Support for creationism in US at all time low

[blü 2]

Maybe dino steaks were used to feed the tigers, and that's actually why they ended up extinct?

'Hey, honey, we're all out of Triceratops burgers. You okay if I kill off the T-Rex? It will help the smell...'

I read somewhere that reptiles tend to taste like chicken.

Which makes me wonder ─ maybe Noah had to send out the raven because they'd eaten the pterodactyl?

A shame we don't have the ark's log, really.

 

[DavidFirth]

Based on what? That Israeli military strategy decided to get on the front foot and attack Arab nations before they were invaded?

That's smart (and ruthless) military strategy, not close adherence to theology.
Apart from your own bias, why do you see it different? How much study of this have you actually done? I've had a possibly unhealthy interest in military strategy since I was a kid, and nothing about the 6 day war screams 'miracle'.

Yeah, like I said, it couldn't have possibly been God since you are so sure He doesn't exist but yet you can't prove He doesn't. I'll go with my faith in Christ instead of taking your view.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, like I said, it couldn't have possibly been God since you are so sure He doesn't exist but yet you can't prove He doesn't. I'll go with my faith in Christ instead of taking your view.

Be my guest. I'm assuming that means you haven't studied the war, the reasons the Israelis won, etc, but have decided to believe it was your God's doing.

That being the case, can you ask him his opinion on witch burnings in Papua New Guinea, a 98% Christian country? Me, I put that down to man's folly, but I'd assume you see God's hand?

 

[DavidFirth]

Be my guest. I'm assuming that means you haven't studied the war, the reasons the Israelis won, etc, but have decided to believe it was your God's doing.

That being the case, can you ask him his opinion on witch burnings in Papua New Guinea, a 98% Christian country? Me, I put that down to man's folly, but I'd assume you see God's hand?

I didn't say it was definitely God's doing. I said it probably was God's doing. You don't have enough evidence to rule God completely out, yet you do, anyway. Good luck with that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I didn't say it was definitely God's doing. I said it probably was God's doing. You don't have enough evidence to rule God completely out, yet you do, anyway. Good luck with that.

Probably?
Based on what?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yeah, like I said, it couldn't have possibly been God since you are so sure He doesn't exist but yet you can't prove He doesn't. I'll go with my faith in Christ instead of taking your view.

Actually? Now that you mention it? We CAN prove that YOUR god (nevermind other gods) cannot POSSIBLY exist as described in the bible.

You cannot have a square-circle. The bible's god-- as described -- cannot exist.

Therefore? The description is wrong in multiple ways.

There is no way to determine which godly features are wrong.

The only sane conclusion is that they are all wrong-- and that such a being does not exist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, like I said, it couldn't have possibly been God since you are so sure He doesn't exist but yet you can't prove He doesn't. I'll go with my faith in Christ instead of taking your view.

If that's the case, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If you think God did it, then go ahead and demonstrate that.

As it stands, I don't see any reason to believe that the most likely explanation is that god(s) did it.

 

[DavidFirth]

If that's the case, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. If you think God did it, then go ahead and demonstrate that.

As it stands, I don't see any reason to believe that the most likely explanation is that god(s) did it.

Opinion noted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Opinion noted.

If you're into reasonable, logical discussion, that's how it works.

 

[Deeje]

That being the case, can you ask him his opinion on witch burnings in Papua New Guinea, a 98% Christian country? Me, I put that down to man's folly, but I'd assume you see God's hand?

I am surprised at you LnM.....Papua New Guinea used as an example of a "Christian" country? Seriously?

Most indigenous peoples converted by 'missionaries' in the last century or so have been permitted to retain their traditional beliefs and even incorporated them in into their new faith. This religious "mixture" is seen in many cultures where "Christianity" was not completely sold to the locals without including their traditional beliefs and customs. It doesn't make for a 'Christianizing' of their paganism, but more a 'paganizing' of their Christianity. It might be acceptable to the people, but not acceptable to God I'm afraid.

There were no witch-hunts in first century Christianity, but we do find them in early forms of Christendom......what does that tell me? That Christendom isn't "Christian" and never was. It began with Roman Catholicism as a blend of weakened Christianity and Roman sun worship. These "mixtures" are not new, you see.....?

What passes for "Christianity" today is really nothing like the first century model.

What is therefore at an all time low is not support for creation, but for what Christendom's churches want to keep holding as their Bible truth. There is no support in the Bible for YEC. So if support for that is waning, I am not surprised. The Bible agrees with science inasmuch as it allows for an old earth and a long creation period.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am surprised at you LnM.....Papua New Guinea used as an example of a "Christian" country? Seriously?

Awww, come on now. You can't take me out of context, and get to do a facepalm. I was defending God, actually.
My point was that I don't see God's hand in the Israeli's dominating the Arab nations in the six day war. I've studied the war extensively, and there is nothing miraculous about it.
Equally, I don't see God's hand in the witch burnings in PNG. Both were man's doing.

I would be surprised if you disagree on that, but to me some people seem keen to reduce God to a petty umpire in very human folly. I just don't see it. If there is a God (and you know my stance) I still don't believe he's guiding Jewish bullets to kill Arabs. But if he does like to get involved, surely he would do something to prevent some of the witch burnings done in his name?

No...it's not God. It's man. And whatever religion is claimed is beside the point. There's nothing Godly about burning women.

Most indigenous peoples converted by 'missionaries' in the last century or so have been permitted to retain their traditional beliefs and even incorporated them in into their new faith. This religious "mixture" is seen in many cultures where "Christianity" was not completely sold to the locals without including their traditional beliefs and customs. It doesn't make for a 'Christianizing' of their paganism, but more a 'paganizing' of their Christianity. It might be acceptable to the people, but not acceptable to God I'm afraid.

Heh...I could tell you stories of what I saw. But anyway, no argument on this from me, apart from some quibbles with the locals being 'permitted' to retain traditional beliefs. Just sounds a bit paternalistic. But that's very much a quibble on semantics.

There were no witch-hunts in first century Christianity, but we do find them in early forms of Christendom......what does that tell me? That Christendom isn't "Christian" and never was. It began with Roman Catholicism as a blend of weakened Christianity and Roman sun worship. These "mixtures" are not new, you see.....?

What passes for "Christianity" today is really nothing like the first century model.

Witch-hunts have nothing to do with God, but they do have something to do with religion. That'd be my take. But it's not religion (in and of itself) that I have any issue with. It's small-minded people who commit evil acts, regardless of their motivation. And 'religion' is such an umbrella term I would never judge one religious denomination or belief set for the sins of another.
Sound fair?

What is therefore at an all time low is not support for creation, but for what Christendom's churches want to keep holding as their Bible truth. There is no support in the Bible for YEC. So if support for that is waning, I am not surprised. The Bible agrees with science inasmuch as it allows for an old earth and a long creation period.

To be honest, my issue isn't with OEC or even ID preponents. Long as they stay out of the science classroom, more power to them.

 

[Deeje]

Awww, come on now. You can't take me out of context, and get to do a facepalm. I was defending God, actually.
My point was that I don't see God's hand in the Israeli's dominating the Arab nations in the six day war. I've studied the war extensively, and there is nothing miraculous about it.
Equally, I don't see God's hand in the witch burnings in PNG. Both were man's doing.

LOL....I was just pulling you leg. God has no interest in the political squabbles of those who think God supports men with WMD's.
"Thou shalt not kill" applies to all.

No one with blood on their hands is even given a hearing. (Isaiah 1:15)

I would be surprised if you disagree on that, but to me some people seem keen to reduce God to a petty umpire in very human folly. I just don't see it. If there is a God (and you know my stance) I still don't believe he's guiding Jewish bullets to kill Arabs. But if he does like to get involved, surely he would do something to prevent some of the witch burnings done in his name?

God hasn't sanctioned a war in Israel (or anywhere else) for thousands of years. He does not involve himself in human, ego-driven stupidity. That is the whole point of his non-intervention....he is giving all of us "enough rope"....the smart people are using it to build bridges.....and ladders.

No...it's not God. It's man. And whatever religion is claimed is beside the point. There's nothing Godly about burning women.

I agree. I have no desire to be toast.

But anyway, no argument on this from me, apart from some quibbles with the locals being 'permitted' to retain traditional beliefs. Just sounds a bit paternalistic. But that's very much a quibble on semantics.

God is not called a Father for no reason you know. He's allowed to be paternalistic.

It's small-minded people who commit evil acts, regardless of their motivation. And 'religion' is such an umbrella term I would never judge one religious denomination or belief set for the sins of another.
Sound fair?

Fair enough.

We are only responsible for our own anyway.

To be honest, my issue isn't with OEC or even ID preponents. Long as they stay out of the science classroom, more power to them.

As long as students don't lose marks for answering science questions according to their beliefs. I mean if science cannot prove that evolution is true, then it should be taught as a theory, not as fact. It is therefore a belief and there should be no deducting of marks for stating a belief...right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So, we sound epically in agreement then. That must be some sort of unholy alliance...
(j/k)
But on the last point we diverge.

As long as students don't lose marks for answering science questions according to their beliefs.

In an English class, they could write about creationism without losing marks. But are you suggesting that they should be able to say humans were formed via evolutionary processes, that they were formed fully from clay, hatched from a cosmic egg, or that we were spewed forth from the Rainbow Serpent, and that the teacher should accept all answers as equal?

That's not science.

I mean if science cannot prove that evolution is true, then it should be taught as a theory, not as fact.

Indeed. 'Proof' should stay in the maths classroom. But 'theory' is not the same as hypothesis. Hypothesis is not the same as guess. And creation myths are different again.

It is therefore a belief and there should be no deducting of marks for stating a belief...right?

That all depends on the question and topic area. But marks aren't 'deducted', in truth. You'd set up criteria for answers ahead of time, and marks are awarded for hitting those criteria.
In a science class, those criteria are unlikely to be kind to biblical literalism.

 

[Deeje]

So, we sound epically in agreement then. That must be some sort of unholy alliance...

There is always common ground somewhere....

In an English class, they could write about creationism without losing marks. But are you suggesting that they should be able to say humans were formed via evolutionary processes, that they were formed fully from clay, hatched from a cosmic egg, or that we were spewed forth from the Rainbow Serpent, and that the teacher should accept all answers as equal?

That's not science.

I am not suggesting that. But students should be able to put on a test ..."evolution science teaches that......" and state what they have been taught, but leaving room for their own beliefs on the topic unstated. That would not offend anyone would it?
We understand that tests are tests and that it would be ridiculous to introduce all manner of religious beliefs into science. But at the same time, it should be taught as a theory and not as an established fact. High School kids enter uni with the notion that science has proven evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.....I do not believe that this is true. I have doubts about the whole scenario.

Indeed. 'Proof' should stay in the maths classroom. But 'theory' is not the same as hypothesis. Hypothesis is not the same as guess. And creation myths are different again.

I cannot see how it is ever proven to go beyond a hypothesis. Why does an Intelligent Creator have to be relegated to myth? Just because you can't test him doesn't make him mythological. There is no way to test macro-evolution either but yet scientists assume it is true. I do believe that creationists have a lot to answer for in misrepresenting the Genesis account in the Bible. The earth is not young and creation was not poofed into existence in 6 /24 hour days.

That all depends on the question and topic area. But marks aren't 'deducted', in truth. You'd set up criteria for answers ahead of time, and marks are awarded for hitting those criteria.
In a science class, those criteria are unlikely to be kind to biblical literalism.

I understand, and I feel it is sad to lose God in your life. Its always nice to thank the Creator for something beautiful that you see in nature.

It is pretty empty to say thank you to Mr Nobody who did nothing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is always common ground somewhere....

Indeed!

I am not suggesting that. But students should be able to put on a test ..."evolution science teaches that......" and state what they have been taught, but leaving room for their own beliefs on the topic unstated. That would not offend anyone would it?

It's actually not about 'offending anyone'. Or actually, sometimes it probably is, sadly, but it shouldn't be. It's about answers measured against the criteria.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't have had any issue in the least with what you've suggested, and would argue with other teachers if they did.

We understand that tests are tests and that it would be ridiculous to introduce all manner of religious beliefs into science. But at the same time, it should be taught as a theory and not as an established fact. High School kids enter uni with the notion that science has proven evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.....I do not believe that this is true. I have doubts about the whole scenario.

Technically, I agree. It's a theory (or series of theories) rather than a fact. It should be taught as such. But theory in scientific terms isn't theory in common parlance.

I cannot see how it is ever proven to go beyond a hypothesis. Why does an Intelligent Creator have to be relegated to myth? Just because you can't test him doesn't make him mythological.

To some extent, I agree. Without making this about me, I identify as an agnostic atheist. Rather than materialism, philosophically I would describe myself as a methodological naturalist.
Both allow for the limits of human knowledge.

Bringing it back to the science class, though, the inability to test does disqualify God from being part of the curriculum.
Perhaps, like Sweden, we would be better served teaching about religions in a more comparative sense. But specific religious claims are better kept out of the education system, imho. That wasn't universally the case, incidentally, when I was teaching (late 90s)

There is no way to test macro-evolution either but yet scientists assume it is true.

Well, test is shorthand, really, for repeatable measurement and testing of evidence. Direct observation is only one method. Genome markers, and DANA testing more generally is another example. By it's nature (in terms of the time required to see change) there is by definition a limit to what is directly observable. Similar to limitations in determining how universes are formed.

I think reducing the accumulated body of scientific knowledge to the level of 'assumption' is a wee bit of an overstatement though. Whatever your thoughts about 'science', these theories were developed against the 'common knowledge' of the day, and have stood up to constant scrutiny, with amendments and additions as we've gone.
Does that make them 'fact'? No. But it does make them science, which is what should be taught in a science classroom.

I do believe that creationists have a lot to answer for in misrepresenting the Genesis account in the Bible. The earth is not young and creation was not poofed into existence in 6 /24 hour days.

Makes sense. I get very frustrated when some atheists make bad arguments, or attribute more to atheism than what it is. It feels like they are misrepresenting me. I imagine poor Biblical arguments feel a little similar to you.

I understand, and I feel it is sad to lose God in your life. Its always nice to thank the Creator for something beautiful that you see in nature.

It is pretty empty to say thank you to Mr Nobody who did nothing.

I think we've done this dance before. Nature is awesome in the truest sense. Its beautiful, and inspiring and hard. I don't have a God to thank for the beauty, nor question over events like the recent quake in Mexico. Unlike some, I don't see God's hand in man's folly. There is a peace in knowing we are responsible for ourselves, but I understand you see it differently, and that's fine.