Quizzes & Puzzles59 mins ago
The fact of evolution
22 Answers
Can you believe that nearly half the population of the United States still believes in creationism ,or intelligent design as the creationists now prefer to call it? I guess the name change was to make their case a bit more plausible than the idea of something being made out of nothing. The case for evolution is overwhelming despite their arguments that Darwin s theory of evolution is just that ....a theory.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sadly, I do believe it. In fact, I thought it was a lot more depressing that just 50%.
The name change was principally done for political reasons. Having lost a 1987 court case, which concluded that creationism was unconstitutional in public school science curricula (violating the separation of church and state), the pro-creationism Discovery Institute then started to produce works with the words 'Intelligent Design' in them, claiming it was something unrelated to creationism.
This was revealed as a great fat lie in the 2005 Kitzmiller Vs Dover Area School District case, where it came out in court that an early draft of the ID book 'Of Pandas and People' had the word 'creationism' where the published version had 'Intelligent Design'. Whoops. Red faces all round, $1m in costs awarded against the school district (who were replaced by more scientifically literate people by the point the trial finished anyway), cue change of tactics.
Not sure where you're getting the idea that ID is 'something out of nothing'. That's an argument the pro-creationists try and throw at evolution.
The name change was principally done for political reasons. Having lost a 1987 court case, which concluded that creationism was unconstitutional in public school science curricula (violating the separation of church and state), the pro-creationism Discovery Institute then started to produce works with the words 'Intelligent Design' in them, claiming it was something unrelated to creationism.
This was revealed as a great fat lie in the 2005 Kitzmiller Vs Dover Area School District case, where it came out in court that an early draft of the ID book 'Of Pandas and People' had the word 'creationism' where the published version had 'Intelligent Design'. Whoops. Red faces all round, $1m in costs awarded against the school district (who were replaced by more scientifically literate people by the point the trial finished anyway), cue change of tactics.
Not sure where you're getting the idea that ID is 'something out of nothing'. That's an argument the pro-creationists try and throw at evolution.
There is no doubt that Creation �science� has its biggest following in the US, but I would be interested to see the survey you talk of, since it is forever changing, depending upon who is asking the question, who they are asking and how they ask it.
A lot of Americans believe in evolution. But believe that God had a guiding hand in it, so they would be creationists. So your analysis is slightly blurry around the edges since they are nte really debunking evolution, although I do acknowledge, many Americans are very much of the world literally created in 6 days variety.
A lot of Americans believe in evolution. But believe that God had a guiding hand in it, so they would be creationists. So your analysis is slightly blurry around the edges since they are nte really debunking evolution, although I do acknowledge, many Americans are very much of the world literally created in 6 days variety.
Probably this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigpho tos/21329204.html
Your point about those who believe God guided evolution (which you correctly say is many people) is sadly not relevant - the question asked wouldn't be affected by that.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigpho tos/21329204.html
Your point about those who believe God guided evolution (which you correctly say is many people) is sadly not relevant - the question asked wouldn't be affected by that.
So it�s a 40/40 split with 20% unsure. You could ask where, who and what were the 1,484 people in the US questioned. If they were mainly Republican, then the results are potentially specious as it would more likely be 75%. If they were Republican women then perhaps 80%, if they were democratic then maybe 30%.
1,484 people represents 0.000005% of the population, the equivalent of asking 300 people in the UK. If you asked these 300 people outside a Cathedral on a Sunday after a service, the results might be a little askew from the general popuation.
99% of all statistics are made up. 100% of all statistics can be manipulated to provide the answer you want.
1,484 people represents 0.000005% of the population, the equivalent of asking 300 people in the UK. If you asked these 300 people outside a Cathedral on a Sunday after a service, the results might be a little askew from the general popuation.
99% of all statistics are made up. 100% of all statistics can be manipulated to provide the answer you want.
Actually, for the US's population, you'd only need to ask about 400 people to get a 95% +/-5% (the usual confidence level used in such societies). In fact, their figures are closer to a 99% +/- 3.5% margin, which is way more rigorous than most surveys. And they're hardly going to stand outside a mall in a politically polarised part of town, are they?
Article:
http://richarddawkins.net/pdf/Science_evolutio n_2006.pdf
Methodology notes here: http://richarddawkins.net/pdf/Science_evolutio n_2006_SOM.pdf
In any case, the figures do not stand in isolation. They show a developing trend across twenty years.
Article:
http://richarddawkins.net/pdf/Science_evolutio n_2006.pdf
Methodology notes here: http://richarddawkins.net/pdf/Science_evolutio n_2006_SOM.pdf
In any case, the figures do not stand in isolation. They show a developing trend across twenty years.
The original survey from another perspective�.
http://atheistself.blogspot.com/2007/04/mislea ding-polls-nearly-half-of-all.html
http://atheistself.blogspot.com/2007/04/mislea ding-polls-nearly-half-of-all.html
-- answer removed --
But it just goes to demonstrate how mass quantities of information can easily be produced from much smaller quantities of information. People make of it what they will. Such surveys don�t really strike me as entirely conclusive, and ultimately futile.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/02/how-many -atheists-in-america.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/02/how-many -atheists-in-america.htm
I remember years ago watching a film set in the 1920s based on a true story, in it a teacher stood accused of something or other because he'd been teaching the class about evolution, in the end he was cleared (rightly so) and that was that.
But here's the thing, what's the difference between this educational discourse between ID and evolution?
Why is it that it should end up in court?
Or is it acceptable merely because the evolutionists are right?
But here's the thing, what's the difference between this educational discourse between ID and evolution?
Why is it that it should end up in court?
Or is it acceptable merely because the evolutionists are right?
I suspect you're talking about 'Inherit the wind' which is (somewhat loosely) based on the famous Scopes monkey trial, and actually, Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution contrary to state law (although it was later reversed on a technicality). However, the defence lawyer, Clarence Darrow did successfully beat a contempt charge.
Sadly, they played around with history quite considerably because the author wasn't trying to make a point about evolution, but about McCarthyism.
The difference between Scopes and now is sadly little, in many regards. An established scientific theory, backed up by reams of independent evidence is still being challenged by a religiously-motivated pseudoscientific notion backed up by no evidence whatsoever (as is even admitted by the Discovery Institute's senior fellow, Michael Medved "The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory".)
The explicity reason ID ends up in court is because it violates the first amendment (no establishment of a religion by the state).
Sadly, they played around with history quite considerably because the author wasn't trying to make a point about evolution, but about McCarthyism.
The difference between Scopes and now is sadly little, in many regards. An established scientific theory, backed up by reams of independent evidence is still being challenged by a religiously-motivated pseudoscientific notion backed up by no evidence whatsoever (as is even admitted by the Discovery Institute's senior fellow, Michael Medved "The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory".)
The explicity reason ID ends up in court is because it violates the first amendment (no establishment of a religion by the state).
Life on other planets (recently they have made some progress), angels, worm holes, life after death, spirit, hell and haven. They may find few out of these few they may never will. As they discovered that skin has pain receptors, why God says that he is able to re-create even a finger tip, how this universe came into being and how embryo develop.
Science will never definitively prove God doesn't exist because it's impossible to disprove a negative.
Can you definitively prove that fairies don't exist?
Can you definitively prove that unicorns don't exist?
It's likely that as we learn more, the places creationists insist must be occupied by God will become fewer and fewer. This has been happening for a long time now, and people like the Discovery Institue's Michael Behe have been the drivers behind much of it - he keeps insisting 'X couldn't happen through evolution' but when it turns out that actually, yes X can happen through evolution, God is squeezed out of another gap.
However, those who take a non-literal view of the Bible won't be so troubled. Those who accept evolution (and there are a lot) wouldn't find anything to particularly change their views.
Can you definitively prove that fairies don't exist?
Can you definitively prove that unicorns don't exist?
It's likely that as we learn more, the places creationists insist must be occupied by God will become fewer and fewer. This has been happening for a long time now, and people like the Discovery Institue's Michael Behe have been the drivers behind much of it - he keeps insisting 'X couldn't happen through evolution' but when it turns out that actually, yes X can happen through evolution, God is squeezed out of another gap.
However, those who take a non-literal view of the Bible won't be so troubled. Those who accept evolution (and there are a lot) wouldn't find anything to particularly change their views.
