The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."I don't think it's so much that Americans are anti-science as that they are much less committed to scientific values than to the values of free speech and open dialogue. This is not not as antithetical to science as it may seem at first to people who strongly believe (as I do) that science classes should contain only bona fide science. There ought to be better social studies classes to teach students about the relationship between religion and science.
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
August 31, 2005
Why do so many Americans favor teaching creationism?
A new poll shows that almost two-thirds of Americans think public schools ought to teach children about creationism when they teach evolution:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
This whole debate over creationism is ridiculous. The NY Times reported yesterday that 1 in 5 americans believes that the sun revolves around the earth? There are a lot of science dummies out there...maybe we should drop the issue of evolution altogether and make sure people understand the basics first.
The scientific moranification of America will lead to the same ignorance as the middle ages. Today, people have substitute religions, i.e., "environmentalism." The rsult of these beliefs, however is the same - irrational decision making. Today I read that Muslim Clerics were saying that the disaster in new Orleans is because Allah is punishing America for being America. The Environmentalists are essentially saying the same thing. Both groups have lost their grasp of science and replaced it with irrational faith.
I have a solution to the creationism issue. Make evolution a college course.
A lot of science and archeology backs up the Bible, especially the New Testament. More science backs up the Bible than global warming. We teach that.
And science doesn't explain and can't begin to explain creation. I believe in evolution and that it should be taught but it doesn't explain creation either.
What created the Big Bang? What created what created the Big Bang?
Science has never come close to creating from inanimate matter even a single cell capable of reproduction.
As a Christian I'm secure enough in my beliefs not to be threatened by others. As a matter of fact if it weren't for science and archeology I couldn't believe in Christ.
There's no reason not to present all sides especially where science lacks an explanation. Why do people feel threatened by this?
Hmm...I am a creationist, that is, I believe the Bibilical Creation account.
At the same time, I am perpetually bemused that the enlightened class has forgotten such basic truths that prohibiting something (i.e., Teaching ID) instantly makes it more desirable. Just ask the majority of teenagers...
By inhibiting the debate, by restricting accesss, it promotes ignorance, and does a disservice to the public.
Somehow I am reminded of the story my father told of his father regarding the first tractor they had on the farm. Grandpa had always used horses. He climbed on the tractor for the first time and it headed towards the barn. As it neared the barn, he began to pull back on the steering wheel yelling "whoa!whoa!" but of course the tractor ran into the barn. He never again attempted to drive a tractor. Entrenchment = comfort. I knew another person, successful in life, well adjusted, a hard worker and fairly well spoken with a year of technical college under his belt who simply refused to believe that man had walked on the moon. It was propoganda he said but he never offered an explanation as to what purpose such propoganda was being put forth. It appears at present that neither science or religion wants to open much of a dialogue.
If they're going to teach Intelligent Design, I demand equal time for my own theory, Stupid
Design...the thesis that God is a Moron. Evidence (appendixes, toenails, etc.) is everywhere.
I find it interesting that people use resoning such this:
"Science requires that any idea be validated using the scientific method. This requires, among other things, that any hypothesis be able to be tested with an experiment that can disprove the hypothesis." To prove that the universe came into being out of nothing.
Has science ever shown something coming from nothing? I was always taught the law of conservation of matter which states: Under normal circumstances, matter can neither be created or destroyed only changed.
If you say that the universe has always existed in one form or the other then you have an infinite past. If there is an infinite past how did we get to this moment?
If you then decide to make an appeal to Kant's antimones, I would reply that Kant didn't favor any scientific proof or nonproof of the existence of God.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us all as religous fanatics. I have faith in God. Some people have faith in science. It takes less faith for me to believe that "In the beging God..." than it does for me to belive that it all came out of nothing.
Well said, Geoff...
I don't care if I.D. is taught in science class or social studies or philosophy or wherever -- but its examination is as valuable an endeavor as many other quasi-educational subjects being taught in schools. Perhaps elementary school is a little early to be introducing such concepts, but certainly high school kids will not be irreversibly scarred by being exposed to what SCIENTISTS (yes, there are SCIENTISTS studying ID)are doing.
And I really wonder if the study of the ID theory is really so far from the study of quantum physics -- which is still, at this point, just theory but is accepted as scientific pursuit, is it not?
The reason ID shouldn't be taught in schools all lies in the word "theory" and it's competing meanings. When scientists refer to the theory of evolution, they refer to theory as (from dictionary.com) "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." When people argue that intelligent design should be taught, they argue that evolution is just a theory, "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture," (also dictionary.com). Arguing that intelligent design should be taught as a supplement to the theory of evolution is like arguing that alternatives to the theory of relativity, quantum theory, etc. also be taught.
"The reason ID shouldn't be taught in schools all lies in the word "theory" and it's competing meanings. When scientists refer to the theory of evolution, they refer to theory as (from dictionary.com) "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
OTOH, it can be argued that evolution and ID are both belief systems, that is, neither can be falsified.
I.D. along with the theory of global warming belong in religion and social studies classes.
Neither one has anything to do with learning the scientific method and how to apply the scientific method to go from Step A to Step B.
How can anyone call themselves "scientific" when he/she absolutely refuses to consider one of the proferred explanations of the origins of life?
What if God did create the universe? How in the hell can one expect to even come close to answer when that topic is verboten? Foolish.
Yes, ID and creationism are more theology/philosophy than hard science. Is not ethics part of science too? Aren't these fundamental questions a part of any honest scientific inquiry?
That's why many Christinas are "against" evolution. The absolute exclusion of God from the equation takes just as much faith as the inclusion of God into the matter.
"....Why? Because it doesn't need proof. That is, after all the nature of faith...."
Although I agree with your argument, there are many others who do not. For example, it is a common occurence in history to use events to prove a religious faith. For example, you can offer proof of a disaster to strenthen your argument that God was angry with the current state of morality. The reason why one can remain skeptical of the proof is that the test cannot be run again in a laboratory. Its hard to act immoral and then directly relate it to some natural disaster. (In this sense global warming theories are no different than religion). Thus, it will only remain a theory.
Evolution and ID are similar in that they cannot be prove in a Lab. Further we have examples of both in nature (i.e., humans manipulating the DNA of grain, and humans naturally selecting DNA).
I don't support teaching ID, but evolution has similar problems.
"when stressed, and organism may change to adapt to its new environment"
This is not what the theory of evolution espouses.
There is some kind of fallacy going around here that seems to say that philosophy and "real" science have nothing to do with each other.
All science starts from a philosophical base. Every scientific postulation has philosophical/theological implications.
I am not a prescriptionist. I don't give a shit what the public schools teach or how they teach it. I am mostly concerned with priciples. Many of the evolutionists have a big problem with coming to terms with the philosophy that holds up their science. Many try to say that there is no philosophy involved...and in a different way I completly agree!
It's not about the science or the theology.
It's about who decides what goes into the schools - and that, in turn, goes to some pretty fundamental questions about democracy.
A broad subset of the population wants to have it both ways. They want universal public schools teaching a common curriculum - and they want that curriculum to be determined by a relatively small elite, with no democratic participation and no ability for elements of the system to opt out.
I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, that the pro-creationism adherents would be similarly trying for the whole enchilada, because historically they tried to do the same thing.
Neither faction deserves that kind of unexamined decision power.
Far better for our schools to be fragmented and chaotic - let a thousand flowers bloom. Let parents choose the kind of school and the kind of education they want. Vouchers, charters, independents, public, private - there should be a diverse patchwork of options, and free choice of curriculum within the options.
Sure, there will be people who abuse their freedom. There always are. Just because baby can't handle steak, why should I have to drink milk?
I completely agree withyou Robert. But that is not my concern.
FWIW, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is the temporal sequence of biological forms in the fossil record, which I don't think even IDers dispute. The theory of evolution is Darwin's explanation of how this sequence occurs: natural selection. ID is a bogus theory because it has no explanatory power...it just replaces the question of how the sequence of fossil forms arose with the question of how the Designer works...until the IDers come up with a scientific desrciption of the Divine Ectoplasm or whatever, ID is worthless.
As I indicated in my blog ID has a lot of science behind it, since it accepts the part of Darwinism that can be proven (has fossil evidence), and just offers another answer for the part that cannot be scientifically proven.
Sorry, I see that in my previous post, I got the wrong link for my blog, i.e. http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/08/teaching-of-creationism-is-endorsed-in.html
While there may be a debate among politicians and pundits about teaching evolution in the classroom, there is no debate among scientists. Grade school and high school students shouldn't be taught 'competing views' on the issue, if the competing views are unscientific, and merely the will of whichever evangelical Christians happen to have been elected to the school board.
Pointing out that there are some questions that the theory of evolution does not answer does not legitimize creationism, or apologies for creationism, such as intelligent design, at all. Then again as those people are not versed in the scientific method they shouldn't be expected to know that, so we have to remind them.
Our public school students are not taught competing views on anything else, for instance American history. There are many legitimate ways to tell the story of America's history, but our students are only taught one way. That is a topic that people really can DISCUSS. And yet science, which is about black-and-white facts, is according to some people the place where teachers should be 'fostering discussion' by pushing religion on young, impressionable students.
Much has been made about the way in which our president sees the world -- in terms of black and white, right and wrong.
I find it amusing that, according to our President, the jury is still out on evolution; the jury is still out on global warming, the jury is still out on whether stem cell research can improve people's lives . . . that sounds pretty wishy-washy to me. But there is no question that sports supplements and steroids are sufficiently bad that they need to be mentioned in the state of the union! Steroids are bad in all cases, except when the president's friend Rafael Palmeiro takes them, in which case the president believes Rafael's story and thinks he should be let off the hook. Is that a flip-flop?
Leeontheroad,
You have just proven my point. Have you ever even heard of David Hume? You act as if no philosophy ever existed before him. You seem to think your worldview is only formed from your observasions but you fail to aknowledge how your worldview colors your observations. Everyone starts with a world view and then makes observations. No exceptions.
"Can God make a rock to big for him to lift?"
That is logic. If what the Bible says about God is true, then why should the creator of human logic be required to fit inside of it?
The folks who, here and elsewhere, claim that ID is religious have clearly never read a single publication coming out of the movement. They go out of their way to emphasize that the conclusions they make are based on observation, not theology. The one premise that they have that the evolutionists do not is that we can recognize "design" when we see it. If this is false, the scientists in the SETI program are wasting their time and NASA's money.
Ann's speculation that people that advocate teaching Creationism (presumably including ID) are more concerned about free-speech issues is probably right. I know I would be much happier if we didn't have government-run schools at all (any more than we should have government-run newspapers) but since we will have them for the forseeable future, I would rather have students aware of the scientific challenges to Darwinism so that they can intelligently discuss the matter. As it stands, everyone knows that ID and Creationism are religious, mainly because they heard it from some authority figure or other and haven't taken the time to investigate on their own.
Happy Eigth Day!!
This is a carry forward of an old post and I am reposting it as I feel moved by my own spirit to keep spreading the word...
A lot of my brothers think I am a blasphemer, but I know that the Lord speaks to each of us (even foul, enraged, sleazy a__holes like me!) with every passing second.
So much of the world would be at peace and with love if each of us could listen and and try to converse with to the constant loving peaceful voice of God in our soul and ignore the prideful angry voice of Satan in our ears.
The Lord knows that I'm probably one of the worst of people but He still loves me. Why He does passes beyond my understanding!
There is a question that has stood in the face of all of us, one that stands in this world in such a way as to be a barrier to faith. The fact is that the question itself is unimportant to His message, but the enemy has used it to prevent belief and to cause those who have faith to be viewed as stupid, ignorant, superstitious, and reviled as uncivilized.
The question is: how did the universe come into being and how old is it? Did God wave his magic hand and "poof" here's the world, or did the universe just evolve from the Big Bang and form life? How long did all of this take?
First off - a disclaimer. He has told many other people this so I know I'm not the first or special. I might be crazy but, well...whatever.
There are a number of places in the Bible where God tells us that He does not view time the way we do and that His days are not our days. Psalm 90:4 is one of the first and this revelation was always a breath into my soul. Also 2 Peter 3:8. What did this mean?
For quite a while I had wondered, prayed, and listened. Several years back at the church I was attending at the time, we had gone thru the various verses where the Word spoke of Jesus creation through which the universe was created. With a mounting sense of awe of I kept on hearing these verses louder and louder in my soul along with again the verses about His days not being our days but again I wondered why.
Then finally I heard the truth and it rang out with an exhultation of peace and Love the spoke into my soul.We were going thru the birth of our Lord in Luke 2 and we got to verse 21 it was to me as if the Heavens had opened and I saw the words that answered everything: "On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise Him, He was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before He had been conceived".
A voice rang out in my soul that brought peace and Love and it said unto me "this is My Truth". Jesus life itself has always truly been described as the circumcision, the shedding of flesh and blood to atone for our sins. Why do you think God gave the tradition of circumcision on the eighth day to the Jews? He was asking for them as His chosen people to atone in flesh and blood as he would do when he came to this world. This was both a prophecy and the Convenant of his promise to them and to us. That He would come on the eighth day of creation(after the birth of Himself and the universe) from their chosen race to shed His own blood and flesh for all of our sins.
All of the other arguments and theories are really immaterial to this truth.In Genesis it says that God created Adam from the dust. Does it matter what forms the dust took before it became Adam? We can still see His hand writ in all of creation. Does it matter how you believe what is written about all of this? As long as you believe that it was all by His hand and that it was all created thru Jesus all of these other points are merely intellectual exercises and in truth serve their best by allowing us to view the true majesty of His creation.
All of the arguments against a longer age of the universe are moot before the fact that the light of suns and galaxies from far beyond our own has taken millions and billions of years to get here and yet before our Lord we are STILL in His eighth day. For His days are not our days.
This for me is His truth that keeps me and hold me, and that gives me strength when I face both the darkness of my world and my own unworthy self.
On this day, however many days in the eyes of our small lives since the creation of all, I bid you Happy Eighth Day. May the Lord Bless you, always.
While there may be a debate among politicians and pundits about teaching evolution in the classroom, there is no debate among scientists. Grade school and high school students shouldn't be taught 'competing views' on the issue, if the competing views are unscientific, and merely the will of whichever evangelical Christians happen to have been elected to the school board.
This attitude smacks of inquisitional close mindedness...
In fact, what are they trying to hide? If they are innocent, they would be happy to discuss it? What are they afraid of?
Tristam (and others)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?incamp=article_popular_1
Leeontheroad
You may know more than me but you still haven't addressed the main point of all my comments here. Is my main point wrong? I mean you are the one who can tell me because you went to college and I didn't.
I know my worldview has flaws, I am a fallible man, but at least I have the integrity to make myself vunerable by expousing the things I believe. It doesn't take much courage to sit there and say, "I'm only going to stand up for what is scientific."
2. Scientists have brought some of this on themselves with the various scandals that have occurred over the years. The perception may exist that, contrary to advertising, scientists are not selflessly absorbed in the quest for truth, but are more like grey wizards whose motives are mixed and unclear. Such wizards can be cajoled or influenced in ways that an 'ideal' scientist cannot, and it's not surprising that politicians and the public try.
This certianly could be part of it. From Tobacco Safety 'Reasearch' funded by Big Tobacco, to some Global Cooling/Warming stories (models perhaps flawed), to even such current topics as big Pharma and safety and efficiacy of drugs, plus a whole host of mad scientist movies (which may be popular because people believe/want to believe/are afraid they are true), many scientist have lost the air of credibility that surrounded Einstein, Feynmann, 60's NASA scientists, etc.
Post a Comment