Another 4th of July Classic repost from the original done in Novemeber of 2004. Great list of comments.
new math skills
The CBS announcement here. Americans FAVOR Creationism
Chart from CBS News Website
Now here’s the problem I’m having with CBS. Knowing that I personally think creationism is a quaint but dangerous anti-scientific superstition, I wonder what CBS is up to here because the numbers do not reflect a 100-percent sum in any case. Tell me how, for example, 71-percent of Bush voters think that evolution AND creationism should be taught in schools while 45-percent of Bush voters think that ONLY creationism should be taught in school. That adds up to 116-percent!! The question is exclusive, you can’t say yes or no to both questions. Seems that once again CBS has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. Either that or this is a pro-creationism poll done by someone on the inside. And the math and the inability to add 2+2 is a mere reflection of where we are headed with this hogwash. We’re headed to being one of the dumbest countries in the world.
That said, I suspect that, in fact, the charts are misrepresented and the lower chart is some sort of subset and the top chart should have benn cited with “and/or” rather than “and.”
I was also amused by the CBS comment that none of this was a big deal because “only” 37-percent of all Americans think that evolution should be scrapped in schools and replaced by biblical creationism. Only 37-percent? Only??! With a population just about to hit 300 million we’re talking about 100 million people! Yeah, no big deal.
Now this news from last June makes more sense:
Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness
related essay:
Public Opinion: Creationism Tops Evolution – By Joseph Grant Swank — — I was unaware of the fact that Hillary is now on this bandwagon too. It’s unbelieveable.
And the latest report poll comes from none other than CBS! The question: Can we believe it? Can we believe anything coming out of CBS with the recent “document scandal”?
Yet the CBS headline reads: POLL: CREATIONISM TRUMPS EVOLUTION.
Now the thought comes to mind. Is this a Hillary parallel or is this poll fact?
Just days ago Hillary told that she is an “evangelical conservative” particularly in her daily devotions. Well, do tell. If that’s so, then Putin just became President of the United States.
And some of those people reject facts, like hundreds of documented cases of people that died and came back to life and could describe everything happening in the room, even what was happening when they were clinically dead. Things they could not possibly have seen from where they were even if they had been concious.
Facts like hundreds of documented cases of terminally ill people that are given up to die and recover overnight with no traces of the illness they were dying from. I could go on and on, but people won’t believe facts. People who won’t believe facts could be likened to someone in a forest where all they can see is trees. If they would only climb to a higher elevation they could not only see the forest, they could see everything surrounding it. The difference between me and you, my narrow minded friends, and yes Mr. Dvorak, you are included, is that I’ve been where you are, but you’ve never been where I am.
I’m believing it all. When God spoke the universe into existance I think “Big Bang” is an understatement. Probably the BIGGEST bang there will ever be. As far as evolution goes, the majority of God’s creations have already been eliminated from the gene pool. Dinosaurs, too big, hyper-sensitive to extreme temp changes due to reptillian cold-blood problems. Semi-human apes totally eliminated, leaving 100% human and 100% animal to exist in their respective happy places.
Regardless, creation vs. Darwin’s ramblings. neither puts another dollar in my pocket, or guarantees my place in heaven. Being a good person is irrelevant of the teachings of the Holy Bible. The only times Christians can perform stoning is when one of them that has never commited ANY sin is around to cast the first stone.
John, you’re the best at tech and related topics, but spiritual topicality is best left to someone who cares. Having faith and belief in evolution is more than Darwin did, but if it’s working for you, great! Regardless of what anyone believes in their heart, it’s irrelevant to the universe. It only matters to God.
To quote Jimi, “If I don’t see you no more in this world.. Catch you in the next one. Don’t be late!”
I actually can believe what Hillary Clinton says about herself — politicially liberal yet personally conservative.
I am an evangelical Christian — not from the southern bible belt from the northern breed of evangelicals.
We tend to be quite CONSERVATIVE in our PERSONAL theology, reading of the bible, ethical behavior, etc.
But we tend to be LIBERAL in our voting and sense of social responsibility.
We “northern bible belters” aren’t usually the ones pushing creationism, for instance. We believe that God DID create the world (probably using evolution) but we understand that others don’t believe like we do and we should respect those differences.
Pushing our personal agenda in the schools, just isn’t neighborly.
I was talking to my father about creationism vs evolution. He said, and I agree, that evolution doesn’t exclude a God figure. Evolution and the big bang still had to start from something. He believes in evolution. This from a man who longs for the pre vatican II days of Latin mass. I believe in evolution, but don’t believe in a god.
Christians that believes in the “light-switch” theory of creation so that theories like the Big Bang and Evolution fit nicely into their world are really deists in disguise. The bible clearly contracts science as well as itself in numerous locations.
It is a fact that most people are afraid of the unknown. Thus, in order to alleviate that fear, they eliminate the unknown by attributing it to a higher power(s). That a person given up to a medical solution is suddenly cured is symptomatic of how much we still have to learn about the human body and its diseases. There is an explanation, but it may not be known for years to come. That such a person lives provides no credence to the theory that an uber-being(s) saved them.
Faith and science both seek truth, the difference is their methods. History has proven that science is far more effective in finding truth than faith. It is an affront to our education system when 1/3 of the population believes that a real science theory should be scraped from science classes.
In terms of Hilary, that’s a different situation. In the next four years, remember to evaluate Hilary’s statements and decisions in light of her wanting the White House in 2008. So she’s going to spend the next four years making herself appeal to the red states. That means providing credence to creationism, claiming herself to be religious and perhaps even moving back to Arkansas.
How does dinosaurs fit into creationism. And what happens if we discover life on other planets. How will that fit into the bibles fictional explaination of the birth of man. It is far easier to believe in some mythical super being then to try and really find out why we are here.
I noticed that Thomas didn’t comment on Mr. Blackoak’s comment about near death experiences. I’m guessing that’s because him and his scientists friends don’t have an explanation. I’m assuming that’s because of the typical myopic, head in the sand stance that people like him are most fond of.
I’m with Blackoak. The problem is that a people like them can be likened to someone drinking water and eating crackers in the foyer of a banquet hall, watching others go in and out of the banquet, all the while vociferously denying that there actually is a banquet and that all the people claiming that they had a wonderful meal are either lying or are mistaken. Enjoy your water and crackers, but there really is much more available.
Actually, I did comment on near-death experiences. It falls into the same category as “miraculous” cures. That an event happens that cannot be explained by current medical science provides no credence to the theory that an uber-being(s) somehow intervened. It simply means we have no current explanation. Unknown has a place in science whereas it does not in religion. In the 1500’s people thought that they were dying because of punishment from this uber-being. Many years later, we discovered that the real cause of the epidemic was bubonic plague.
Using a variant of your cheesy (pun intended) metaphor, it would be like watching people come and go from a banquet hall and noticing that they were full. Instead of guessing that they might be eating within the banquet hall, the religious person would chalk it up to an uber-being magically filling their stomachs.
Giving scientific credibility to what is commonly known as “creationism”, or any other cosmology for that matter, is the same as saying that the sun orbits around the earth. It is such a naďve belief that it is hard to believe that so many people still give it more credit than the credit attributed to a children’s book – I don’t think that the Vatican, or any other. The classical theory of evolution (the one outlined by Darwin, without “Mendelian inheritance”) on the other hand is such a natural and sophisticated idea and such an easy one to prove by means of the observation of the biological world that the thing that keeps it from being as well accepted as the one that assures us the earth is not flat are some strong misconceptions, one of those is the fear that God doesn’t take place in such a world, or that in such a world (the governed by the laws of natural selection) Man would be compared to all the other “beasts” that inhabit it; these were fears that even Darwin had. If we talk about the modern theory of evolution then we talk about something that can explain the origin of every living thing on this planet, galaxy and universe (and, if there any, in other “universes”) in a deterministic way. There is, it’s a fact, the idea of the Intelligent Designer or Design, which is a more elegant and modern way of including God in the great scheme of things but that is not creationism and which does not necessarily deny the theory of evolution.
I am an atheist and believe that Science, as well as the Arts and Religion, can offer some great “feasts” of knowledge and understanding of the reality that surrounds us but I can accept that others can think otherwise. But the awareness that the scientific perspective offers us, incomplete as it may be, is something unique, and something that one can not throw away just because it sometimes goes against our personal beliefs.
Have we really reached the point where “scientist” is a dirty word? I refer to Marvinski’s statement, “I’m guessing that’s because him and his scientists friends don’t have an explanation.”
Yes, M. Those evil scientists.
And I’ll second Marvinski’s request that Thomas debunk every crackpot claim of a near death experience. I’m sure Thomas has nothing better to do than prove that people who make claims that they “see” things aren’t telling the truth, or the people verifying their statements are lying or mistaken.
While he’s at it, I hope he takes the opportunity to debunk the entire fortune-telling industry and the people who support it. That’s a whole lot of people that will swear up and down that the “fortunes” are accurately describing things the fortune tellers couldn’t possibly see.
BTW, these people with the near-death experiences might want to give “The Amazing Randy” a ring because he has an outstanding offer of $1million dollars to anyone that can prove one of these paranormal events. Think about it! You come back from a near-death experience and then get $1 million dollars! Awesome!
http://www.randi.org/
Hey! Once when I was about 8 years old, this is true, I had a dream in which I was floating around my own bedroom and had a clear picture (well in b/w to be honest) of my bed and some other furniture from the height of say 1 ft; I was really afraid at the time. I was, I’m sure, in perfect health and not in a comma and there was no one there with me. Would this apply for the $1 million dollars reward?
It’s uncanny how predictable the narrow minded responses are. These people actually have to ridicule, ignore and dodge around the truth to keep from seeing it. Kinda like the old analogy of a blind man describing an elephant. When they can’t explain something, they deny it and ridicule those that see the truth. They don’t want to know the truth, they can’t handle the truth. Since they have to ignore it to keep being narrow minded, they then have to live in conflict with themselves rather than embracing the truth and living in peace. The ironic part is that adhering to half truth is actually harder than embracing the whole truth. It’s a beautiful world when you live life without blinders on.
resende, no that would not qualify you since you were not clinically dead at the time and had no witnesses.
Science is not a dirty word, it’s okay as far as it goes. It has always been (once again, look back at history) based on the best knowlege available at the time. However, it does not have a track record of being right all the time. If you want to religiously base your beliefs on science you certainly do have a lot of faith. I’d rather look at the whole truth, including the things science can and can’t explain.
In an effort to control my urge to utter trounch such gibberish and rail against such ignorance of science, I only say this: science is not based on faith. Science is based on what anyone else is able to verify and equally conclude. That which is proven to be false is discarded in place of that which is proven to be true. While it is true that science has been wrong, the scientific method is self-correcting. Religion and (blind) faith are not.
Marvinsky, there is allways a certain amount faith asked from anyone in order to believe in something. You use the terms truth, faith and beliefs in a rather ambiguous way as they assume different meanings in religion and science. In science you need truth to have faith and in religion you need faith to have truth. When I speak of believing in science I am not speaking of ‘beliefs’ and I’m sure I don’t “religiously” believe in the thing (science) because I don’t need to, I need proof.
One other thing… I think the US of A is a really great country and I am appaled when I hear that teaching creationism is something that is being politicaly propsed at national level. This, to me, is like proposing the transfer of your 2003 $11.0 trillion GDP to Manchuria and then you might as well have Hu Jintao as president, but that’s none of my business… 🙂
Utter trounch to your hearts content. I’ve never discounted science. The problem with the narrow minded in either camp, I have already pointed out. Creationists and evolutionists are both right and both wrong. It’s all a matter of perpective and those with perspective can see it, those without cannot. The blind will continue to follow the blind. Misery loves company etc… etc…
You can say there’s no such thing as Santa, but as for me and Granpa, we believe.
When people see a theory and they call it solid science, there’s a problem. There is evidence on both sides of the debate.
What’s most important is that our kids in school don’t lose sight of the fact that there are limits on science, and that theories are theories. Right now the best (and only) semi-plausable alternative to evolution is creation. It would be unfair to not at least make room on the stage for both.
What’s wrong with letting kids learn how to think for themselves?
Again, people think that creationists and evolutionists simply have different opinions. That’s the not the issue. Creationism is not science and should not be taught as science in science classes. I have no problem with people teaching creationism as any other type of course. I would think that religion (probably the best fit) or cultural anthropology would be the best fit. Just don’t try to claim it as science. What’s next: teaching astrology as science?
I am a “bible believing” Christian but I allow that Genesis CH1 is more about theologyand symbol than science.
In High School I had a biology professor who was downright hostile to the Christians and wouldn’t allow any discussion about creation in the class.
But then, at university (public), I had the most freeing experience. My geology professor near the beginning of the course said, “I’ve read the bible and I see nothing in there that contradicts the scientific record.”
Man, that helped me so much more than my high school teacher.
So — for me at least — it was very helpful to discuss creation in the classroom. In fact, that professors openess to talk about it, freed me up to accept the science without feeling like my faith was being challenged.
(BTW, I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian but am not anymore.)
That said, I suspect that, in fact, the charts are misrepresented and the lower chart is some sort of subset and the top chart should have benn cited with “and/or” rather than “and.”
I also wonder if it might be a sign of pragmatism on the part of some Christians, with the hard-core 45% wanting Creationism only, while the total rises to 71% when you add the pragmatists who want Creation taught, but know they can’t eliminate the teaching of Evolution.
The original article seems to back the idea that the two questions were asked seperately, not as an either/or choice.
“Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included. “
Yes, the masses are pretty stupid and uninformed. John, you’re not helping the situation at ALL with the horoscope advertisement on your page.
John Dvorak Benefits from the Public Stupidity he Decries
The “invalid” figures are easy to explain as the article states. The less educated people tend to believe in “magic” as opposed to taking on the difficult process of learning. This is a direct result of the deteriorating educational system in this country and a result of intense levels of immigration from poor uneducated countries.
It’s pretty sad that so many people would choose to told that something was done “magically” for everything that they couldn’t explain. The real question is why so many people are willing to believe other ignorant people who believe they have all the (one) answers?
71 + 45… It all makes sense now! Bush voters, vote early and often! That’s how he keeps winning elections.
So the religious right in the US now wants to push Creationism to the top of the political agenda… Sorta like those radical Muslims tend to do with their Anti-Amercian beliefs.
Amercians JUST DON’T GET IT!
They call A young man who picks up a gun for his religion in IRAQ is called a terrorist
but
A young man who picks up a gun for his country (who believes that “their” god created man) in the USA is called a patriot!
Yup can’t understand why half the planet is pissed at the the USA!?
I don’t believe the statistics. The small group I have informally discussed this with would seem to support evolution alone in schools by at least 90 %. Among the people I know there seems to be little support for teaching creationism in schools.
Those that don’t believe in quantum mechanics must also not believe in the existence of neon lights, mercury lights, sodium vapor lights, lasers, LEDs, electronics (TVs, computers, etc.) and other common technologies that work because of quantum mechanics.
I believe the Bible has some wisdom in it, but it certainly wasn’t written by . In many cases the original author’s name is also the name of the book he wrote. Fundamentalism is thus a logical fallacy.
it should also be noted here that many Christian religions do not consider the Bible to be a source of good science, as the authors of those books knew almost nothing about science or the scientific method.
A “Christian scientist” falls in the same oxymoron category as “Military Intelligence.”
And besides, the only reason these religious activists don’t support evolution is not because it attempts against their Bible but for the sole reason all churches hate each other: They don’t like it because the preacher/reverend/priest of the church they attend did not invented it.
Remember the immortal words of Karl Marx “Religion is to society as masturbation is to sex.”
The most pathetic thing about most people that have the nerve to call themselves a Christian or Catholic in this country is that everyone that I have spoken with somehow believes that they can pick & choose the aspects of “their” religion that they believe (kinda like a smorgasboard) and ignore the things that sound a little “far-fetched” to them. That’s like someone calling themselves a “white supremist” but wants to make exceptions for a few of their black and jewish friends. You either believe ALL the teachings that make an organization what it is or you are NOT a member nor follower (not to mention whom are void of true and full faith)! BTW, you are also not a “member” of a belief system simply by birth! I don’t understand how “non-practicing Christians” can call themselves that simply because their parents are (believers of) Christians!? Oh…the insanity of needing to belong!