone so I can follow science and the truth. Evolution Happens.
In an effort to clarify:
I disagree; I have actually studied a lot of the data pertaining to human evolution. The hypothesis that humans evolved from ape-like critters was tested many times, and many intermediate species have been found.
But we have yet to see the evolution from one species to another with intermediate steps. Maybe Polar bear to whale?
Genetics provided another, and entirely independent test of the hypothesis. This kind of testing is what leads us to call evolution a well-substantiated theory.
What testing? Darwin’s Theory of Evolution calls for a new species to evolve from an old one. Yes we can breed cattle for specific characteristics like more milk, but that is not a new species.
Another test was the entirety of the hominid fossil record; when Darwin published there was only one good fossil, and that was the original Neanderthal from Germany. Everything else came later. Finding the wrong fossil in the wrong place could have upset the entire theory, but that didn't happen.
But we still have not found the new species that evolved. Like a salamander from a fish. We have speculated but never seen the fossil remains. (That I know of.)
Darwin is a corpse. His theory, as developed and modified over 150 years, explains a huge amount of the observed data, and is contradicted by no important data. As for diminished size, that has happened to many species. Pygmy mammoths on Santa Rosa Island, off the coast of California, as well as pygmy humans in several locations most likely exhibit the same response to limited food supplies.
I have no desire to disrespect the dead, but the final proof is the new species from the old. The path from the single cell organism to the erect biped.
For this reason, I remain a skeptic.
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.