HydrogenBond Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 The point I previously made pointed out that evolution is actually the history of life, with genetics, selective advantage and mutation the explanation used to create a continuous story. It is a good correlation of life history based on the scientific data collected. But the data is limited., If we tried to write the history of the rise and fall of the Roman empire from scratch, and one was allowed to throw away 50-99% of the data, and then do a scientific study on the rest, a theory would emerge. It may or may not be close to what has been have decided, given all the data. There is probally more data about WWII, then is being used to explain billions of years of evolution. WWII is still open to intepretation, with respect to some of the minor points, yet evolution is assume closed and settled. Most people sense the inflated nature of the evolutonary claim given the amount of data used to explain billions of years. This does not mean such people have except creationism, but it probably means they are leaving options open for the time being Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Well, if that satistic is true, then 40% of Americans DO understand or realize the validity of Evolution... So please do not lump all Americans as blinded religious zealots, when at least 40%, if not Half (1/2) recognize Evolution as something to be expounded upon... To be honest, I would find any amount less than 80% of people 'believing' evolution pretty disgracful. And you come to us with 40%!!! It's disgraceful no matter how you spin it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 To be honest, I would find any amount less than 80% of people 'believing' evolution pretty disgracful. And you come to us with 40%!!! It's disgraceful no matter how you spin it. We bought them books, sent them to school, and they still believe in religious nonsense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Do the Math then . :) How do you discount 120 Million people??Thats the population of several "enlightened" countries...Problem being, in a small country, let's say New Zealand, with, say, 4 million people, if they have 3.5 million "enlightened" citizens, numberwise, that's not a lot. But percentagewise, they can steer their government in the right direction, because they'd be an overwhelming majority. America's 120 million "enlightened" citizens can't do much for national policy, because of percentages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Well, by the same token, let's say a million men have only one testicle. A million people are a lot of people! You wouldn't want all of them over at your house for a barbecue! But they are less than 0.5% of the US population, and therefore won't really be able to steer the goverment in any particular direction. Same with evolutionaries. They may be 120 million, or 40%, but they still are the minority. And that's a sad, sad thing to see in the most powerful country on Earth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mohit Pandey Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 In short, religion and science are veeeeerrrrrrrry different things. Religion is one' s personal belief.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 If politics doesn't reflect the average opinion, its because the average voter doesn't vote!Did you perchance mean the average citizen? No, I meant opinion... because every citizen has oneNo worries, but I think you missed my original point. A voter, by definition, votes. So, you made a statement I was looking to clarify, and figured you meant "the average citizen doesn't vote." Then, once we'd clarified, I'd ask you to back up your statement with some numbers. :confused: Speaking of numbers...I am still curious as to the study in the first post. I'd like to see more data about methods of polling, types of questions, and demographics of those polled. While I tend to hang around more scientifically oriented people, I would be quite disturbed if, through representative polling, the numbers were really that low. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 In short, religion and science are veeeeerrrrrrrry different things. Religion is one' s personal belief.:hihi: are you so sure? Religion is ones personal belief based on "facts" and "evidence" from a book (the bible) While science is someones personal belief based on facts and evidence from science books and research! so are they so different? In terms of science do you believe exactly what I do about what happens in a cell? of course not. Does everyone believe the same thing about their religion? of course not. everything is open to ones own interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 isnt there over 300million americans now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 isnt there over 300million americans now?No, there aren't.:) 295,507,000 as of July 1st 2006http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/pop.pdf For the official source of such statistical information, the Statistical Abstract (that's the title) is available in libraries and now online.http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ Religion is ones personal belief based on "facts" and "evidence" from a book (the bible) While science is someones personal belief based on facts and evidence from science books and research! so are they so different? In terms of science do you believe exactly what I do about what happens in a cell? of course not. Does everyone believe the same thing about their religion? of course not. everything is open to ones own interpretation.The difference is reproducibility L2, and it is one hell of a chasm. Always one more thing to learn.:hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 The difference is reproducibility L2, and it is one hell of a chasm. Always one more thing to learn.:hihi: :) :hihi: so true so true. reproducibility! yep you have once again out smarted me turtle! reproducibility never crossed my mind:doh: Turtle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 - What is the plain meaning of "deeply spiritual scientists"?I don’t think “deeply spiritual scientist” is, as Dov Henis seems to imply, an oxymoron, but that it describes a large community of people who are educated and productive scientists, but who fail to completely embrace materialism as either an epistemology or a morality. Newton fit the category, as did Einstein. Tipler and Penrose fit it now. Many, possibly the majority, or scientists of all degrees of fame did and do not fit the category. [/url] didn’t and Dawkins doesn’t. There are at least 2 ways a person can be both scientifically and/or mathematically rigorous, yet be “deeply spiritual”The “good myth” principle. While accepting that the objective claims of religion (eg: God created the universe; angels physically interact with human beings; one has an immortal soul that goes to heaven after one’s physical death) are false, one can accept that one’s mental health (and society as a whole) is improved if one nonetheless believe them to be true. Aristotle appears to have believed this.Spinoza’s God. The universe is God. People believing this are unlikely to subscribe to mainstream religions. Einstein and technologist/author Arthur Clarke appear to believe this.A person may also pretend to be deeply spiritual to curry favor with people who consider it a mark of respectability and virtue. It’s difficult to estimate how many scientists do this, as they may go to lengthy measures not be found out in their deception. By including this claim in the statement, the AAAS is attempting, I think, to dispel the common accusation that all scientist are atheists. Although it is true that many are not, a significantly greater fraction of scientists are atheist than is found in the general population, causing me to question the wisdom of including the claim.- In what way are "religious leaders" different from plain non-leaders religious persons?In the same way that leaders in any walk of life are different from non-leaders. Large numbers of people look to them for guidance, follow their lead, and consider them among the best practitioners of their religion. Their statements may be considered authoritative, or even, in some cases, infallible.- How, in plain language, do religious persons accept evolution?Religious people, even some self-described “fundamentalists”, can believe evolution to be true by accepting many histories. A common one is: God created the heavens, Earth, and biological nature as described in religious scripture, then allowed the them to change in accordance with natural law. Such people find no conflict between scientific discoveries and scripture, because whatever science discovers is assumed to have been created by God, but not included in scripture, which, being of limited length and subject to the intellectual limitations of its human authors, could not contain everything about creation. This is widely taken to be the “official” position of the Roman Catholic Church.- What makes Faith non-discussable scientifically?- What makes anything non-discussable scientifically?- Why can't we and should'nt we discuss EVERYTHING scientifically, ESPECIALLY religion?I believe everything can be discussed scientifically. However, science can be dissatisfying when discussing some subjects.When experimental confirmation/falsification of scientific hypotheses can practically be had, science can yield an uncomfortable array of mutually exclusive theories that can only be distinguished using whimsical criteria. Because one can’t productively study every divergent theory, such areas of study can consume ones lifetime with little assurance that one is making a lasting contribution to science.When the subject is one in which the people commissioning you to study it desperately want certain claims proven true or false, you may be put in the uncomfortable position of choosing between telling your sponsors what they desperately don’t want to hear, or corrupting your approach to have it support the result they desire. Most professional statisticians I’ve known have been in this position.While I don’t have Dov’s appreciation for the successes and failings of the AAAS, I can sympathize with them, given the difficulty of advancing science in a population in which the majority of people desperately don’t want to believe it’s most well supported conclusions, such as: humans are not qualitatively unlike other animals; the earth is not the center of the universe; angels do not watch over us and protect us from harm; when we die, we don’t continue living elsewhere. Compared to what the most popular religions have to say on these subjects, science offers conclusions that are hard to sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 statistically: This is a culture in which 83% of the population believes the Bible is the "actual" or the inspired word of God, half believe in the devil, 39% believe in the Biblical prediction of Armageddon, a mere 9% accept Darwinian evolution while 44% believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." scary, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 scary, huh?Truly, deeply so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 statistically … a mere 9% accept Darwinian evolution while 44% believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." scary, huh?This 2004/11 and 2005/10 CBS news phone poll of about 800 US adults disagrees with Tarantism’s numbers, giving 15% believing in pure evolution, 30% in God-guided evolution, and 51% in pure creationism, with a +/- 4% margin of error. Though still scary, these results are not quite as bleak as Tarantism’s 9% figure. More encouraging, the same survey shows 67% believe it’s “possible to believe in both God and evolution”. Even among people who report that they believe “God created humans”, 48% believe it’s possible to believe in both God and evolution. Also encouraging is that, like many previous surveys, this one indicates that the more years of education a person has completed, the more likely they are to believe in Darwinian evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 thanks craig, i guess my statistics were a bit old. i pulled them from a notepad file i have for scary s@#t :D. another thing that may shed some positive light on the situation is that as far as i know, more and more people are completing or at least attending college, and therefore they are becoming more educated. i still cannot see how darwinian evolution cannot just be accepted as basic fact. the evidence is there, and we and everything else continues to evolve! i cannot even begin to imagine how much more advanced or at least informed we could all be if we would just drop these religious blind-beliefs. not to mention the fact that religious institutions are now untaxed buisnesses. :eek: :cup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 . i still cannot see how darwinian evolution cannot just be accepted as basic fact. For the same reason that I cannot believe that creationism is not accepted as common fact. Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution, But I believe that god made the heavens and the earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.