Gallup: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[AsburySkinsFan]

Temporary spike due to the increase in the push from Creationists.

N.T. Wright in addressing this very thing writes in "Simply Christian"

"I am reminded of a legend about Karl Barth. On being asked by a woman whether the serpent in Genesis actually spoke, he replied, 'Madam, it doesn't matter whether the serpent spoke. What matters is what the serpent said.' Squabbling over particular definitions of the qualities of the Bible is like a married couple squabbling over which of them loves the children more, when they should be getting on with bringing them up and setting them a good example. The Bible is there to enable God's people to be equipped to do God's work in God's world, not to give them an excuse to sit back smugly, knowing they possess all God's truth.

[alexey]

Oh goody another addition to the Alexey's Rage Against Religion series of threads! This one shines a light on the stunning discovery that religion plays a role in the belief that God has a hand in human existence. I really would have never believed it but sure enough the data seems to support it. Amazing!

Can we get a link where we can learn more about atheism please? I'd like to sign up for a newsletter.

You can participate if you'd like, or you can ignore. These kinds of responses look like you are trying to discredit my views by name calling.

I found this particular poll here:

http://www.project-reason.org/

I have no affiliation with this organization, so please try to refrain from addressing me with your comments about it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Can person believe in God and NOT believe in creationism in some form?

Sure, one can believe in a Deistic model where the divine is wholly apart from the physical world. Never seen the use of that though, it leaves us asking...well what's the point then, eh? What use is a god like that?

[alexey]

1. I don't think this poll shows anybody has a fundamental ignorance of science. Maybe if they asked the question does science generally support the idea that humans evolved from other organisms, we could make that sort of statement.

2. Science isn't coming into conflict with their religious beliefs. Science is completely silent on the possiblity that humans were plunked down on the Earth 10,000 years ago by a super powerful being.

I'm betting on a statistical anomally in terms of the up-tick.

Can you maybe provide a breakdown of reasons why you think people may have answered "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"? I'd like to know how, in your view, that answer does not automatically betray a fundamental ignorance of science.

If I hold scientifically unsupported beliefs, how much leeway do I have in my "respectable disagreement" with science?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think we need to do more than just decide that "this is not for me". Such shocking levels of scientific ignorance are not good for our country. It is our patriotic duty to push back against it.

"Our patriotic duty"? Seriously? You think this has anything to do with patriotism? What kind of warped little world have you invented for your brain to live in that now holding a creationist view should be pushed back against on the basis of nationalistic patriotism? Especially....ESPECIALLY when the nation to which you presume to be patriotic for acknowledges the ABSOLUTE right of every person to understand and practice their faith however they best see fit. You want to talk about patriotism to America and then in the same sentence you push for that which is wholly unAmerican. Damn at the hubris.

[alexey]

Can person believe in God and NOT believe in creationism in some form?

Yes you have a lot of leeway in reconciling vaguely defined concepts.

[Bang]

"I often base decisions on fact and merit. But then I'll pray on it, and have sometimes changed my mind."

You could likely subsitute the word "pray" for

"contemplate", "meditate", "think", "reflect".. and it'll likely mean the same thing.

I don't think this means he looks for answers from his God to come to him because he prayed.

In this sense, we all do this. I don't believe, and I never pray, but I make tough decisions after a lot of thought, and occasionally after a conversation with myself that lays it out in front of someone who isn't there. Often that will help me refine my idea, or even change my mind because in doing that I have to articulate it all, and in doing that, I can examine it.

I would lay a dollar that is what he means when he uses the words "pray on it".

In fact, I'd much rather they "pray on it' than make decisions impatiently.

~Bang

[The Sisko]

Imma a humin bein'. I ain't come frum no munkie.

[Koolblue13]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-surrenders-creationist-demands

Mention creationism, and many scientists think of the United States, where efforts to limit the teaching of evolution have made headway in a couple of states. But the successes are modest compared with those in South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science.

A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. “The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,” says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Can person believe in God and NOT believe in creationism in some form?

Catholics more or less do. They believe that all creation comes from God but make no claim on how creation came into being. Catholics are encouraged to study science, not see it as some kind of secular conspiracy.

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

[Stadium-Armory]

That's some mealy-mouthed **** right there.

[Destino]

You can participate if you'd like, or you can ignore. These kinds of responses look like you are trying to discredit my views by name calling.

I found this particular poll here:

http://www.project-reason.org/

I have no affiliation with this organizations, so please try to refrain from addressing me with your comments about it.

First of all, I didn't call you any names.

Second I'm glad that you aren't affiliated with Project Reason. They exist to "erode" religious belief, which is to say much like every other religion they exist to see their view point become dominant. If you were affiliated with them this thread would seem a little too much like a recruitment effort for a particular group and that makes things uncomfortable.

As to you point, I didn't seek to discredit it as much as I chose to mock the obvious nature of your conclusion. We can all agree that creationism is a religious belief, correct? We can also, I imagine, that believing "God" plays a role in human evolution once again can be categorized as a religious belief. That being the case I think that evidence is hardly required to show that religion is the leading cause of religious belief. After all religious belief is the "problem" you're referring to when you stated "It seems that religion itself is the problem" correct? While full fledged creationism insults you, I'm sure believing that God played a role at all bothers you as well doesn't it?

[mjah]

Science is completely silent on the possiblity that humans were plunked down on the Earth 10,000 years ago by a super powerful being.

Given the lack of any convincing scientific evidence for that possibility, and the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence to the contrary, science can hardly be called "silent" on it.

Unless that is the same rabbit-hole theory that posits the production of mass distribution of false evidence across the globe to throw off the scientists, etc.

"Silent" is not the term that comes to mind.

[Destino]

Imma a humin bein'. I ain't come frum no munkie.

I like to think we came from monkey's that rode gorgonopsid's before dedicating themselves to cave painting and losing much of their bad assery.

[Koolblue13]

I think it's pretty obvious that as Mars cooled off, the martians came here, bred with monkeys to keep their species alive and we were born. I can't imagine another possibility personally.

[grhqofb5]

I think it's pretty obvious that as Mars cooled off, the martians came here, bred with monkeys to keep their species alive and we were born. I can't imagine another possibility personally.

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain bigfoot. Or Rosie O'Donnell.

[Destino]

I think it's pretty obvious that as Mars cooled off, the martians came here, bred with monkeys to keep their species alive and we were born. I can't imagine another possibility personally.

I can see the resemblance.

[Predicto]

[Dan T.]

I think it's pretty obvious that as Mars cooled off, the martians came here, bred with monkeys to keep their species alive and we were born. I can't imagine another possibility personally.

Don't be ridiculous. A man was plunked down in a garden. He got lonely, so a Supreme Being plucked out one of his ribs and made a woman. A snake started talking to the woman, who then bit an apple that she didn't pay for. They both got kicked out of the garden, started fornicating and - voila - 10,000 years later, here we are.

[grhqofb5]

Just a general question for some of you in this thread: Are you 100% convinced that there is no "god," meaning a supreme being who created, or at least set in motion the processess which have led to our present consciousness? If its too personal, of course you don't need to answer.

[Koolblue13]

Don't be ridiculous. A man was plunked down in a garden. He got lonely, so a Supreme Being plucked out one of his ribs and made a woman. A snake started talking to the woman, who then bit an apple that she didn't pay for. They both got kicked out of the garden, started fornicating and - voila - 10,000 years later, here we are.

Are you on drugs?

[Destino]

Don't be ridiculous. A man was plunked down in a garden. He got lonely, so a Supreme Being plucked out one of his ribs and made a woman. A snake started talking to the woman, who then bit an apple that she didn't pay for. They both got kicked out of the garden, started fornicating and - voila - 10,000 years later, here we are.

The apple wasn't stolen, it was magical. It contained the knowledge of good and evil which presumably made it suffer inconsistent quality with some being more evil than good and vice versa. This made that particular apple tree a poor choice for commercial agriculture which explains, in a perfectly reasonable way, why only one tree of this type was found in God's garden and why no such trees remain today.

[Dan T.]

Are you on drugs?

Only frankincense and recreational myrrh.

[Predicto]

Just a general question for some of you in this thread: Are you 100% convinced that there is no "god," meaning a supreme being who created, or at least set in motion the processess which have led to our present consciousness? If its too personal, of course you don't need to answer.

Not at all. That question is beyond my pay grade.

But I am firmly convinced that we were not created in this form and plunked down in the Garden of Eden in the past 10,000 years. And that is what this thread is talking about.

[Hunter44]

Don't be ridiculous. A man was plunked down in a garden. He got lonely, so a Supreme Being plucked out one of his ribs and made a woman. A snake started talking to the woman, who then bit an apple that she didn't pay for. They both got kicked out of the garden, started fornicating and - voila - 10,000 years later, here we are.

You mean that he had babies with his female clone??