7 in 10 U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 16:34
VIEWED: 9190
PAGE 5 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

MALACHITE

Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...

....?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t/

Ultimately, however, I care very little about questions about why we're here and how because, really, what difference does it make?

Quote:

Besides, the definition you mention is still contrary to Sig's made up definition in which belief is "the acceptance of ideas that run counter to available evidence"...

Oh? It sounded rather synonymous to me.

Huh... I don't know what to say to that. If you were someone else, I would think you were toying with me... Really? To me, a belief in something that "runs counter to available evidence" sounds a lot more irrational than a belief in something that merely "is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". In the first instance, we actually have evidence to the contrary. In the second instance, we don't. We just don't have rigorous proof of the belief -- though there may be some supporting evidence.

ETA: I looked at your link. Even if they are successful in that endeavor, the main implication will be that non life required a creator (in this case, the intervention of scientists deliberately putting together the proper organic molecules in the proper space without other external interference) to get the ball rolling. That is all fascinating, but it doesn't imply that non life could have spontaneously generated life without external (and very intelligent, specific, sentient and directive) intervention. To do that, you need to simulate prebiotic conditions and let nature (not scientists) do its work -- sort of like the Miller experiment.

Oddly enough, the experiment would seem to be more an argument for the need for Intelligent Design...

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:36 PM

Quote:
"is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". In the first instance, we actually have evidence to the contrary. In the second instance, we don't. We just don't have rigorous proof of the belief -- though there may be some supporting evidence.

I suppose it's a matter of what you put the most emphasis on when you read the definitions. I think your interpretation is viable, but when I read both of them, what it sounds like to me is the suggestion that both "lack" immediate proof. Now that I think about it, I was assuming that in the lack of immediate proof, then the opposite position might have confirming evidence, but I suppose that might not also be true.

Quote:
That is all fascinating, but it doesn't imply that non life could have spontaneously generated life without external intervention. To do that, you need to simulate prebiotic conditions and let nature (not scientists) do its work -- sort of like the Miller experiment.

You're getting to the crux of the matter. There is such a field of study, producing results at a steady rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Everything here is steps in a process towards understanding.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Magons: Also, it's damn hell to create a working clay golem, let alone a living human from scratch outside of the traditional method. I suspect occultists had access to advanced robotics from long dead civilizations or space.

But to be truly fair, most of the old estimates of the age of the universe and ideas about the shape and size of the Earth technically didn't come from religion, Western civilization pretty much stole that from the Greeks. I suspect also that there was a bit of cross over between the early Semites/Canaanites, some of which would later become Jews, and ancient Greece, as both religions had a story about mankind being sculpted from clay by the gods (yes, gods, the Jews weren't always monotheistic). They also both had a story about a big flood, and the only two decent humans left in the world repopulated the world with animals and other humans.

I agree with sig, people based their ideas on the evidence that was available at the time. As different evidence emerged, and ideas evolved, the old ways of thinking became superceded. Not that I don't think that there isn't value in mythology.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't see why evolution is such a controversy in the US. I had a religious upbringing and was still taught evolution. Is it not possible to believe in a God and understand and accept the theory of evolution?

I think it is possible. The word "evolution" can raise hackles, though, because it gets used by atheists in an attempt to debunk religion -- that's how I sometimes hear it and used to use it. Something like, "Life can generate itself without external, divine intervention, therefore there is no Creator." It appears to raise hackles the same way the word "belief" can raise an atheist's hackles... :)

That explains a lot then, because for the life of me I can't even begin to wonder why this is even a topic of discussion, why there is even a controversy. I mean we are living in the 21st century, not the 19th right?

I don't think this controversy exists much outside of the US. I could be wrong, I hope I am not.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I just thought it was funny that Signe was so shocked, given the sample population given in the title. I suppose I can see how she was surprised about the country wide stats, but really of course pastors believe in intelligent design, no shocker there. It just made me laugh.

Why do spiritual leaders need to weigh in on matters of science anyway? Is that their area of expertise?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Hmmm...

It may all be belief - but I think there are several magnitudes of difference between belief based upon evidence, and belief based upon a storybook - no matter how old it is.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

Or as I said earlier - belief based upon evidence vs belief based upon faith (and in the matter of creationism, directly opposed to evidence).

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:58 PM

Malachite is definitely on to something here. Evolution wouldn't be seen as a threat if it were not being used to bludgeon religion. I don't find the two ideas mutually exclusive. I think that the evidence I've seen of evolution, which is a lot, leads me to believe that genes are existing in a large pre-existing sequence and being unlocked slowly through the ages. That doesn't depict a purely darwinian world, and a thinking religious person could certainly use it to argue their case. The problem is that people react emotionally rather than logically, and so churches panic, and academics do a dance and sing god is dead. All of which gets us nowhere.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:06 PM

Mimivirus, am I right?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Malachite is definitely on to something here. Evolution wouldn't be seen as a threat if it were not being used to bludgeon religion. I don't find the two ideas mutually exclusive. I think that the evidence I've seen of evolution, which is a lot, leads me to believe that genes are existing in a large pre-existing sequence and being unlocked slowly through the ages. That doesn't depict a purely darwinian world, and a thinking religious person could certainly use it to argue their case. The problem is that people react emotionally rather than logically, and so churches panic, and academics do a dance and sing god is dead. All of which gets us nowhere.

Not all academics are atheists, nor are all people who do not wish creationism to be taught along side evolution.

Many people react badly when religious belief starts to intrude on other areas of life where it really has no business in being, ie science and politics. In my mind, religion should be about individuals following their own individual spiritual path, and should not be about policy, scientific or otherwise.

If religion is about a person trying to live the best life they can, then I have no problem with it. I have a problem when it becomes about forcing beliefs based on faith on public policy.