Fewer Americans Than Ever Hold Creationist Views

Started by Hydra009, May 26, 2017, 03:32:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hydra009



Source

Agreement with the creationist view - God created man in its present form - has declined from 38% from the mid-40s, where it was for decades.
Agreement with the theistic evolutionist view - humans evolved, but God guided this process - has increased from 32% to 38%
Agreement with the secular view - humans evolved from lower life forms without any divine intervention - has doubled since 1982.

Unsurprisingly, people who go to church more often and/or have received less formal education are more likely to identify as creationists.

It seems that creationism has sharpy declined in recent years with both alternative views picking up the slack.  Good news for those of us who would rather not see our science classrooms turned into churches.

I dunno how closely you guys have been following the creationism/evolution "controversy", but it was all the rage in the early 2000s.  Creationists, I mean Intelligent Design advocates, made a big push to alter science curriculum, either to introduce "alternatives" to evolution or expound on the perceived weaknesses of the theory of evolution (like the conundrum of how come there are still apes if we came from apes or why crocoducks remain elusive).  But creationists lost court case after court case, culminating in the Kitzmiller decision in 2005, which was the death knell of the Intelligent Design movement.  Though there still is the occasional flare-up, the controversy has died down considerably.  Now we know why.

Baruch

Too Abrahamic.  And Americans are increasingly into Asian culture, or are of Asian descent.  Per Buddha, creation proceeds moment to moment ... hence a continuing identity is an illusion.  Why not a poll on whether Hercules as portrayed by Kevin Sorbo is for real? ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief. The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.

That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.   
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief. The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.

That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.
What do you mean by 'autonomous' human beings?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Hydra009

#4
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief.
After 150 years, a pointless political conflict, and a ton of lawsuits.  Dragged kicking and screaming to 19th century science.

QuoteThe reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism
Even this statement is dubious.  Worldwide, not much has changed.  But in specific countries (mostly western countries), atheist numbers have grown considerably.  It just gets balanced out by growing developing country populations and religious resurgences in historically communist countries.

Quoteis due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind.
Utter bollocks.  And for the millionth time, no less.

QuoteThat said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.
That's essentially the creationist position.  Not against evolution, just "skeptical" about the finer details of evolution.  They've perfected the art of noncommittal denialism.

Baruch

#5
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
This just proves a point I've made before, that if scientific evidence demonstrates a point of view, the masses will eventually come to accept it even if it contradicts religious belief. The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.

That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.

Darwin is 19th century scientific evolution theory.  We have the 21st century version, we don't need Darwin anymore.  This is distinct from 19th century Social Darwinism, which is still around, which states that we are in a life/death competition with the rest of humanity and nature, and we need to kill off any other humans and kill off nature.

And no, the public doesn't accept science.  They shouldn't on average accept the world is round or gravity or that the Earth spins or goes around the Sun, since to the naked eye, these ideas are nonsense.  My answer is that while these things are factual, their acceptance is the result of national propaganda.  With good enough propaganda, and a single voice (no competition between propagandists) you can pretty much get the public to believe anything.

I couldn't accept theism as my POV, unless i had a theism sufficiently advanced, as to match the advance of science, otherwise I would be an atheist.  You have a fairly advanced version of theism, but you occasionally slip into children's Bible time.  Two people can look at the same thing, and come to different conclusions.  This frustrates control freaks.  And this is the one thing that theists and atheists can agree on ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM

That said I distinguish between evolution (which is a fact) and Darwinism the belief that evolution coupled with natural selection accounts for the development of all life including autonomous human beings. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I am skeptical.   
There's nothing to stop that from happening by natural means.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

SGOS

That man evolved by the guiding hand of God is apologetics.  It says no such thing in the Bible. Instead, it's "Yeah evolution occurs, but God directs it."  An attempt to excuse an ancient religious belief by making something new up:  "What the Bible really means is bla bla bla.  Before it meant that other thing, but we now know that it was referring to evolution all along.  In order to really understand what the Bible says, you have to sort of read between the lines."

Hydra009

Quote from: SGOS on May 27, 2017, 10:29:28 AM
That man evolved by the guiding hand of God is apologetics.  It says no such thing in the Bible. Instead, it's "Yeah evolution occurs, but God directs it."  An attempt to excuse an ancient religious belief by making something new up:  "What the Bible really means is bla bla bla.  Before it meant that other thing, but we now know that it was referring to evolution all along.  In order to really understand what the Bible says, you have to sort of read between the lines."
Yeah.  Instead of continuing to fight the overwhelming scientific consensus (a conflict between facts and religion tends not to go very well for religion), they concede that evolution occurs (because of course it does) but frustratingly put a dollop of superstition on top - evolution occurs BUT Goddidit.  Well, how very scientific.  Theistic evolution makes about as much sense as theistic gravity or theistic heliocentrism (another fight that religion lost).  The only reason that bizarre position exists is because of the widespread view (typically promoted by creationists) that evolution falsifies Christianity.

Drew_2017

QuoteAfter 150 years, a pointless political conflict, and a ton of lawsuits.  Dragged kicking and screaming to 19th century science.

There are scientists today who drag their feet kicking and screaming over big bang theory. The scientist who proposed tectonics was roundly ridiculed as was Gregor Mendel wasn't recognized for his achievements until after death. Accepting new ideas takes time even among scientists.

QuoteEven this statement is dubious [that theism hasn't declined]. Worldwide, not much has changed.  But in specific countries (mostly western countries), atheist numbers have grown considerably.  It just gets balanced out by growing developing country populations and religious resurgences in historically communist countries.

I think the # of people who identify as non-religious has grown and some count that as being atheist. Secondly it doesn't count how many people are so called weak atheists who don't actually deny God exists they simply decline that belief.

is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind.

QuoteUtter bollocks.  And for the millionth time, no less.

I've provided ample opportunity for anyone one who wanted to list the facts and data and make their case. Why don't you start a thread The Case for Naturalism from Facts.

QuoteThat's essentially the creationist position.  Not against evolution, just "skeptical" about the finer details of evolution.  They've perfected the art of noncommittal denialism.

Sounds like weak atheists doesn't it?













Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

aitm

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 26, 2017, 08:59:31 PM
The reason no significant dent has been made regarding belief in theism is due to the lack of scientific data and evidence that supports the belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that ultimately created mind. If such evidence comes forth the masses will accept it.

Your point, though conceptually correct, cannot happen when the "masses" actively assist in the dismissal of said evidence via religious indoctrination. If parents, like yours, refused to force you into sunday school for "sheeple" training, you too could be a common sense rational non-theological nut job. It matters not a wit what the truth is when the "masses" are trained by the handlers, aka priests, ministers, rabbi's and their ilk, who need the income, to keep their nose to the babble stone so to speak and ignore sound scientific evidence in lieu of a make believe after life where chocolate bunnies sit atop gold fountains where all your ancestors live free from all the encumbrances of human life .

So the real truth is, if your parents were non-believers, you would be a regular member here and laugh, like we do, at minions like you.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Hydra009

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 27, 2017, 08:52:46 PMThere are scientists today who drag their feet kicking and screaming over big bang theory. The scientist who proposed tectonics was roundly ridiculed as was Gregor Mendel wasn't recognized for his achievements until after death. Accepting new ideas takes time even among scientists.
The main difference being that these scientific theories became accepted when the evidence came out.  For evolution, when the evidence started mounting, the scientific community acceded to the facts while the faithful did not and have not.  Their toxic brew of ignorance, zealotry, and prioritizing of faith over reason led them down this idiotic path, fueled in part by opportunistic Republicans who found the issue to be a convenient way to garner votes.  This position is dying, but what changed to trigger this shift?  Was it new facts?  Doubtful.  Instead, it's largely due to the declining popularity of biblical literalism in the US and more broadly, the decline of Christianity in the US.

QuoteI think the # of people who identify as non-religious has grown and some count that as being atheist. Secondly it doesn't count how many people are so called weak atheists who don't actually deny God exists they simply decline that belief.
Haven't we gone over this before?  Also, I have it on good authority that weak atheists are atheists.  Just a hunch.

QuoteI've provided ample opportunity for anyone one who wanted to list the facts and data and make their case. Why don't you start a thread The Case for Naturalism from Facts.
Your pet issue bores me.  I have neither the time nor the crayons to fully explain this to you.  And besides, it was largely answered by other AF denizens long ago (Hakurei Reimu in particular tore your position a new anal cavity) and the "debate" would be long over if you possessed the capacity to realize your mistakes.  Suffice it say that you desperately need to learn the concepts of null hypothesis and burden of proof.

QuoteSounds like weak atheists doesn't it?
A clever retort.  Well, it would be if it were clever or accurate.

Drew_2017

Quote from: aitm on May 27, 2017, 09:21:05 PM
Your point, though conceptually correct, cannot happen when the "masses" actively assist in the dismissal of said evidence via religious indoctrination. If parents, like yours, refused to force you into sunday school for "sheeple" training, you too could be a common sense rational non-theological nut job. It matters not a wit what the truth is when the "masses" are trained by the handlers, aka priests, ministers, rabbi's and their ilk, who need the income, to keep their nose to the babble stone so to speak and ignore sound scientific evidence in lieu of a make believe after life where chocolate bunnies sit atop gold fountains where all your ancestors live free from all the encumbrances of human life .

So the real truth is, if your parents were non-believers, you would be a regular member here and laugh, like we do, at minions like you.

The word your searching for is factually and historically correct. When the weight of actual facts and data lean on a belief the belief eventually folds like a cheap suit. You can look up 100's if not 1000's of beliefs that have gone the way of the dinosaur due to provable facts and data. Scientists don't have the answers to the big ticket questions that would put the nail in the coffin of theistic belief. Atheists think so because its the preferred answer and in most cases they despise religion.

There is one other reason...who wants to identify as an atheist? A person who by most accounts is rude, arrogant and self-righteous. They're like people with extreme body order only they are unaware of their own offensive fragrance.


 

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

aitm

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 08:14:14 PM
You can look up 100's if not 1000's of beliefs that have gone the way of the dinosaur due to provable facts and data.


uh.......that's just damn funny there.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 08:14:14 PM

There is one other reason...who wants to identify as an atheist? A person who by most accounts is rude, arrogant and self-righteous. They're like people with extreme body order only they are unaware of their own offensive fragrance.



In my experience, the self-labeled atheist tends to be sure of themselves, for the theist likes nothing better than to try and humiliate an atheist.  It takes courage to be an atheist.  It takes a sheeple attitude to be a theist.  You, my friend, is a great example of the typical theist.  Your own body odor (for you don't really have any body 'order'--nor mind order either) is so offensive that I can smell it through this screen.  As you well know, for you practice it daily, in most religions 'judge not' is supposed to be one of the precepts that is followed.  Instead, what is routinely followed is 'judge--always' and judge harshly; as you do.  As always, you simply are what most theists are--hypocrites. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?