|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Religious Tolerance has a good correction for your numbers, with references: Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation They have the 1991 poll. From the population in general, 47% of people in the US are Creationist. 40% believe in theistic evolution. 9% believe God was uninvolved. The 1997 poll data was pretty much the same. However, look at scientists (which includes fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, engineering, etc):Creationist: 5% Theistic Evolution: 40% Naturalistic Evolution: 55% (I've seen, elsewhere, polls that exclude unrelated fields; the number shrinks down to about 2%; when you look at the "preeminent" members of a field, it nears 1%). The page also covers what percent of Americans take a literal view of the Bible, compared to other countries (we have among the highest percentages of creationists - the British, for example, were 4 times less likely to agree with the statement "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word." ) They also cover religious leaders elsewhere in the world, and their beliefs.
quote: As I demonstrated, that's not true - 40% of Americans (and much more of the rest of the world) believe in theistic evolution - that God created/guided life on earth, and it evolved from there. The higher the education level you go, the less likely the person is to believe in Creationism. It's a level of evidence issue. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
keith63 Inactive Member |
No I don't. THere is a ton of data being collected by scientists who diagree with the theory of evolution but that evidence is censored by the peer reviewers who edit the journals. Here are some of them.
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research The only way you can say this is not science is to make up a deffinition which automatically eleminates anything which points to intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Funny you should mention that because that is the problem we get with evolution. Darwin thought that Blacks were inferior to whites, he also thought women were inferior to men. Hitler was an evolutionist and look what he did to the Jews and homosexuals. And there is a movement among scientists against the theory of evolution. If there was not then we would have issues comming up like Kansas, Ohio and Texas. In 100 years we will probably be laughed at for thinking that all this complexity happened by chance. The theory of evolution will be placed in its rightful place with spontaneous generation. It's our own prejudices and biases that get in the way. Where in science is there evidence for the prejudices put forth by Darwin and Hitler? What problems are there in Kansas et al. In 100 years we will laugh because the first life will turn out to be very simple and only become complex over time. The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis, you seem to making that mistake over and over. The theory of evolution starts with the first life, abiogenesis starts with no life. Very distinct theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Off topic again. (sorry, it takes some getting used to). You may want to join in over at Elitism and Nazism.
quote: (Rei waves her finger in the direction of the link to the other thread on this topic)
quote: Those issues were not sponsored by scientists; they were sponsored by a coalition of religious leaders and elected officials. As I demonstrated, scientists have a much worse view of creationism than the average public. Public support for evolution, even in the US, has been steadily dropping since the concept was first proposed. Also, it's essentially a non-issue in the scientific community nowadays - it's a given. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: It may surprise you to learn this (as you seem to be fairly new to the debate). but most of these papers have already been torn to bits in review. Present one here so that we can discuss it (start it in its own thread), just so you get an idea of how bad the level of pseudoscience is. Also, if you want to read about your favorite creationist authors, I suggest you check out their credentials first (just a small list). ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
THere is a ton of data being collected by scientists who diagree with the theory of evolution but that evidence is censored by the peer reviewers who edit the journals. Here are some of them. Do you know of any of the rejection letters from the publications? I would be interested in why they were rejected which should be pointed out quite specifically in the rejection letter.
The only way you can say this is not science is to make up a deffinition which automatically eleminates anything which points to intelligence. ICR eliminates any evidence that contradicts the Bible off hand without any scientific justification. Which do you think is more honest, rejecting evidence because of a presupposed belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis or rejection of a theory that lacks evidence? I would vote for the latter. In other words, ICR does a good job of eliminating intelligence on its own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7215 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
kieth63 writes:
What do the distorted views of a few individuals have to do with the validity of theory of evolution? One could also say that gravity requires that objects follow their natural geodesic, and therefore I should push people off of tall buildings. That a person could concoct such unreasonable consequences of scientific theories has no affect on the actual truth of the theory itself.
Funny you should mention that because that is the problem we get with evolution. Darwin thought that Blacks were inferior to whites, he also thought women were inferior to men. Hitler was an evolutionist and look what he did to the Jews and homosexuals. keith63 writes:
How many are named Steve? And there is a movement among scientists against the theory of evolution. Seriously, there are a lot of scientists in the world, and the law of averages says that there will be a certain small percentage of them that are loons. That's just a fact of life. I'd hardly say that these are mounting a scientific movement against evolution since those that propose theistic creationism aren't proposing a scientific theory. Maybe you could call it a political movement since its proponents more closely resemble politicians than scientists.
keith63 writes:
I'll already laugh at anybody who thinks that evolution proposes "that all this complexity happened by chance," and I hope in 100 years I can still laugh at anyone who thinks that.
In 100 years we will probably be laughed at for thinking that all this complexity happened by chance. keith63 writes:
Doubtful considering that the mechanisms that drive evolution have been directly observed, and yet spontaneous generation was specifically falsified.
The theory of evolution will be placed in its rightful place with spontaneous generation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This is beginning to look like topic drift to me (but I'm new at this). Whaddya think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7215 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
AdminNosy writes:
I concur, and in the future I shall scrutinize the contents of my replies more closely with the original topic in mind.
Whaddya think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6726 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
I think his lesson plan is intended for Mr. Spock and Commander Data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6726 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
REI,
Have you had a chance to "Shread" this particular ICR paper by Keith Davies? If so could you link me so I can read what you all said. Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You're off topic, please open another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6726 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
Roger that, I'm outta here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
(response moved to A young sun - a response)
[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
What does this mean? Is there supposed to be something to respond to here?? I know nothing much about Star Trek and I did not comment on it in the Matrix thread so I can only take this a fictional comment. Please tell me otherwise else that is what I will be forced to conclude. Dan legitimately asked how the plan could be brought down to the high school level. I do not considering relating baramins only to films will work. So please lizard breath show us the Jacobsian Organ you must posses then. I do however not disregard the possiblity that Marsh *must* be respected EVEN if Croizat thought some of the same things as Remine before the late 80s but that WILL NOT be something to be simply directed or produced but rather established by the historical consensus of a majority. This is not random words. Taking Lizard Breath as saying something of substance if it is not essential IS to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024