Yale poli-sci and econ prof Chris Blattman finds this really cool chart plotting the relationship between national wealth (as measured by gross domestic product per capita) and belief in evolution:
Only 40% of Americans deem true the statement that "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." People like Rick Perry sleep through science class, then reject a fundamental scientific theory for which there is more evidence than any one person can digest.
I wonder if there is any correlation between this finding and the apparent correlation between the per capita wealth of homeowners in Fort Pierre and Dakota Dunes and the belief that government caused the Missouri River floods this year. Or maybe I'm thinking or the correlation between the fact that Kevin Vaughan, Dakota Dunes manager, got to speak at Rep. Kristi Noem's Tea-Party show trial of the Army Corps of Engineers in Pierre Friday and the fact that, according to FEC records, Vaughan gave Noem $5000 on May 24, 2011. Can Kristi hold a hearing without giving a seat at the head table to big donors?
But there I go again, seeing design where there is none.
p.s.: Remember, Noem isn't even sure which branch of science studies evolution.
That figure presents pretty good news, actually. For only 40% of Americans to fall for the illogical, unscientific assertion that "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," despite decades of wall-to-wall dogmatic promotion of this fallacy by the education establishment, the "mainstream" media, the television and movie industry...well, that shows that 60% of Americans still show the ability to think for themselves instead of mindlessly falling for bad ideas.
Now if we could only get the remaining 40% to start thinking for themselves, we might be able to not only move beyond one of the worst-supported "scientific" theories in history, but also get rid of liberalism in one fell swoop.
Right. And Bob Ellis's theory is so logical and scientific. First, God spit on the ground, made mud, sculpted a dude, blew on him, and the dude came to life. Then God took a rib out of the dude and made this chick. And then this snake came over, and...
...plus, unlike Bob's "theory," the whole point of evolution is that it doesn't really make any difference if you believe in it or not, just as it doesn't matter whether you believe the earth is round or not.
I got the feeling the ire directed at the Army Corp is a bit misdirected. It first should be self-criticism for building next to a river only a few feet or inches about the water line and looking at the huge gates and tunnels on the mainstem dams and not wondering what happens if they are opened a few feet or all the way.
Secondly, we all should be irate at the county, city and local officials who allowed construction in those areas with apparently no sensible permitting process.
If any federal money comes in for these flooded areas, it should only be for moving houses out of the areas that flooded to higher ground areas.
The maximum amount of water dumped was something in the neighborhood of 150,000 cuft per second. The gates can be raised to dump something between 500,000 and 600,000 cuft/second which is in the area of the highest recorded floods on the river.
A neighbor is trying to find a real estate company ad for riverside estates that he received previous to the floods.
Unless I have told you personally, nobody reading this will know my view on the matter. While I do have a definite view, I don't claim to be an expert on the science, theology or philosophy of the issue. And, so far, nobody posting on this issue is sufficiently expert for me to give them much credence over my view, whether I agree or disagree with people who post on here.
But my comment: Too much is made of this issue outside of science and theology that studies these matters. Both sides try to make it a hammer to pound on those with whom they disagree which I find counter-productive. The atheist evolutionist isn't going to develop a meaningful discussion with their dismissive attitude toward the creationist. Nor is the creationist going to develop a meaningful environment for evangelization with their dismissive attitude toward the evolutionist.
P.S. Bill I'd agree with your last statement if you wouldn't compare those who haven't accepted evolution as "flat earthers."
Evolution is a scientific theory. Despite a great deal of circumstantial evidence (which doesn't mean it is necessarily suspect or wrong), there is no conclusive proof by scientific standards.
Creationism is a theological legend for which the historical evidence comes from oral transmission long before it was written down.
Circumstantial evidence and oral transmission neither have sufficient superiority from a historical/scientific point for ANYONE to make conclusive statements from a scientific or historical point of view.
Yes, an atheist can say "I reject Creationism as I reject a God" but that is based on a subjective criteria they can't prove.
Yes, a religious person can say "I reject Evoluvtion as I accept the Biblical account" but that is based on their personal perception of God which obviously isn't persuasive to an athiest.
And, yes, a religious person and agnostic can say "(If there is a God for the agnostic), I don't know whether God used evolution as a process to prepare for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the Genesis account is at least partially allegory. (Maybe for the agnostic), I'll find out when I die but I'm not going to sweat it until there is more evidence one way or another."
Troy, it's not a comparison. Either evolution is correct or it's not. It doesn't make any difference whether you "believe" it. Even scientists don't believe it. They just observe and report it. If the evidence changes, so does the tentative "belief." Virtually all of our scientific understanding has been completely revised at least three times in my lifetime as a student. You might say our understanding is... wait for it... evolving.
The flat earth thing was just for example. I might just as well have noted th difference between Einstein's and Newton's physics. There are still people who don't "believe" in Einstein's view of the cosmos and prefer to stick with Newton's Laws. That's fine, good for them. But in real life, it we didn't throw a little Einstein in there, the GPS systems in their cars would'n worth worth a damn.
So my point stands. The universe is what it is, and works like it works, believe it or not. Like God, it's not subject to your (or my) opinion.
I agree with everything you are saying. My minor (very minor) is to compare (or appearance to compare) those who don't accept evolution to flat earthers implies your other points are almost said in jest. :)
p.s. Troy. You need to drop that "theory" rhetoric. Scientists mean a completely different thing when they use that word than you do. For you to use that ambiguity as an argument means you are either being ignorant or dishonest. I don't think you are either.
Remember, Music Harmony is a theory too. Virtually all the most beautiful music you have ever heard is based on it. In fact, I'll challenge to to point out a great piece of music that is not same with Color theory, etc, etc, etc.
And let's not even get started with Economic theory.
I am at once both jesting and being deadly serious, Mr. Jones. It depends entirely on who I am addressing, you, or Mr. Ellis. Because he seems to have forgotten how to laugh.
The other day Kevin Woster baited me with the question: Steve, how old is the earth? My response: Kevin, I have no idea. He was perhaps disappointed but it was all friendly and in good fun. If time would have permitted I would have added something like this... evolution is ridiculous. It is stunning to me that it continues to be taken seriously. The other day I saw a documentary-type program on a woodpecker with a four inch barbed tongue that recoiled over the top of his head in the inside and back down into his neck. After the beak drills the hole this long tongue is inserted and at the moment it makes contact with the bug the tongue secrets glue to pull the insect out. Amazingly the mouth then secrets a solvent to quickly dissolve the glue so the bug would get swallowed not the tongue. The chances that evolved are zero. There is nothing more faith-based than evolution theory. God must laugh out loud that 40% of the population finds evolution more believable than the evidence of intelligent design. Yet it is not only an outrageous theory, it has proven to be a dangerous and deadly ideology. To think our previous children are just the next random mutation in an unguided evolutionary process results in the devaluing of human life. Wish I had more time to expound but I'll drop this in too... liberals have a heart for the underdog, the weak and powerless (except the unborn), yet curiously they are the primary champions of these compassionless notions that only the fit deserve survival. This whole kill-people-to-save-the-planet movement is dark dark dark. Eugenics and evolution theory have not made this world a better place for less fortunate human beings.
secretes
Omg: http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2010/03/eve-swam-to-sapience.html
Steve Hickey, the odds that the woodpecker evolved and specialized to have the capability you describe are precisely 1:1. It is just such specialization that inspired Darwin to posit evolution theory in the first place. Life adapts to its environment, the best adaptors are the ultimate survivors. When the environment changes, so do the forms life takes. The evidence for it is all around us, and a good example is the woodpecker you mention. Keep in mind, all life is the same life. Say it over and over and over until it sinks in.
I'm always amazed to learn how little most pro-life people actually know about the subject.
Perhaps if I say it succinctly. Mr. Hickey seems to think he has a life. He does not. Life has a Mr. Hickey. We are each a unique expression of life on Earth. To date, no one knows when or how that life began. And no legitimate scientist will claim to.
Evolution is survival of the fittest. Caring about others is proof that the Bible is correct when it says that God has written his law on our hearts. But if evolution is survival of the fittest then we would be quite similar to what is the most survivable. So how do we all have different finger prints. No evolution would make us all different. Only a God that wants to recognize each individual would make humans all with different finger prints, cows with all different nose prints and whales with different markings on the bottom of their tails. If DNA in our genes is always a mix we could not all be different but would over time become more and more alike.
The chief flaw in Mr. Hickeys argument on intelligent design is that if it takes a higher form of being to design the life forms we observe here on earth, then who designed that magnificent higher being? And who designed that seemingly omnipotent designer? It's an infinite regression. God may indeed be laughing, but probably not for the reasons Hickey mentions.
Roger. Every snowflake is different from every other snowflake. If you spill a bottle of ink, every drop will be different from every other drop. Are you saying that's because God wants each one to be different? Or could it perhaps have something to do with nature and the laws of physics. Every bald of grass is different from every other one. The mystery is that there is grass at all, not that each blade is unique.
"When the environment changes, so do the forms life takes." Everyone should watch the documentary How the Earth Was Made. So cool! Geologists have learned an incredible amount to help explain how life has adapted. So distinctively I remember our 6th grade Sunday school teacher saying religion did not have to be at odds with evolution. So glad she then encouraged us to try and think it through rather than force a literal interpretation. Things are just not black and white and our perspective is constantly changing.
If you draw a straight line with the left-hand end passing through "Romania" and the right-hand end passing through "Norway," you will, in my opinion, get a better overall assessment of the correlation in the graph.
We should not be surprised at this result. More educated populations would, it seems to me, tend to accept scientific theory over religious dogma; more educated populations would also tend to be better off economically.
As for who is right and who is wrong, this data tells us absolutely nothing. Anyhow, isn't it true that liberals in general tend to reject notions of absolute truth? Does this data in fact tell us a whole lot about nothing, or does it tell us almost nothing about a whole lot?
Stan-
Personally I believe that this is an incredibly important issue and this type of poll is a good barometer for how a population thinks. On one hand you have a specific methodology for rigorously investigating the world and on the other you have a book of stories. This poll doesn't try to address the question of which approach is correct. It does however measure a population's willingness to believe in something on faith. That piece of information is incredibly valuable.
Roger-
Remember that evolution doesn't care about a single individual. It cares about a population. If a population's genetic diversity decreases it becomes less survivable. Diversity is an advantage. It prevents a plague from wiping out an entire species in one fell swoop for example.
Also, altruism is advantageous for a population. People helping people helps everyone in the population be more survivable.
Troy-
You don't understand the scientific method and are using improper language.
I am not only a firm believer in Darwinian evolution. I use the theory in my research and teaching. However, I would never label someone "dumb" simply because they do not accept that theory. A lot of very intelligent people (Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come to mind) argue that a Biblical belief about creation and Darwin's theory are mutually exclusive. I disagree, but it is not a dumb idea. If a believer accepts that claim, what choice does he or she have but to reject evolution?
What your argument amounts to, Cory, is that anyone who believes in Biblical creation is dumb. If that is what you want to say, perhaps you should say it. All believing Christians and Jews and Muslims are dumb. Might as well clear the air.
I know a lot of people in the Intelligent Design movement. I think they are misguided, but they aren't dumb.
Incidentally, I looked at the Noem link you provide and I see no evidence for your claim. You have gone a bit off the rails lately, my friend.
[CAH: Ken, as is always the case with Rep. Noem, it is difficult to make sense of what she actually believes from the vague words she uses. She prefers this vagueness so that when we try to hold her accountable for the implications of her statements, she can dodge and deny without ever really establishing what she believes. Recall her comments on Paul Ryan's budget proposals during last year's campaign. She called the Ryan budget "a great place to start." It seemed logical to say that she thought we should start with privatizing Medicare and Social Security, since that's what Ryan's proposals called for in 2010. But when pressed on that specific issue, Noem said she never said that. Technically, she didn't, even though her words sent a pretty strong signal to her preferred voters that she meant exactly that.
Her statement on the age of the earth played exactly the same game. She sent the fundie signals, declaring her fealty to a Scriptural interpretation of our origins. But she wouldn't stake that claim explicitly, so that when we might attempt to hold her accountable for her dangerously unscientific beliefs, she could say, "I never said that!" She deflects criticism not by explaining or defending her beliefs, but by sending vague yet implicit signals and then blaming her critics for their interpretations of her signals.
As for my rails status, I will maintain that choosing Intelligent Design or some other such fairy tale over pretty good science is both dumb and dangerous.]
I have to say the scatter plot doesn't have very strong relation to the line. I don't think there is a correlation at all, just someone that wants to make a point. The whole thing is just ridiculous anyway. If we had an educational system that promoted choices like vouchers we could all be happy.
Ken and Troy make good points, Cory. If we start with the assumption that Rick Perry is just plain stupid and unteachable, we downgrade the whole conversation to a point where we are fools for trying to have it. LOL.
Tony, I understand it quite well. The Scientific Method essentially only shows a hypothesis is possible as it can only prove a hypothesis false. It can not prove something true.
But thanks for bringing it up as it supports my point. Evolutionists say they accept it until proven false. Creatioists say they reject it until proven true.
But some get to claim they are smarter than the others? Funny.
Troy's right as far as he goes. Scientific "proof" is largely a set of empirical data that supports a (usually mathematical) hypothesis. If there is no data that disputes the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. When a group of these observations are generalized and no exceptions have been found, it becomes a law.
Creationists, as far as I can tell, don't follow any such methodology. They accept things as law without any proof whatsoever. Following Troy's lead, it's tantamount to saying "since you can't really prove anything, you can believe anything you please." Which is okay, I guess, except that most creationists I know would add "as long as it's in the Bible."
The irony here is when you find examples like Rev. Hickey's whereby he takes a perfectly good example of evolution in action (woodpecker's wild tongue - see above) and offers it as "proof" of intelligent design. We see this all the time in ID... pseudo scientific examples being offered as "proof" that what's in the Bible is absolute truth.
Earlier this year, NPR reported that the US is 22nd in literacy well behind Mexico; Cuba is at number 6.
How many millions of years did it take for the woodpeckers mindless long tongue to figure out a way to make and secrete glue to get a bug out of a hole? I'd think the species would die off of starvation long before it ever self-morphed and self improved . I marvel at how anything is possible to the believers of evolution theory, except God. You'll tolerate galaxy-size leaps in possibilities to resist that which is self-evident... That none this is by accident as accidents rarely improve anything, and they aren't repeatable. The wisdom of this age is indeed foolishness to God. Evolution theory is foolishness.
Troy, Ken, Cory... I'll argue that the Creationists/ID people are not stupid. They are rather hypnotized and scared to death. If you start with the premise, drummed into you before you were able to think (age 3-10) that you must believe or suffer the pains of hell and damnation. And later had to endure the frowns, browbeating and rejection when your reason kicked in and you started asking questions, what would a smart person do?
Let's see... science tells me there are no absolute answers. My religion tells me there is only one answer and if I don't believe it, nobody's going to want to have anything to do with me, and when I die I'll go to hell.
Pretty easy call. Even Galileo told the church he was just kidding.
I think that's why folks who profess their faith no matter what object to being called stupid. They're not. They're making smart survival choices, actually. Evolution in action, ironic as it may seem. (aka: if you want to sell hats, go where the heads are.)
Er...Bill, you are wrong.
Theories do not become laws.
Laws (like the Law of Gravity) are simply descriptions of observed phenomena. Theories explain the WHY of the laws. That's it. the Law of Gravity says that to objects will be attracted to each other with a relationship proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. Einstein's theory of Relativity explains that this happens because the masses warp space-time.
If you talk to a scientist, they will tell you that a "Scientific Theory" would actually be held to a higher standard than a law, because a law just explains this is what happens. A theory explains the why something happened.
Steve-
I think the problem that most people have with believing in god is that it requires faith explicitly. That is one of the tenants of the religion. Faith by definition is the belief in something without proof.
If one accepts that premise, there are an infinite number of things that one must believe in to be logically consistent. All systems of religious belief offer ways of explaining the world through faith. One cannot discriminate between the religious systems or else one is being arbitrary. If one is arbitrary, their choice of belief is meaningless.
Steve, no one that I know claims any of it is by accident. Only that it follows the laws of physics. It's called scientific determinism. Far from being accidental, the laws of physics seem to point to the inevitable. Anything not prohibited by the laws of physics can, and does happen. It's written on the wind, brother. You jump off a cliff, you fall down, not up, brother. That's not an accident.
Anthony, yes, the laws are a function of grouping theories together to predict phenomenon. They are not a higher order of thought, only a generalization. You are correct. I thought that was my point, but you made it more clear. Thank you.
Bill,
Steve's example is applying Occam's Razor to question evolution without an Intelligent Designer. And then asks the rhetorical question, "Why do some have so much faith in chance yet so unwilling to have Faith?"
Here is why this entire discussion will never go anywhere:
Atheist Evolutionists try to promote their argument with a premise there is no God while believers personal experience and knowledge (believers have more evidence Jesus walked on this earth while Evolutionists have no missing link nor any explanation rather than chance which isn't exactly "scientific").
Creationists try to promote their argument with the premise there is a God to people who have no personal knowledge or experience they recognize as from God.
Personally, I wonder three things:
1) Why do atheist feel a need to convince believers there is no God? And, why do they insist on relying on the Theory of Evolution when they have to stake out two positions that will not convince a believer (chance and the knowledge/experience of the believer is of no consequence). To be successful, they'd almost have to depend on the intercession of St. Jude (patron saint of lost causes). LOL
2) Why do Creationists try to fight what should be their ultimate goal (cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the conversion of souls) on grounds which their argument doesn't seem to be how Christ reached people.
3) Why can't the two sides agree to disagree (one saying "I have faith in accident" while the other saying "I have faith in a Creator God) and allow a full and robust debate of these matters by themselves (the scientifice evidence and holes about Evolution without also claiming there is or not a God and the message of the Gospel which includes Jesus Christ came, died and rose for the Salvation of the World without arguing about how He executed Creation)?
Two other side comments:
Tony Amert: I'm not grasping how this issue illuminates much on "how people think." We already know most people in the US believe in a Creator God and a significant portion does not. No news here.
Bill Fleming: When you posit your "infinite regresssion (or progression) argument you neglect one important component: By definition, God is eternal and fully sufficient such He needs no greater designer. If He did, by definition, he would cease to be God.
Bill, that last comment was extremely condescending. If it was an attempt to be complimentary, it failed miserably.
Tony, faith is not belief in something without proof. I have substantial proof God lives, loves me, hears me, and talks to me. But, my belief in God is not faith. Faith is placing a steadfast trust in God.
If there is no God, granted, I have placed my Trust in nothing. But, if there is a God, I have placed my Trust in Everything. And not matter how much you may question my sanity or intelligence, He has given me more reason to place my trust in Him vs. you (no insult intended as it applies to my mother as well). And, the measure of my belief (willingness to stand for what I understand) is I am prepared to go to my grave with Trust in Him.
Troy, the argument that an advanced being requires an even more advanced designer is not my argument. It is Steve's. I don't make any such claim. I'm just demonstrating that Steve (and by extension others who make such arguments) are hoisting themselves on their own petards.
To me, the true argument centers on what one's definition of God is, and whether or not a supernatural being is necessary to explain the phenomena in the physical universe. I do not deny numinous, ecstatic, or transcendent experience. I only question our interpretations of them. To me, the ineffable remains just that. Ineffable.
Finally, like you, I don't see why there has to be opposition between religion and science. There is plenty of unexplainable mystery in both fields.
Troy, the comment you call "condescending" wasn't intended to be. It was autobiographical.
"Music Harmony is a theory too"
We confirm Music Harmony, but have not confirmed macro-evolution scientifically.
Troy-
I have no idea what "I have substantial proof God lives, loves me, hears me, and talks to me." means. Naturally, I assume none of this can be repeated on command and is entirely subjective in nature.
Your second statement "Faith is placing a steadfast trust in God." is just as meaningless. God is a theoretical supernatural entity. If you believe this to be true, you must also believe that placing your trust in Thor is equally valid.
Now, let me be clear about my position. I don't care if you believe in god or not so long as it doesn't impact how we view reality. Religion give existence a higher meaning for you and billions of other people. However, when religious views impact how we view reality we have a problem. This is documented history. As an example, religious doctrine previously said the earth was the center of everything. There was no proof of this assertion but it was accepted because the populous was conditioned to value a religious view of reality rather than an objective view.
This is exactly what this poll is measuring. Whether or not a population will reject an objective in favor of a religious.
"Under God, the rich white people rule." South Dakota state motto.
Steve-
So, just to be clear, you don't actually disagree with micro-evolution just macro-evolution. You would agree that the emergence of drug resistant bacteria would be proof of micro-evolution. Your problem with a generalized theory is that you just can't believe that a species of fish could turn into a snake for example.
How "macro" do you want to go, Sibby? There is substantial evidence that the universe as we know it is expanding, is approx. 15 billion years old, and is in a constant state of flux on the sub-atomic, atomic, and molecular levels. Do you dispute any of that?
13.75 billion... sorry. Gotta remember I'm talking to accountants here.
I see no reason why a person can't believe in both evolution and creationism at the same time. In fact, I do. I believe that God created the universe. I also believe that based on scientific findings a lot of that occurred thru evolution. The only truth here is that no one knows for sure which or if both occurred, how they occurred, or when they occurred. All the arguments are conjecture and enjoyable debate. But I see nothing to argue against my point - that life is, much of it thru evolution guided by God, and we are able to enjoy that life regardless of how we came to be.
Linda,
God did not create evolution because evolution is false. Bill can't produce scientific proof that an ape can become a man...let alone a whale becoming a man.
As always this argument ends the same: The atheist (in this case Tony) says "I don’t care if you believe in god or not so long as it doesn’t impact how we view reality" where he means I accept his reality. And the believer (in this case me) says "I don't reject your reality." Death will sort it out for both of us.
Sibby, you're using scientific classifications to make non-scientific arguments. Are you trying to have it both ways, brother? I'm saying life is life, and it expresses itself in different forms depending on environmental conditions. You're the one trying to pigeonhole it. Micro, macro, this species, that species. That's all science stuff. I was under the impression you didn't buy any of that. Am I right?
p.s. Sibby, again, just so you know, current science doesn't say "apes became man." Not at all. On the contrary, you could just as easily say that the great apes of today are descendants of proto-human creatures. In other words apes descended from us. It's all in how you choose to sort out the fossil record. Check it out, cousin.
http://www.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/primates/index.html
But what's shockingly is more people believe "God Created Man in Present Form" (45%) than people like Linda who believe "Man Developed with God Guiding" (38%). I remember hearing years ago that babies born in LA had higher lung capacity (in response to air quality) which surprised scientists as it wasn't believed adaption could take place so quickly. Things change, life adapts, call it whatever, but that's powerful. 2004 Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx
Bill, so its now de-evolution? Like we went from "global warming" to "climate change", so we can now explain temperature drops.
I just don't get why people argue this point, unless they like arguing. It makes no difference in the scheme of things. People believe God created all exactly as stated in the Bible, or people believe that God created all thru a process of evolution but still guided it, or people believe that God had no hand in it and life simply evolved. Basically it boils down to this. And what different impact do any of these beliefs have on the life we are living today? Exactly none. When we die, we will be all-knowing and will see who has been right, or wrong, or whatever. I agree with debating issues that have an impact on how we live our lives, what policies the gov't should follow, etc etc. But regardless of the issue of creationism vs evolution, the only sure thing is that we are here alive right now. The rest is just for debate.
Only certain humans think they are the highest life form, Sibby.
Linda, it makes a lot of difference. Wars have been — and are still — being fought over religious differences. People consider themselves superior over others because of their belief systems. A man will strap a bomb to himself and destroy himself and others because of his beliefs. A man will walk into a clinic and blow another mans brains out because of his beliefs. The list of atrocities committed in the name of God is endless. Dangerous beliefs inspire dangerous behaviors. It makes a lot of difference, Linda.
p.s. if we get to a point where it really doesn't make any difference, Linda, I promise I'll stop talking about it.
Billl, this is the biggest red herring thrown against religion. Almost all wars (while sometimes in the name of religion) are motivated over matters other than religion. Since the rise of Christianity, the world has seen more peace than ever in history except when the war has been initiated by godless people. The 20th centuries greatest killings were done by Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Pol Pot, and all those who opposed God in Africa.
For you to infer Christianity is a dangerous belief in the context of this conversation is baseless.
That would be since the rise of liberal Democracy, Troy.
The whole Middle East conflict centers around the religious differences between the three Abrahamic religions: Christian, Muslim and Jewish.
Internally, each nation involved struggles daily with internal conflicts: Shia v.s. Sunni, Fundamentalist extremists vs secular moderates, Protestant vs Catholic (Ireland) etc, etc, etc.
Practically ALL of the worlds conflicts are over religious differences.
To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.
...of course, if you want to argue that underneath those seemingly unresolvable ideological conflicts, what's really going on is class warfare, you might have a point. But I'll be patient Troy, and wait for you to make it.
Bill: The conflicts in the world either in history or at the present time are not over religious differences. If it is about religion at all it is over religious identity, not theology, but I would say the largest atrocities in history are at least as frequently committed in the name of progress with a thick vein of atheism in many of its leaders. The rise of modern democracy owes a great deal to Christianity, as does science. The rise of liberal democracy simply would never happened.
I was speaking of creationism vs evolution, not religions of the world. There is a difference. I still maintain that whether all life was created at once or thru evolution makes no difference in the fact that you and I are alive right now, breathing, taking advantage of this wondrous creation, regardless of how it was created.
Amen to that then, Linda. I agree.
Yeah, I agree with Linda too, but how much of that 40% agrees with Linda?
Roger, don't be silly. Democracies and Republics arose in Ancient Greece and Rome and were the model of world politics for 600 years. The rise of the Holy Roman Empire completely destroyed them. The systems were revitalized in PROTEST of Church/State tyranny. Saying that the Church is responsible for Democracy is like saying that polio is the cause of polio vaccine.
That 40% is Michele Bachmann, a true believer. Beware Rick Perry who is smart enough to use that 40%. Born Again George used em too as did Ronny who let Nancy set his schedule by an astrologer.
Guys, aren't we talking about 60% here? If I'm reading Cory's chart right, 40% is the number of Americans that DO believe that humans developed from earlier species of animals. Only 40%! Can you believe it?
That means that 60% either don't believe it, don't know what they believe, or don't want to talk about it.
I will be silly if I want, but it doesn't change the fact that ancient Greece and Rome were never destroyed by religion, they were destroyed by the Huns, Goths, Vandals, and Visigoths after falling into decadence and weakened by logistics among other factors.
Rome never even remotely achieved a true constitutional republic anyway, never being based on natural rights. They were direct democracies supported by large-scale slavery and nobody should be foolish enough to say the Roman Senate was for, by, or of the people. Aristotle considered slavery to be an important aspect of civilization as it gave great men the leisure to think their great thoughts and rule. These great thinkers never found fault in common practices of infanticide and making murder a sport. The very idea that a lowly laborer (or a carpenter in Nazareth) should have as much worth as a wealthy lord is utterly alien to classic Greek beliefs.
Power corrupts and wedding power and a church will lead to corruption. That doesn't dismiss the religion's worth or undo the influence the basic beliefs of that religion has had on history. The enlightenment was not a protest of religion, just tyranny. What those same people tried to replace that tyranny without faith, they ended up with the French Guillotine rather than a free nation.
Roger, don't forget the point we're arguing.
You said Christianity gave rise to Democracy and I said baloney.
Democracy and rationality arose as an alternative to the Greeks belief system of various deity being the cause of everything and humanity being at the mercy of the divine whims.
Empirical science, logic and philosophy arose as alternatives to those superstitious belief systems, just as it did again during the Enlightenment.
You have the story exactly backward, my friend.
Oh, you're right Bill, I read that backwards. I would have thought 85% of Americans believed in Evolution. Where have I been?
Bill, lets not go off on another tangent for without the revolutionary Christian precept each person has inherent dignity, democracy for all never would have occurred, grew out from among where the people were most devout, etc.
I think Troy has this one right. Western civilization has its roots in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem.
It's tough to get from "justice is treating equals equally and unequals unequally" to "all are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights" without some formulation like "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
I realize people have used the Bible to justify nearly every evil under the sun; those abuses don't change the fact that the mental gymnastics necessary to make the paradigm shift are difficult if not impossible without a New Testament formulation of freedom and equality.
You'll have to crowbar religion into it LK and Troy. The rights of the individual had very little to do with the Church. In fact, the Church was as much a part of the problem as the solution. Why are you guys so intent on trying to rewrite history?
The plain fact is that most primitive band societies are democratic and their members considered equals. The idea far predates any organized religion. That's why the founders considered it a "natural law" as opposed to one the Church/State recognized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society
Bill,
I hate to throw out a quotation and run, but I won't be able to look at Madville the rest of the day.
I like this Adams quotation because it sort of supports my point above and it challenges the "let's let the free market increase the wealth gap because the market can do no wrong" crowd.
Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.--John Adams
LK, of course he thought that. John Adams was a Puritan. Think Cotton and Increase Mather. The Salem Witch Trails. Some of the most religiously oppressive control freaks ever to walk the planet.
"Only certain humans think they are the highest life form, Sibby."
Gnostics
"John Adams was a Puritan"
No he was a Universalist Freemason.
Steve, I'll be interested to see your evidence that John Adams was a Freemason. The Masons don't think he was.
http://www.askafreemason.org/timeline/index.htm
According to Denslow and Truman's 10,000 Fasmous Freemasons, John Adams was a member of St Johns Lodge No 1 Portsmouth, NH. Other souces say he was friendly, but never joined.
John Quincy Adams was anti-Mason.
Bill: as opposed to the most anti-religious control freaks ever? How many women did the trials destroy? Around 19 were sentenced to death. It is a significant statement that people will reach to that historical episode to try to criticize religion in general when there are ample examples of far worse events done that were explicitly anti-religious Or do you think the trials during the reign of terror that killed as many as 40,000 were more fair and just than those of the Puritans?
It doesn't matter to me so much if evolution is absolutely true and creationism an unsupported fiction. It matters far more that people who think they are smarter than religiously-minded people feel it is ok to ridicule their beliefs and dictate how their children are taught.
Roger, that's what Thomas Jefferson thought:
""Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
Interesting comments, all! I apologize for disrupting the flow (still no Internet at home). A couple thoughts:
Troy, on your wonderings, I point out that this atheist feels no need and this post does intend to convince believers that there is no God. I'll stick with the scientifically defensible... and evolution has a lot of empirical data to defend it. But (along the same lines as Tony's tolerance), other people's religious beliefs don't bend me out of shape as long as those beliefs don't unduly complicate our efforts to sustain community. Remember: my wife believes, I don't. We neither one spend any time trying to convince the other of the existence/absence of God. But if one of us suffers some conversion or perversion of belief that makes that one a bad parent (if my atheism turned into nihilism that made me neglect my child, or if Erin's Christianity turned into some fundamentalism that led her to preach male headship to our daughter), we'd have words.
Another reason I love the comment section: I find Linda McIntyre and Bill Fleming sitting at the same table on peaceful coexistence of science and religion. Beautiful. And yes, if God can work with physics and chemistry, why not with evolutionary biology? (However, I will note that while Linda thinks we will be all-knowing after death, I'm worried we will be nothing-knowing.)
On that woodpecker: Occam's razor is a useful rhetorical device; however, it is not a law. Explanations for natural phenomena, unlike electricity, do not necessarily follow the path of least resistance. The fact that Pastor Hickey can explain the woodpecker's remarkable tongue in three words while I must resort to a paragraph or two does not automatically grant truth to the pastor's argument.
And Steve, be careful: while some people think biological evoltion means progress toward "higher", more complex beings, the theory and I make no such claim. As Bill notes, evolution allows the posibility that apes could come from humans (or proto-humans... and like Bill and flesh-eating bacteria, I laugh at the assumption that humans are the superior life form). That woodpecker's tongue is a crazy adaptation; it works, but if a simpler adaptation came along that helped woodpeckers survive better, it would catch on as those simple-tongued woodpeckers would get more chances to reproduce. Ditto intelligence: our brains are capable of remarkable tricks to keep up alive. But if Neanderthals had developed somewhat faster legs or stronger arms, perhaps they would have escaped our thoughtful, scheming ancestors, whacked our great100-grandparents with bigger clubs, and we'd all be speaking grunt today. Evolution has no arrow; it does not guarantee "progress"
Excellent stuff, Cory. I knew you were in transition, so I was just trying to carry your water a little while you got situated. Hope you don't mind. Good to be reading your words again, brother. Welcome to the promised land.
Thanks, Bill! I don't mind at all. Quite the contrary: I appreciate the communal effort. Fire at will (and at Steve, and Roger... ;-))!
Just a note on your and my and Linda's ruminations, Cory. When we get down to the quantum level and try to grasp what those folks are telling us about the fundamental nature of our reality, it gets very, very interesting. For example, we see the entire universe being created and destroyed every split second, we see the whole concept of time collapsing into relativity in an infinite ocean of infinities, and we see everything and nothing being the exact same thing. Can we possibly grasp this? No. But at least for now, that's what I understand the equations are saying. (Of course, I am abysmal at math.)
Given all that, I have no argument with Linda whatsoever. The only thing that really matters is right here, right now.
Cory: branding contrary ideas as dumb and dangerous does you no credit. Intelligent design is certainly not dumb. A lot of people dedicated to that cause know the science and the philosophical questions better, I am guessing, than you do. The "irreducible complexity" argument is philosophically and scientifically sophisticated. I think it fails and in doing so strengthens evolutionary theory. That is how science is supposed to work. Recently the left seems to determined to transform scientific theories into dogmas and brand anyone who challenges them as apostates. That is dumb and dangerous.
As for the Noem quote, it provides no grounds for your statement that she doesn't know which science studies evolution. Noem said this: "I have studied and will continue to study what the Scriptures say on our beginnings as well as what information science can help bring to light on the subject but I don’t know that we’ll get the definitive answers we seek.†Since many sciences such as astronomy and geology can shed light on our beginnings, the only error here is yours.
It does no good to show that she made vague statements elsewhere. Your statement was dishonest.