One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

This isn't true. You're mistaking theory for a particular type of theory. A theory is just a belief - it doesn't have to be defendable or substantiable by science. People have theories as to why the Newtown shooter did what he did - but it will never be proven by science. Theose are still theories, and different people believe different ones. We all believe in things that cannot be proven by science.

Not everyone believes in God because that's what they've been taught - it's that dismissive attitude that causes people of faith and atheists to talk past each other.

Science doesn't address fundamental questions about life and human experience that affect people down to the core - that's what brings many people to faith.

 

Nor did science.

Besides, you seem to be simultaneously arguing that Christians are rigid and don't accept science and then complain when they look at what we learn from science and account for it.

 

Maybe the bible is just a good starting off point, not to be taken so literally? Maybe evolution explains the how, not the why? Maybe, just maybe science and God are not at odds rather the misinformed battling the misinformed? What do I know, I'm only a research scientist earning my PhD in research involving cancer drug target analysis...

 

I orginally had this as a reponse to one of CometsWin's posts but you hit it a little shorter and sweeter.




What if creationism = the big bang & eventual evolution?

How would a pre-1800's Christian [or anyone then?] explain the beginnings of time with their limited knowledge of multiple sciences in the 200's or even 900's? Christianity only been around for less than 2,000 yrs. Scientific understandings and thought have exploded the last 150 years. Before evolution a more widely accepted notion of today's world coming to be was catastrophism. Outright evolution has yet to stand the test of time though the be all of the moment. Likely a combination of catastrophism & evolution but I digress.

I think most Christians mess up in blindly accepting the jewish calendar/old testament account and arriving at the young earth theory--then just stick to their guns/faith when tested with questions like in the poll. Yet the Bible is very clear in the disconnect of time with the Creator vs a more literal interpretation of creation in '7' days [with man arriving on the 6th day]. More like Eons. 15 billion years= 7 eons? Sure, why not.

Anybody with a brain who's viewed the grand canyon or any other geological phenomena knows the earth is much older than recently recorded history [~6,000 yrs].

Back to the my first paragraph:

Spoiler

It's really a dumb poll meant to divide as RocketRaccoon stated. The reality is this is a more complex subject than most people care to really investigate in order to have a serious conversation about it ~ so people answer it based on a more elementary understanding and move on. Can a first grade teacher really have a conversation about off shore tax shelters & estate planning through self funded 831 B captive insurance programs? No, but they're probably experts with child development and behaviors, the names of random colors and children's book authors. Yet since I don't know the names of crayon colors or how to teach the alphabet to a kid with ADHD the first grade teacher could have the grounds to call me dumb. Nah, just ignorant to their field of study.

So, good job poll.

 

A good example of why the poll is a completely false choice, only meant to divide. This thread gives the left their desired place to hate on religion and pump up science, which is their true objective.

 

lol Murrican education

 

How is it a false choice? Please explain which point of view is not covered in the possible answers.

 

A creationist would argue that it doesn't matter. That the Bible was essentially dictated by God/The Holy Spirit so it doesn't matter what the earthly authors did or didn't have knowledge of.

 

The study is only reporting facts. Just because it disagrees with your opinion does not mean it is trying to divide.

These are all assumptions on your part. Your views are skewing the study and making assumptions to your liking.

As for science constantly changing of the years, would you say it is evolving?

 

Considering a majority of HS graduates are woefully unprepared for STEM majors and careers, is there a real surprise here?

 

This poll proves that the religious right is slowly shriveling up and dying. Old GOP narratives are beginning to sound like superstitious hodgepodge to young intellectuals which is encouraging. The media has done a good job demonizing radical nutjobs like Limbaigh and Bachmann to ensure the newer generation will have the "Christian Nation" tomfoolery removed from the public conscience. Science must be applauded and religion must be mocked if we are to advance as a society ready for the 21st century.

Radical Christian beliefs should devolve into a fringe minority within the next 20 years and
only low income low education Southernerns will remain a voting presence since the inbreeding and brainwashing will likely make it difficult for them to accept any new ideas that don't involve firearm engineering or farm land technology.

 

Our interpretation of the Constitution and other old documents have changed over time. Why can people not do the same with religious texts? You may have a problem with it, but Christians pick and choose all the time - how many actually follow Leviticus, for example?

 

I think you have deeper discussions with real people of faith rather than just buying into the caricature. Sure, people learn faith early in life, well before they understand it. But that doesn't mean they don't challenge it or better understand it as they grow older. Lots of smart people have faith. Lots of analytical people have faith. Lots - the majority - of scientists have faith.

And yet, science tries to dismiss religion despite the fact that they are in different playing fields. Science tries to answer questions that faith can't. Faith tries to answer questions that science can't. There's no underlying incompatibility there unless you choose to create one.

A book doesn't evolve, but the interpretation and understanding of it certainly can.

Sure you can, if you believe the Bible is not a completely literal book and/or was written for a people that had a different level of understanding of the world.

If you were trying to explain quantum physics to people in 2000 BC, you'd probably explain it differently than today, and probably not particularly accurately if you wanted them to remotely understand it. Why would the Bible be any different? Why would it try to explain evolution when people didn't know what DNA or genetic mutation were? Books of faith are not meant to be science books and really shouldn't be evaluated that way.

 

You and I have politely asked bigtexxx to expound on his statement that the poll presented "a completely false choice, only meant to divide. This thread gives the left their desired place to hate on religion and pump up science, which is their true objective." Like you, I have respectfully asked bigtexxx to explain this statement which, with all due respect to texxx, is unsupported, in my humble opinion. We could both probably come up with even more polite ways to ask for a response of substance from texxx, but the question we posted certainly is clear to the meanest understanding, and I am using the phrase "meanest understanding" the way Immanuel Kant did in this quote from his Critique of Pure Reason.


I shall not here eulogize philosophy for the benefits which the laborious efforts of its criticism have conferred on human reason- even granting that its merit should turn out in the end to be only negative - for on this point something more will be said in the next section. But, I ask, do you require that that knowledge which concerns all men, should transcend the common understanding, and should only be revealed to you by philosophers? The very circumstance which has called forth your censure, is the best confirmation of the correctness of our previous assertions, since it discloses, what could not have been foreseen, that Nature is not chargeable with any partial distribution of her gifts in those matters which concern all men without distinction and that, in respect to the essential ends of human nature, we cannot advance further with the help of the highest philosophy, than under the guidance which nature has vouchsafed to the meanest understanding.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/kant/critique_pure_reason/ii_ii_iii.php

 

good stuff - many young earth creationists don't look at the bible as a whole. They read sections as having a beginning and and end, when they should read the entire scripture and relate it as one story. Whats said in Peter still relates to Genesis, just as whats said in Matthew still relates to Leviticus. 2 Peter 3:8 tells us that a Day to God is LIKE a thousand of our years, and a thousand of our years is LIKE a Day to God. Therefore, 7 days in Genesis is likely NOT seven 24 hour periods.

Also, Its important to keep in mind that what is now known as The Big Bang Theory was actually postulated by a Priest who happened to also be a science teacher. It was how he believed God created the heavens and the earth.

 

yeah, science shouldn't be pumped up. what have those scientists ever done for us anyway.

 

I understand what you are saying but there is a very critical semantic point that I have to address. Theory in science isn't the same as theory in everyday English. Scientific theory isn't a matter of a best guess like what motivated the Newtown shooter but it is a standard of rigid proof. This is important because it seems like so much of the problem with things like the theory of Evolution is that lay people read that as just saying it is a best guess. Evolution has withstood a lot of scientific tests already and isn't just the best guess of people like Darwin.

I largely agree with this. The problem with these type of discussions is that they always end up using the methodology of one, faith or science, to argue against the other. So from the scientific side proponents always argue for physical proof while the faith side argues that scientific theories are just beliefs. Science and faith are two ways of understanding existence but their methodologies are completely different and the fundamental questions they ask are different.