One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

The fact that anyone can make it to the 7th grade, much less LIFE without understanding basic biology is shameful. Yes...I'm surprised. These numbers are appallingly low.

Religious faith is not an excuse to ignore evidence. I'll repeat that to claim a person's faith does not permit them to believe in basic biology is no different than the Islamic thugs that silenced the work of Arab mathematicians in 12th century Mesopotamia because they were offended by the number zero.

 

This.

Look at how defensive the science lovers are in this thread. Tells you all you need to know. Science can only explain a tiny fraction of even how the human body works. It can't even find a cure for one of the things that kills humans at one of the highest rates -- cancer.

 

So what is your argument? That the human race must be skeptical of things like atomic theory, gravity and evolution in entirity because the models can't explain everything in their respective fields?

 

witness clinical study #1

 

Stop being so defensive.

 

200 years ago scientists were cementing theories that have become the foundation of modern science and are responsible for the great scientific discoveries of the past century.

 

In my religious (Jewish) university, we were required to take several religion classes in order to graduate, no matter what our major.

One course I took was "Middle Age Philosophy." It only covered one Jewish philosopher (Maimonides) and one Christian (Thomas Aquinas). The latter got most of his ideas from the former, and the former got his from the guys we studied the rest of the year...a ton of Muslims that rediscovered Greek writing and when they began to practice medicine. Of course none could credit each other since all parties involved viewed the others as heretics and gave no credit for fear of losing their own heads, but that's another issue...

It was because of this that these educated men began to question their faith and religious dogma, and it was their writings on the conflict between science (especially medicine) and faith that led to the re-adoption of Helenic inquiry and reason that rescued Europe from the Dark Ages.

If this was good enough for religious Muslims to feel no conflict of interest in 1000 AD, why isn't it good enough for Protestants in Texas in 2013?

 

Even an uneducated man can see the beautiful relationship between God & Science (evolution). This whole argument is just about the benefits of keeping the two separated...much like most things in our times.

 

.......

Uh, no. That's really not what I mean.

There are scientific questions out there, and science can answer these. Some, obviously, it hasn't found the answer to like your cancer example, but through the scientific method, it will be found eventually.

But not all questions can be defined to be scientific. nor can you use the scientific method to find them. Your example fails because "how do we cure cancer?" is one where we can. But what about "what is the nature of justice?" Science can't answer that. Value systems ( of which faith is an essential component, even in the secular systems) do.

Make no mistake. The people who reject evolution are fools. But so much of this evolution debate inevitably turns into "Haha, look at these stupid Christians!" as opposed to "Haha, look at these stupid people!" As if Christianity or religion is somehow some force which stops progress and science, which then people trot out the myths of the Dark Ages and Galileo.

And as Major said, that's not the whole story. Obviously many Church people were concerned. But the Pope was willing to hear Galileo out -that is, until Galileo decided to publish a book mocking the Pope in the process. The Pope's response was to go "Well, **** you Galileo, and **** your theory too!"

Was it wrong? Perhaps, though not necessarily so in the norms of 17th century Italy. But it's a huge difference from "Evil Church suppressing science!" which has been spouted so much and is incredibly simplistic. The Church, as I observed, did plenty of scientific good in the post-Roman era - look up the Irish monks sometimes.

 

I think I'm more shocked by 33% of Democrats not believing in evolution.

 

How did it mock the Pope? I never heard about this.

Edit: Found a bit more on this:
http://www.studentpulse.com/article...o-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world

[rquoter]
... Dialogues was structured as several conversations between a supporter of Ptolemy, a Copernicus supporter, and a neutral arbitrator. The Copernican supporter spoke Galileo's mind and the Ptolemaic supporter was called Simplicio, simpleton in Italian.17.) Urban was infuriated when he read the book and saw that the phrase he required in order for the book to be published, about God's omnipotence, was said by Simplicio. In the Pope's mind, Galileo was making a caricature of him by having Simplicio say that phrase. Personal vanity is believed to have led the Pope to cry for a committee to be made to determine if Galileo should be tried by the Inquisition and to determine how the book was published and not censored.18.) Galileo also insulted people who did not believe in Copernicanism; a fact which did not escape the notice of Pope Urban VIII's advisory committee.19.) Because Galileo did not phrase his words as hypothetical, readers thought Galileo held the theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun.20.) The committee created by the Pope also came to the same conclusion: Galileo knew what he was doing and must be disciplined for [/rquoter]

 

Damn - texxx just dropped a cancer bomb on ole science.

Can u get up science? Can u?

 

Welp, that settles it. Next time I get the flu, i'm shelving teh "science" and calling my pastor.

 

I don't think this is true. There are plenty of scientific theories that divide the scientific community - for example, multiverses. The more evidence for a particular theory, the more powerful it gets (gravity being the extreme example). But there's nothing inherently contradictory in the terms "belief" and "evolution". Many scientists spend their careers looking for evidence of their theories, which means its a theory based on belief before it becomes a substantiated theory (God particle, for example).

I believe Pew polled scientists a while back and found that a majority have some sort of belief in a "God". The reason likely is, as Kojirou suggests, that faith asks unique questions that science doesn't even try to address. There's nothing that makes the two concepts inherently incompatible.

 

What is the relevance here? The Bible is a singular version of faith with a multitude of interpretations. It doesn't universally represent the concept of "faith".

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

 

Please explain your statement. The questions were straight forward. What was "false" about it?

 

i think it was more like 66% didn't know what the person was asking and just guessed. half chose pro evolution the other half chose anti.

(I kid, I kid... sort of)