On the flipside of course, 60% of Americas do believe humans evolved over time. Note that this figure does not distinguish between those that believe evolution is a purely natural phenomenon versus those that think that god had a hand in it.
I am not entirely positive and perhaps the other forum members can provide insight, but I believe the numbers that rejected evolution used to be much higher? As high as 50% at one point.
It does appear as though Creationism and ID are falling to the wayside. My suspicion is that the internet age coupled with the fallout from the Dover Trial probably drove several nails into the Creationism coffin.
I am not entirely positive and perhaps the other forum members can provide insight, but I believe the numbers that rejected evolution used to be much higher? As high as 50% at one point.
I think that that just depends on how you add the figures together. After all, the same number that gave us "One-third of Americans reject human evolution" could also with equal validity give us "One-third of Americans agree with Darwinism". You've got that wishy-washy block in the middle that apparently agree with the fact of evolution but reject the theory of evolution, so whether you could them as pro or anti depends on exactly what you're counting.
... but I believe the numbers that rejected evolution used to be much higher? As high as 50% at one point.
I go with Dr A that it depends on how you look at\report the data.
quote:The Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project report released Monday found that 33% think "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." Sixty percent agreed with evolution.
Among those who agree with human evolution, about half attribute it to "natural processes such as natural selection." Whereas, 24% of adults say "a supreme being guided the evolution of living things."
So if you add 33 and 24 you get 57% by god/s hand/s
pew results
quote:due to natural processes such as natural selection (32% of the American public overall).
so 33% pure god/s 24% gods and evolution 32% pure evolution 11% unknown
Interesting that they don't break it down by education ... oh wait, they did:
Evolved over time
Existed in present form
College grad
72%
24%
some college
62%
33%
HS grad or less
51%
38%
Inverse correlation -- color me surprised This may also explain some of the differences between men and women ...
Education has always been the thorn in the side of religious zealotry. It's hard to keep the masses willfully ignorant as people become more knowledgeable about their surroundings.
You've got that wishy-washy block in the middle that apparently agree with the fact of evolution but reject the theory of evolution
The wishy-washy block does not exclude all people who believe in the theory of evolution. For example, one might believe that God manipulated the environment to produce winners and losers. Or one might believe that God manipulated life's starting point to influence the final result.
The theory of evolution does not have anything particular to say about either of those possibilities.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Education has always been the thorn in the side of religious zealotry. It's hard to keep the masses willfully ignorant as people become more knowledgeable about their surroundings.
quote:At school (in our country that normally goes till you're 18, Grade 12) one of my classmates was raised as an True Christian (PTY LTD) . Known in the US as True Christian (TM). SDA. Not even allowed to drink Coca Cola at home.
After school he went to Uni, got brilliant grades, but the cognitive dissonance got too much for him. He killed himself after 3 years. Gassed himself in his car. Reality contradicted his beliefs. With tragic results for him and his family.
Most others seem to lose faith entirely when the cognitive dissonance gets too great. Very few afaic, like Greg Morton, change beliefs to resolve the conflicts but remain faithful.
When fundamentalists teach people outright falsehoods under the guise of religious truth, then as these are exposed by education the people lose faith, sometimes catastrophically
One of the reasons the 'Clergy Project' was founded. To help people who actually made a career out of evangelizing come to grips with their loss of faith after reality sets in.
Your post about the individual that committed suicide reminded me of a video interview I saw that had Richard Dawkins comment on a former colleague of his. A Geologist who was apparently really bright and had the potential for great success in his field. But he was raised in a strict religious upbringing and could never reconcile the facts with his dogma. Unfortunate that a great mind was poisoned so early.
If about 33% reject evolution, it's quite shocking that only 1/3 are on the right track. To those who know the Bible, not that much of a shock any more, but still disturbing. Eventually we have to accept it, because Scripture will not be wrong. You cannot change the Word of God. Evolution was not possible(an understatement) Creation is what happened. Nature programs, for example, should not speak in terms of us having evolved. It's by far not proven, never will be. There is no missing link. Fossils don't fit into Darwin's puzzle- something he wanted, but could not have; because it's not like that at all. Anyone with an idea of the complexity of DNA will know it could not have come about by itself. That 1 example is more than enough-how many are there? The only possible explanation is that of a Supreme Being. The Creator, God. His Word(the Bible)/His Son, is not just there for nothing. It's not a bunch of people who've made things up; that's also not possible. The prophesies therein have been fulfilled... even from old to new testaments. Other things have yet to take place. Some of us cause others to believe, through promptings from the Holy Spirit and prayer, etc. Others have had good and faithful parents. Some have gone through horrible times and called upon the Name of the Lord, and seeked Him out. People who don't beleive may either be clever or not. But that has nothing to do with why they don't believe. They don't because they don't want to believe. Changes take place in people's lives when(and after) they get born again and baptized. Where do you want to go? You can gamble with a couple of quid mate, but please don't do that with your everlasting soul. It's worth more than all the wealth in the world. Life is much more prescious than we realize. Don't trade it for some insane theory. Even if 1 could get incredibly rich and powerful, that won't help him/her out of hel. Update Your Browser | Facebook
Please explain why nested hierarchies don't support the theory of evolution.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
Nature programs ... should not speak in terms of us having evolved. It's by far not proven, never will be.
You probably haven't see this video - I highly recommend it:
You'll notice that the title mentions "Part 3"; the other two parts are important to watch as well, but this one is the best (and easiest to follow). This YouTube author is named cdk007, and most of his videos are really good - you should browse his channel.
autotelicadj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
No, you completely missed the mark there. Rather, Saint Augustine nailed it ("De Genese ad litteram", fourth century):
quote:It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.
And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.
We are very well familiar with the false and deceptive claims of "creation science". Your fellows have told us many things that we are able to verify and they have proven dead wrong each and every time. Now you and your fellows are telling us things that we cannot verify. If you were so woefully wrong about that which we could verify, why should we even consider believing you about that which we cannot verify?
Have a look at The Creation Answers book, and Creation Magazine. Figures? These add up.
I've been having a look at their website for quite a few years. Crazy, I tell you. A laugh a minute. They tend to twist the truth to something unrecognisable. Every time.
™ Version 4.2
(1)