Anti-Science party politics

[imatfaal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

 

I guess this is probably old news for the scientifically aware in the USA - but for an outside observer it is a bit worrying

 

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

[Brainteaserfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

 

I guess this is probably old news for the scientifically aware in the USA - but for an outside observer it is a bit worrying

I suppose noone guessed what the author wants you to think?

 

I don't think that either party is particularly gung-Ho about science. NASA has slowed down considerebly under Obama. Anti-science is different than dismissive of climate change and evolution.

 

Why does it matter whether the president believes in either? He didn't say he would cut any funding for EPA or anything. (which, while the EPA does some annoying stuff, it has been a net plus IMO).

[Ringer]

You know Perry has a lawsuit against the EPA because of tighter pollution regulations right? Not to mention his belief that Creationism should, actually he thought it is, be taught in the public schools. This is pretty much consistent with most of the GOP in the spotlight.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Ringer

[imatfaal]

I suppose noone guessed what the author wants you to think?

 

I don't think that either party is particularly gung-Ho about science. NASA has slowed down considerebly under Obama. Anti-science is different than dismissive of climate change and evolution.

 

Why does it matter whether the president believes in either? He didn't say he would cut any funding for EPA or anything. (which, while the EPA does some annoying stuff, it has been a net plus IMO).

 

As I quoted a line which read "And it should terrify us." I don't think any of the members of the forum would think this is anything but an op-ed piece, or that the desired impact was anything but overt. I disgree with your statement that "Anti-science is different than dismissive of climate change and evolution" - leaving aside climate change (which even on a science forum is a touchy subject) - to openly oppose evolution is an anti-science position.

 

"How old do I think the Earth is? I don’t have any idea. I think it’s pretty old. It goes back a long long ways. I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long ago the Earth is. I hear your mom was asking about evolution. It’s a theory that’s out there and it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our programs." A little bit of googling finds the whole quote from Perry - that is an anti-science standpoint.

 

Funding, Obama's view etc are chaff - the piece tries to show that one of the leading republican candidates is anti-science and I find that worrying. This is alongside the fact that Bachmann was either joking about a hurricane that killed over 20 people or honestly thought it was sent by god to "get the attention of politicians" - depending on whether you believe her or her spindoctors

[Brainteaserfan]

You know Perry has a lawsuit against the EPA because of tighter pollution regulations right? Not to mention his belief that Creationism should, actually he thought it is, be taught in the public schools. This is pretty much consistent with most of the GOP in the spotlight.

Hmm. I didn't realize that he had that lawsuit. But I looked it up, and you're right. I will have to remember that.

 

I think that creationism should definitly be taught and fairly represented in the public schools, because it is a major belief. Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct. The more differing opinions, IMO, the better it is for science, because we need people who question the validity of theories and try to prove them wrong. I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself. But I'll admit I'm strongly biased.

 

As I quoted a line which read "And it should terrify us." I don't think any of the members of the forum would think this is anything but an op-ed piece, or that the desired impact was anything but overt. I disgree with your statement that "Anti-science is different than dismissive of climate change and evolution" - leaving aside climate change (which even on a science forum is a touchy subject) - to openly oppose evolution is an anti-science position.

 

"How old do I think the Earth is? I don’t have any idea. I think it’s pretty old. It goes back a long long ways. I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long ago the Earth is. I hear your mom was asking about evolution. It’s a theory that’s out there and it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our programs." A little bit of googling finds the whole quote from Perry - that is an anti-science standpoint.

 

Funding, Obama's view etc are chaff - the piece tries to show that one of the leading republican candidates is anti-science and I find that worrying. This is alongside the fact that Bachmann was either joking about a hurricane that killed over 20 people or honestly thought it was sent by god to "get the attention of politicians" - depending on whether you believe her or her spindoctors

I would say what he said was true, there are some gaps, or at least, very hard to explain things in evolution. How is teaching creationism anti-science? I pointed out to ringer why I believe that it is good for science.

[imatfaal]

Hmm. I didn't realize that he had that lawsuit. But I looked it up, and you're right. I will have to remember that.

I think that creationism should definitly be taught and fairly represented in the public schools, because it is a major belief. Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct. The more differing opinions, IMO, the better it is for science, because we need people who question the validity of theories and try to prove them wrong. I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself. But I'll admit I'm strongly biased.

I would say what he said was true, there are some gaps, or at least, very hard to explain things in evolution. How is teaching creationism anti-science? I pointed out to ringer why I believe that it is good for science.

 

 

I have no problem with the creation story being taught in religious education classes. Kids should not decided for themselves - in fact no one should decide for themselves what is good science. The whole point of science is that truth is not presaged on a personal preference or choice; it is based on the falsifiable theory that agrees closest with experimental data. Differing ways of explaining the facts with testable models is the bedrock of science - what is anti-science is the retreat to myth or religious teaching. Trying to prove a theory wrong is completely different to opposing that theory with an explanation from a holy book.

 

I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself.

I presume from this you think all medical students should be required to learn homoeopathy (lots of people believe in it) even though it has never passed a single double-blind rct. Or that important national economical decisions should take astrological predictions into account (loads of people swear by it) despite it being total garbage. etc

 

How is teaching creationism anti-science? I pointed out to ringer why I believe that it is good for science.

It is bad because it is equating a religious belief that, in its very nature must be faith based with a scientific theory which must be based on objective and repeatable observations/experiment. Now I could not stand a world in which people were forced to reject their religious beliefs - but similarly for proponents of religion to insist on an equation of their unsubstantiable beliefs with objective science is a negation of rationalism.

[Ringer]

Hmm. I didn't realize that he had that lawsuit. But I looked it up, and you're right. I will have to remember that.

 

I think that creationism should definitly be taught and fairly represented in the public schools, because it is a major belief. Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct. The more differing opinions, IMO, the better it is for science, because we need people who question the validity of theories and try to prove them wrong. I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself. But I'll admit I'm strongly biased.

 

 

I would say what he said was true, there are some gaps, or at least, very hard to explain things in evolution. How is teaching creationism anti-science? I pointed out to ringer why I believe that it is good for science.

 

I would be fine with teaching Creationism if it was at all scientific, but it isn't. Kids don't even know what science is, let alone how scientific truths are decided (and it's not by popular opinion). When Creationism has any evidence supporting it that can be reproduced teach it. But that a subject for this thread.

 

Here's a link to other GOP standpoints on evolution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/2012-election-gop-candidates-evolution-_n_934045.html#s333316&title=Rick_Perry

[John Cuthber]

There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism.

It should be part of religious studies.

 

However it has absolutely no place in the science classroom.

Worse than that, it encourages perversions of science like this.

http://creationmuseum.org/

and misrepresents them as if they had any credibility.

[A Tripolation]

I think that creationism should definitly be taught and fairly represented in the public schools, because it is a major belief. Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct. The more differing opinions, IMO, the better it is for science, because we need people who question the validity of theories and try to prove them wrong. I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself. But I'll admit I'm strongly biased.

 

I would say what he said was true, there are some gaps, or at least, very hard to explain things in evolution. How is teaching creationism anti-science? I pointed out to ringer why I believe that it is good for science.

 

I'm strongly biased as well, but I do not let that bias control what I know to be fact, and what I know to be fiction. The fact is, creationism is lies and deceit masquerading as science. It doesn't matter if it's a major belief. It is wrong. Simple as that. Like others have said, it SHOULD be taught in religion courses, but not in science courses. Because it is NOT science.

 

It's anti-science for this reason. There is a major disagreement between relativity and quantum mechanics. Both are amazing at describing what is within their scope, but they are incompatible. Compare this incompatibility to the "gaps" in evolution. Offering a course that talks about how a pink dinosaur that cannot be observed or tested in any way is the answer to everything related to space and time IS NOT going to help anything. This is what the proponents of creationism would have you do. Why would you think that was a good idea? In ANY capacity?

[Phi for All]

I think that creationism should definitly be taught and fairly represented in the public schools, because it is a major belief. Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct. The more differing opinions, IMO, the better it is for science, because we need people who question the validity of theories and try to prove them wrong. I feel that I would think this way without believing in creationism myself. But I'll admit I'm strongly biased.

 

 

I would say what he said was true, there are some gaps, or at least, very hard to explain things in evolution. How is teaching creationism anti-science? I pointed out to ringer why I believe that it is good for science.

Creationism doesn't have anything to do with science. Not one - single - thing. It does not use scientific method to verify its findings. It doesn't predict anything to do with the natural world. As a matter of fact, it claims things that science can prove false with empirical evidence gathered over centuries by thousands of people representing millions of scientist-hours and tens of millions of hours in discussion and peer review. Why should it be taught alongside science in public schoolrooms? Creationism isn't a "differing opinion" or a "controversial challenger", it's anti-science at its finest.

 

You can say, "Kids should decide for themselves whether creationism or evolution, or something else is correct" to make your point sound fair, but the fact remains that a science class should teach science, and religious beliefs should NOT be taught in state-funded public schools in a country that is constitutionally required to separate church and state.

[timo]

There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism. It should be part of religious studies.

Considering that some Christians take the idea of creationism seriously I think it indeed should. All we ever learned in (protestant) Religion (which is a kind of mandatory school subject in Germany), at least in the school years 5-10 that I attended it, was alternating between the topics "sects are evil" and "drugs are evil". Learning a bit more about the Cristian faith would have been great.

[Phi for All]

Considering that some Christians take the idea of creationism seriously I think it indeed should. All we ever learned in (protestant) Religion (which is a kind of mandatory school subject in Germany), at least in the school years 5-10 that I attended it, was alternating between the topics "sects are evil" and "drugs are evil". Learning a bit more about the Cristian faith would have been great.

There's really not much to "learn". Just read the Bible and assume that every single word is literal as written. A day means a 24 hour day (I know He didn't make the sun until the 4th day, just shut up and listen). Add up all the ages of everyone mentioned in Genesis and you'll find that God created the earth around 4000 BC. This means that any evidence that science has for an Earth older than 6000 years is either flawed or deliberately put there by God and made to seem older to confuse non-believers.

 

Creationism is rejected by the majority of Christians. Creationism doesn't just mean that God created the universe; it means He did it in six days and science is mistaken about all the time it took. Even the oldest dinosaurs existed with mankind because man and animals were all made on day six (well, the swimmers and the flyers were made the day before, but they were all walking, crawling, swimming and flying around together by the end of the week, that's the point).

[Brainteaserfan]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=657083&videofeed=36

Phi for all: not in my country in 2004.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/teaching

And this is why I want both taught - IN SCIENCE class. Maybe Americans are stupid, but this is what we want.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

And 1/3 of Americans believe that EVERY word of the Bible is to be taken literally.

 

There actually is some evidence outside of the bible supporting creationism.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

 

And I'll give an example of a gap in evolution (or something which seems strange to me).

Termites cannot digest cellulose. Cellulose is in wood, which the termites eat. A organism in the termite's gut digests it for him. How can this be easily explained by evolution?

[Ringer]

http://m.cbsnews.com...83&videofeed=36

Phi for all: not in my country in 2004.

 

http://www.answersin...v13/n2/teaching

And this is why I want both taught - IN SCIENCE class. Maybe Americans are stupid, but this is what we want.

 

http://www.gallup.co...rally-true.aspx

And 1/3 of Americans believe that EVERY word of the Bible is to be taken literally.

 

Science is not a public opinion poll. But, hey, since most people think correlation = causation we need to make all these stubborn math people teach both sides of statistics.

 

 

There actually is some evidence outside of the bible supporting creationism.

http://www.matthewmc...g/creation.html

 

How about some evidence from peer reviewed publishing instead of evidence for creationism in a creationist publication.

 

 

And I'll give an example of a gap in evolution (or something which seems strange to me).

Termites cannot digest cellulose. Cellulose is in wood, which the termites eat. A organism in the termite's gut digests it for him. How can this be easily explained by evolution?

 

First evidence against evolution isn't evidence for creationism. So even though it's ridiculously common for 2 animals to co-evolve and the explanation is fairly simple even if there wasn't an answer Creationism still doesn't have evidence.

[Brainteaserfan]

Science is not a public opinion poll. But, hey, since most people think correlation = causation we need to make all these stubborn math people teach both sides of statistics.

 

 

 

 

How about some evidence from peer reviewed publishing instead of evidence for creationism in a creationist publication.

 

 

 

 

First evidence against evolution isn't evidence for creationism. So even though it's ridiculously common for 2 animals to co-evolve and the explanation is fairly simple even if there wasn't an answer Creationism still doesn't have evidence.

I never said that was evidence for creation. How is it "ridiculously common" for two animals to evolve together unless you believe evolution?? Have you seen it?

 

I don't know much about where, how to, find peer reviewed papers. I'm not a scientist, and know even less about biology, although I will be taking it this year - I just don't find it as interesting as other sciences.

 

I'm saying that it should be taught in public schools, not because it's true, but because Americans want it to be taught in their schools. I didn't say that it should be taught because it's true.

 

Could you show me a few things wrong with the creationist paper? You can't dismiss a paper, "just because it's not peer reviewed." There is evidence for creation. Maybe not a whole lot, but there is some IMO.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Ringer]

I never said that was evidence for creation. How is it "ridiculously common" for two animals to evolve together unless you believe evolution?? Have you seen it?

 

Have you seen an atom? Do you not believe them to be ridiculously common?

 

 

I don't know much about where, how to, find peer reviewed papers, never mind understanding them. I'm not a scientist, and know even less about biology, although I will be taking it this year - I just don't find it as interesting as other sciences.

 

I'm saying that it should be taught in public schools, not because it's true, but because Americans want it to be taught in their schools. I didn't say that it should be taught because it's true.

 

As I said, science isn't a public poll and shouldn't be taught as such. It's sickening what some people think should and shouldn't be taught in schools. What matters in secondary education is learning the abilities that you will need to be successful in whatever career you choose. Teaching them what there isn't evidence for only hinders them in that respect.

 

Could you show me a few things wrong with the creationist paper? You can't dismiss a paper, "just because it's not peer reviewed." There is evidence for creation. Maybe not a whole lot, but there is some IMO.

 

I'll point out a few things real quick but this won't be an exhaustive critique by any means. Second paragraph

We will see that the scientists began with the assumptions that (a.) the general theory of evolution is correct and that (b.) creation is incorrect. The scientists did not come to these conclusions based upon on an examination of the evidence. They simply made these assumptions from the beginning.

Apparently he forgot that for most of history people believed the bible literally and that evolution was on the fringes. Evolution wasn't even taken very seriously in Darwin's time. Especially since most people believed inheritance was a type of blending, Mendal was more or less ignored in his time. Evolution came into being through over a hundred years of people trying to discredit it at every turn. It stands for a reason.

Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks!

Really? Wow, how unscientific. Wait. . . wait does he mean by index fossils. Fossils of species that are found in rocks that are either impossible to date because of their makeup or that it would just be very difficult. So what is it they do with them you ask. Well they don't date the Earth with them. They take other fossils that have been in sediment that is easily dated and has been showed to be a certain age multiple time. They use that fossil to determine an approximate age of the sediment. That after they have established a range of dates when the animal had lived through previous dating.

That's all I'm doing for now. If you want to continue debates of evolution go to the thread I linked in my previous reply and start it up. But first read through the discussion and links because they will cover a great many of the misconceptions of evolution.

[jeskill]

I never said that was evidence for creation. How is it "ridiculously common" for two animals to evolve together unless you believe evolution?? Have you seen it?

Yes.

http://biomed.brown....oevolution.HTML

Another strong case is the Ant - Acacia mutualism. Here specific traits in each species appear to have evolved in response to the interaction. The ant (Pseudomyrmex species) depends on the Acacia plant for food and housing; acacia depends on ant for protection from potential herbivores (species that eat plant tissue). Specific characters of the plant appear to have evolved for the maintenance of this mutualism: 1) swollen, ~ hollow thorns (= ant home), 2) extra-floral nectaries (source of nectar outside the flower [i.e., the usual location] providing ants with food), 3) leaflet tips = Beltian bodies (= 99% of solid food for larval/adult ants). Specific characters in the ant that have evolved for the maintenance of this mutualism: 1) defense against herbivores 2) removal of fungal spores from Beltian body break-point (prevents fungal pathogens from invading plant tissues). The main point is that there are traits in both the ant and the acacia that are traits not normally found in close relatives of each that are not involved in similar mutualisms: mutualistic traits have evolved for the interaction in reciprocal fashion. See another example : fig. 22.1 & table 22.1, pg. 611.

 

See also co-evolution between

(there's strong phylogenetic evidence that these two clades co-evolved)

 

Could you show me a few things wrong with the creationist paper? You can't dismiss a paper, "just because it's not peer reviewed." There is evidence for creation. Maybe not a whole lot, but there is some IMO.

There's so much wrong with that site, I hardly know where to start. Let's take this sentence:

 

I will be referring to the general theory of evolution, which states that all life evolved from simpler forms of life, which in turn evolved from inorganic material over vast periods of time.

 

The process of inorganic material evolving into simple life forms is not part of evolutionary theory. It has it's own theory, called the theory of abiogenesis.

But really, that is not the general definition of evolution -- from a simple grammatical perspective, you can't use the word "evolve" to define evolution. The general definition of evolution is (as I learned it) "the change in allele frequencies in a population over generational time". In order to understand evolution, you need to understand basic genetics first and foremost. Then you need to understand the mechanisms that can cause evolution, which include artificial selection (e.g. corn evolved from teosinte because humans selected certain traits to breed over time), natural selection, sex selection, and genetic drift. Any definition that does not include these concepts is not a useful definition of evolution.

 

P.S. Another reason the above definition is incorrect, is because it is entirely possible for "simpler" organisms to evolve from more "complex" organism.

 

 

I'd also like to point out that the website brings in the atrociously bad "Law of Thermodynamics" argument to justify creationism.

 

Er, Apologies for going off topic.

Edited September 1, 2011 by jeskill

[Brainteaserfan]

Yes.

http://biomed.brown....oevolution.HTML

 

 

See also co-evolution between

(there's strong phylogenetic evidence that these two clades co-evolved)

 

 

There's so much wrong with that site, I hardly know where to start. Let's take this sentence:

 

 

The process of inorganic material evolving into simple life forms is not part of evolutionary theory. It has it's own theory, called the theory of abiogenesis.

But really, that is not the general definition of evolution -- from a simple grammatical perspective, you can't use the word "evolve" to define evolution. The general definition of evolution is (as I learned it) "the change in allele frequencies in a population over generational time". In order to understand evolution, you need to understand basic genetics first and foremost. Then you need to understand the mechanisms that can cause evolution, which include artificial selection (e.g. corn evolved from teosinte because humans selected certain traits to breed over time), natural selection, sex selection, and genetic drift. Any definition that does not include these concepts is not a useful definition of evolution.

 

P.S. Another reason the above definition is incorrect, is because it is entirely possible for "simpler" organisms to evolve from more "complex" organism.

 

 

I'd also like to point out that the website brings in the atrociously bad "Law of Thermodynamics" argument to justify creationism.

 

Er, Apologies for going off topic.

Firstly, Thank you!

 

I think that, "which in turn evolved from inorganic materials" does imply another theory, so for that part of the definition being wrong, I'm not so sure.

 

Ringer:

Firstly, thank you too.

 

Wouldn't it be more like asking, do you believe atoms existed 30000000000000000000000000000000000 years ago? Because now both are far back in history. I do see your point though.

 

If most Americans wanted their kids to be taught that beetles live on the moon, don't you think that their kids should be taught both theories, and the evidence for, that either beetles do, or that beetles do not, exist on the moon? Ok, theories is the wrong word. But america is supposed to do what the people want, right, as long as it doesn't hurt those affected? Seeing the support for creationism alongside the support for evolution should encourage the kids to choose which one has more evidence, right?

[A Tripolation]

Seeing the support for creationism alongside the support for evolution should encourage the kids to choose which one has more evidence, right?

 

There is no support for creationism. None.

[Ringer]

Ringer:

Firstly, thank you too.

 

Wouldn't it be more like asking, do you believe atoms existed 30000000000000000000000000000000000 years ago? Because now both are far back in history. I do see your point though.

 

Your welcome? I'm really unsure of what you are thanking me for.

 

Anywho, All you did was ask if I had seen a type evolution as if that were the deciding factor of truth. I assumed you meant direct observation and not indirect so I asked a the same question about something virtually everyone accepts but has never seen. The difference is we have seen evolution and there are hundreds of papers on this.

 

 

If most Americans wanted their kids to be taught that beetles live on the moon, don't you think that their kids should be taught both theories, and the evidence for, that either beetles do, or that beetles do not, exist on the moon? Ok, theories is the wrong word. But america is supposed to do what the people want, right, as long as it doesn't hurt those affected? Seeing the support for creationism alongside the support for evolution should encourage the kids to choose which one has more evidence, right?

 

Quite simply, no. I disagree with that entire statement. Children have difficulty making decisions when they are truthfully informed, if you start teaching them things that have no evidence as if they are truth who are they to actually be able to tell the difference. When you were in secondary school did you know how to tell if someone was making a valid scientific argument or just saying science words while telling lies? Could you tell how truthful the statistics were by analyzing the numbers and how the study was done? I know I sure as hell didn't. Why would we think they could do this when they have never even been taught how to do these things. You also have to think that many people that make decisions in companies and governments don't take anything over a 100 level science class. So they are probably never taught these skills to the degree necessary to be able to make a valid distinction between science and psuedo-science. As was pointed out earlier, I think, it would be like teaching med students to use homeopathy and crystal healing methods because people believe they work instead of using what works. As you can imagine this could easily hurt those affected.

[iNow]

I suppose noone guessed what the author wants you to think?

That is pretty much irrelevant given that the author's points are largely accurate.

 

 

Why does it matter whether the president believes in either?

Because it informs us of the way they make decisions, and the types of information they consider when doing so. If they believe in and accept nonsense in one domain of existence, there's good reason to suspect they also believe in and accept nonsense in others.

 

It's difficult to respect and trust people who make up the rules as they go, who value faith over empiricism, and people who ignore science and evidence have no place ruling the populace or making decisions which impact all of us and our children.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This is really a politics issue, so I'm moving this to politics. Regardless, this isn't the place for discussing the science of evolution vs creation.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

This is really a politics issue, so I'm moving this to politics. Regardless, this isn't the place for discussing the science of evolution vs creation.

 

whoops, my fault - apologies.

[Phi for All]

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=657083&videofeed=36

Phi for all: not in my country in 2004.

From your link: "But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools." This shows that the poll taken might have posed some challenge to the faith of those polled, causing the answers to be defensive.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/teaching

And this is why I want both taught - IN SCIENCE class. Maybe Americans are stupid, but this is what we want.

Your first link shows that the statements in your second link are UNTRUE. The majority do NOT want creationism taught in public schools.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

And 1/3 of Americans believe that EVERY word of the Bible is to be taken literally.

I think many people take a question like this as, "Do you believe in the Bible?" and this skews the results. After all, how can every word of the Bible be literally true when there are four completely different accounts of what was written on the cross at the crucifixion?

 

There actually is some evidence outside of the bible supporting creationism.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

That site is laughable. Quotes from Darwin taken as law (like there hasn't been any progress in evolutionary theory in the last 130 years), made up terms like "special theory of evolution" that no one else but creationists use. This is not "evidence", it's propaganda.

 

And I'll give an example of a gap in evolution (or something which seems strange to me).

Termites cannot digest cellulose. Cellulose is in wood, which the termites eat. A organism in the termite's gut digests it for him. How can this be easily explained by evolution?

How about, when the first termite (of the original variety that couldn't digest cellulose and therefore didn't eat wood) that became susceptible to this organism was also able to digest cellulose successfully, he started eating wood and had more food choices and was able to pass along his genes to future generations, who became more and more successful in that ecological niche? Just a guess but that's the way evolution works.

 

And I'll give an example of a gap in creationism: Creationists mostly point to Paul and Galatians 3:16 (NIV) where he writes, "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ." They claim that this is why the Bible should be taken literally. Seed means just one seed, not seeds like many. Yet, Genesis 1:29 (NIV) says, "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.'" And that's from the mouth of God Himself! So "seed" can mean multiple seeds, the same way we use it today when farmers say, "I just bought some seed". The same way the early Hebrews used the word "yom" to mean 1) day, like during the day when the sun is up, 2) day, like a whole 24-hour day, and also 3) day, an unspecified amount of time, like "back in Abraham's day...."

 

So why did Paul say seed means one seed even though God Himself mentions that fruit has seed, and why do creationists insist that day means only a 24-hour day (despite the facts that yom has three different meanings and that God didn't even separate day from night until the fourth day of creation)?

 

This is just part of why creationism isn't science and should NOT be taught as such in state-funded US public schools. Politicians who think it should are either giving lip-service to a voter block or perhaps went to a parochial school (non-Catholic, since the Catholics support evolution).

[Brainteaserfan]

Your welcome? I'm really unsure of what you are thanking me for.

 

Anywho, All you did was ask if I had seen a type evolution as if that were the deciding factor of truth. I assumed you meant direct observation and not indirect so I asked a the same question about something virtually everyone accepts but has never seen. The difference is we have seen evolution and there are hundreds of papers on this.

 

 

 

 

Quite simply, no. I disagree with that entire statement. Children have difficulty making decisions when they are truthfully informed, if you start teaching them things that have no evidence as if they are truth who are they to actually be able to tell the difference. When you were in secondary school did you know how to tell if someone was making a valid scientific argument or just saying science words while telling lies? Could you tell how truthful the statistics were by analyzing the numbers and how the study was done? I know I sure as hell didn't. Why would we think they could do this when they have never even been taught how to do these things. You also have to think that many people that make decisions in companies and governments don't take anything over a 100 level science class. So they are probably never taught these skills to the degree necessary to be able to make a valid distinction between science and psuedo-science. As was pointed out earlier, I think, it would be like teaching med students to use homeopathy and crystal healing methods because people believe they work instead of using what works. As you can imagine this could easily hurt those affected.

Ringer: I asked what was wrong and you gave me an example. Thank you.

I think that the seed "gap" is from translation. I will stop pointing out what I see to be gaps in evolution, please stop pointing out gaps in creation, because that is off the topic.

We will have to just agree to disagree then on whether it should be taught in the public schools. I fail to see how my second link falsifies my first one.

 

I believe that while events happened in the Bible as recorded, the days may have been long periods of time.

 

That is pretty much irrelevant given that the author's points are largely accurate.

 

 

 

Because it informs us of the way they make decisions, and the types of information they consider when doing so. If they believe in and accept nonsense in one domain of existence, there's good reason to suspect they also believe in and accept nonsense in others.

 

It's difficult to respect and trust people who make up the rules as they go, who value faith over empiricism, and people who ignore science and evidence have no place ruling the populace or making decisions which impact all of us and our children.

Yes, but if 1/3 Americans believe this, then that president has already gained many supporters. I think even less americans would support its being false.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Brainteaserfan