|
Verbatim, from a new Gallup Poll (anyone have access to the full results):
Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. (My italics)So, that's 45% in the bag for Bush; he only had to convince 10% of the remaining 55% relatively sane people to vote for him to remain president. How did we ever think he might lose, especially considering that Sterling is technically in those 10%? [Via p-blog.]
Bumper sticker suggested by the Old Hag: YOU CAN TEACH CREATION IN THE CLASSROOM WHEN WE CAN TEACH SCIENCE IN SUNDAY SCHOOL.
Posted by: Mr. 99th Percentile on November 22, 2004 05:37 PMMany parents insist on having input into curriculum decisions made by the local school boards - this is a very good thing, though you're of course free to criticize their decisions and preferences. But if you don't understand the difference the difference between a voluntary activity (i.e. weekend religious instruction) and a compulsory activity (i.e. required attendance of minor children ages 5-16 at a government approved education facility), then you're an idiot.
Further, your implication is that education is exclusively the provenance of people who are non-religious, which is absurd and bigoted, as well as demonstrably untrue. Further still, public education in the U.S. is mostly paid for by local property taxes. Your opinion about the curriculum in municipalities outside your own is thus irrelevant.
Posted by: Sterling on November 22, 2004 06:47 PMThat was a response to 99. To Stefan I say this:
According to the poll summary, 1/3 of Americans think Darwinism is well-supported, 1/3 think it isn't and 1/3 don't know enough to say. I assume those three responses all came out of one question.
Then we have this - 45% of Americans believe God created man about 10,000 years ago. Two problems with that:
1) It contradicts the first set of results. This almost never happens in a properly written survey, from which I infer that the questions weren't developed to get a true picture of the survey population but rather to obtain sensational results for a press release. This makes the whole survey suspect, because it places the integrity of the population sample into doubt.
2) Where's this 10,000 years thing come from? It's not Biblical (Old Testmanent implication is the events described in Genesis occurred about 6,000 years ago). My guess would be that this was one of those "choose the answer that most closely represents your opinion" questions, and since we don't know what other answers were given, we can't make a judgement. The other responses might have been equally or even more absurd caricatures of origin beliefs.
Finally, it says that 1/3 of Americans are Biblical literalists. This also contradicts the first set of responses, where an equal number said they don't believe Darwinism is well-supported. The implication is that everyone who didn't accept Darwinism is also a Biblical literalist. That simply isn't the case - certainly "Biblical literalists" would make up a subset of the set of "people who don't accept Darwinism", but only a subset. For instance, I don't believe Darwinism is well-supported but I am not a Biblical literalist in any sense of the term.
My judgement: Bullshit survey, bullshit results.
Posted by: Sterling on November 22, 2004 07:08 PMFor once, I sort of agree with Sterling.
Frankly I don't care what the hicks in Bumblefuckville teach in their schools, as long as they're not bothering me with it.
Seriously, though, regarding the difference between a voluntary activity and a compulsory one - it's all well and good if they want to teach religion in Sunday school, of course. That's what it's for, and nobody's being forced to go there. Why, though, should anyone be forced to learn a set of beliefs which isn't necessarily supported by their religion and cannot be supported by science?
I'm pretty sure he was joking, but what you're saying makes sense: science shouldn't be taught in Sunday School. But that almost makes more sense than having creationism taught in public school. After all, if you don't like what's being taught in Sunday School, you don't have to go. Whereas if what's being taught in a regular school goes against your beliefs, you're screwed. How is that appropriate?
Posted by: Dag on November 22, 2004 07:09 PMUm, Dag, evolution is entirely and unquestionably supported by lifetimes of scientific evidence.
The truth is true regardless of whether the mouth-breathing creationists want to learn it or not. We're not going to allow the Nazi sympathizers to place chains on teaching about the Holocaust.
Evolution is taught because it is correct. Creationism cannot bring new ideas to the table, or extend to other fields of academia. It simply placates the willfully ignorant.
Posted by: Elliott on November 22, 2004 08:00 PMSo how much autonomy, and at what scale, should you allow tax jurisdictions? What if a group of NAMBLA consituents want to teach about the signifance of Man-Boy love in Greek times in Lit classes? If White Aryans want to teach that Civil Rights are an abomination of Natural Law and that the Civil War was just? If feminists want to teach that patriarchal hegemony is tantamount to slavery?
I went to a private school that instituted a rather strident code of conduct regarding sexual activity. It was talked about all over the country, and even lampooned on Saturday Night Live. Why should we not do the same to these dimwits who receive succor on the fat of modern civilization while trying to undermine the thinking that built it? Perhaps Cobb County, whatever fucking yahoo county that thought of it, should return to oral traditions for their teaching.
Posted by: Mr. 99th Percentile on November 22, 2004 09:03 PMElliott, it's NOT proven. Even hardcore Darwinians admit doubts when they think no one's looking. As an example, events like the Cambrian Explosion are difficult if not impossible to explain within a purely Darwinian framework, because nearly all known phylums arose in a period lasting between only five and 17 million years. Not species, but whole phylums - natural selection alone can not explain such rapid diversification. Check that link.
The teaching of an entirely naturalistic origin of life is every bit as much a leap of faith, and every bit as much an attempt to instill a set of values, as the teaching of straight-outta-Genesis, young-Earth creationism.
Posted by: Sterling on November 22, 2004 09:26 PMsorry, thinking that god created the world in six days requires quite a bit more of a "leap of faith" than to trust in a naturalistic evolution that took place over millions of years, even if we dont have all the facts yet.
Posted by: sp on November 22, 2004 10:00 PMSP - I see a lot more zealotry and intolerance on the Darwinist side. If the origin and advancement of life is not entirely natural or material, then the spiritual lux fiat scenario might be more correct than Darwinism.
99 - Most states have education guidelines - standards that must be met and required certifications. Additionally, there are accreditation association ratings that are needed if students are to be eligible for college entry.
If a whole lot of fringe wackos want to move to one town and teach all sorts of nonsense, they won't receive accreditation and the school district might even be taken by their state, as has happened in Newark and Jersey City in NJ when those districts became basket cases. And wouldn't your scenario actually be a good thing? We should be so lucky to have all the wackos move to one place.
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 12:16 AMFirst, attending public school is not compulsory. If parents are truly unhappy about what is being taught in school they're more than welcome to home school their children or send them to private school.
Second, what relevance that public education is generally paid for by local tax dollars?
Third, while teaching evolution may instill a certain set of values (quite honestly, what doesn't), the primary purpose of teaching evolution is not the promotion of a particular religious belief. Can the same be said for Creationalism?
Posted by: djmdthedoc on November 23, 2004 12:36 AMOnce again, it seems that Sterling needs some reminding of the basic characteristics of a scientific theory, and why "Intelligent Design" (a.k.a. Creationism) isn't one.
A scientific theory makes predictions about future observations, which can be tested. ID makes no predictions at all.
This is one of those, frankly rather cheap, language tricks that the ID/Creationism crowd like to play on people: By conflating the common English definition of 'theory' with the scientific usage of the term 'theory' they simultaneously diminish Darwinism ("it's only a theory") and attempt to elevate ID/Creationism to the same status.
And this is the core of my problem with the ID/Creationists. If they want to present their ideas as part of a broader education in the range of human beliefs, then that's absolutely fine. It's also absolutely fine to observe some areas where Darwinism needs refining (as, I would note, Relativity and Quantum Theory also need refining). What's not okay is teaching kids that ID/Creationism is an equally scientifically valid way of looking at the world.
Posted by: Lurker on November 23, 2004 12:43 AMOK, first off, at this stage I.D. is more of a refutation of certain elements of Darwinism than an alternative theory. I believe that these refutations have been successful:
1) The statistical improbability of undirected mutation yielding such a high degree of complexity simply through natural selection - signal to noise ratio in genetic information is too high to be random and natural selection has never been observed to ADD information to a species system, only to SUBTRACT it.
2) The irreducible complexity argument is extremely strong.
The time frames involved in evolution make it impractical to test the theory going forward, so Lurker's definition of a scientific theory does not apply, except perhaps on a unicellular organism level. I am not aware of anyone having produced two species of any single celled organism from one. Further, there is no historical or fossil evidence to support natural selection as an agent in speciation. NONE. Perhaps Darwinism isn't a scientific theory, either?
As for education, yes it is true that parents can at great - and redundant - expense home school or private school their children. They still have to pay their school taxes, though. Both private schools and home schools are evaluated regularly to make sure they meet minimum standards set by state law.
As for why it's relevant that schools are paid for locally: if you need to ask this you have absolutely no grasp of American politics and should study a middle school civics textbook. Briefly, decentralized authority is a critical feature of participatory government in a federal republic. If the people of a city or town have no input into the education of their children, then they are subjects, not citizens. That education is paid for locally means that local participatory institutions run the school system, not bureaucrats in the state capital or Washington. The fact that Democrats are forever trying to shift school funding away from city hall and toward the statehouse or Capitol Hill tells you everything you need to know about the American Left.
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 02:45 AMOh, I missed one other thing DJ wrote: ...the primary purpose of teaching evolution is not the promotion of a particular religious belief...
I don't believe that to be an accurate statement. Materialism is as much a doctrine as any other belief framework. Philosophers as diverse as Kant and John Rawls have struggled to define materialist systems of morality, ethics and justice. The constant flux in what progressives and other materialists consider to be right and wrong (to the extent they even acknowledge such categories exist) is proof of the philosophers' failure.
Many people blithely believe that our technological and economic progress over the last 500 years also means that we have progressed morally. But this is clearly not the case. The 20th century - the century of materialism - was bloodier than any during the Christian era. Julius Caesar claimed to have killed a million Celts in his campaigns in Gaul, and cast another million into slavery. Caesar and Hitler are bookends to the Christian Era in Europe - nothing in between even comes close in terms of sheer disregard for the sanctity of human life on a mass scale.
Without a spiritual aspect to the universe there is no reason to do good. If Darwin was right, from a natural selection viewpoint it is preferable to sterilize the weak and gather up and kill undesirables. Eugenics and brutality are the logical outcomes of Darwinism. Christians recognize this, and do not want their children being implicitly educated to believe that there is no God.
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 03:16 AMElliot: As Sterling said, it's not wholly supported. However, to clarify, when I said "not supported by one's religion and cannot be supported by science" I was talking about creationism, not evolution.
Posted by: Dag on November 23, 2004 04:31 AMSterling, I'm with you on materialism simply being a competing idea. Quoting relative statistics on war and death, however, is useless without population counts. But I assume you won't be able to provide them once you fully embrace the morality of the 14th century and jettison your computer as the devil spawn that resulted from movable type, capitalism, and all those other scourges of human endeavor. I hope you get to see this before you are overcome with by your commitment and smash your devil box into little pieces. Enjoy the smallpox and leeches.
Posted by: Mr. 99th Percentile on November 23, 2004 04:54 AMSP: I agree, 6 days requires quite a bit more of a "leap of faith". I was always taught it took him 7. Much more realistic, don't you think?
Posted by: michelle on November 23, 2004 04:56 AMID/creationism poses as science by poking holes in the theory of natural selection. Such criticisms are fair; natural selection is theory, or rather, a running debate of theories, constantly being amended. Gould and Dawkins heartily disagree about many aspects of how natural selection works and what it's all about.
But both of these guys work within the scientific method; of testing their theory for leaks. I don't see how ID/creationism does this. It can point out natural selection's problems but it when it comes to making its own positive assertions, it does so not by a theory that can be falsified, or by the tenets of the scientific method. Rather it just says natural selection is wrong, therefore we should consider God did it.
I think this is a perfectly valid stance, but it is derived from a separate intellectual process. It is not derived from the scientific method.
Sterling argues that natural selection reflects an ideology that is secular, materialist, and bereft of spirituality, and therefore is not demonstrably better than religious teaching. But even if this is true, it misses the point, which is to teach science in a science class at a publicly funded school. Perhaps science's failures and foibles should be pointed out. The criticisms raised by ID proponents are valid ones. But they should be answered within the same intellectual framework - ie via scientific theory. If someone wants a non-religious answer, it is readily available in other forums.
Jame -
First off, the schools aren't merely funded by the public, they're locally funded by the public. People have the right to insist that their schools reflect local values.
Secondly, Steven Jay Gould died two years ago, so his research output isn't what it once was.
Thirdly, you know I'm an atheist. I.D. is appealling to me not because I believe in God but rather the opposite: I cannot make the leap of faith to wholly believe in materialism. It's just too pat. I cannot believe that all this complexity arose on its own. Look at fractals! Look at pi! Look at the Mandelbrot set! Some thing is fucking with us. The whole idea of one system of physics sitting on top of a different layer of physics looks way too much like the OSI model for my comfort, thank you very much.
Fourthly, I.D. does attempt to counter Darwinism on scientific terms. Of the two most prominent I.D. proponents, Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh, and William Dembski is a mathematician currently in residence at George Gilder's Discovery Institute. Gilder has become fairly prominent among I.D. guys, as well.
Behe in particular is a pretty impressive guy and an actual research scientist. He has not publicly contested macroevolution and speciation, but instead focuses his work on what he knows - evidence against evolution at the subcellular level and in the complexity of certain biochemical processes that exist in all living things. When Behe began writing on this topic it was a huge lift to I.D. because he is a published, tenured professor at one of the most highly regarded chemistry reseach universities in the U.S. A lot of Darwinists really, really hate him for his I.D. work.
Michelle - On the seventh day, God kicked back and had a cold one. Don't they teach you kids anything these days?
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 07:01 AMThe philosophical quandary of debating evolution goes back to before the days of Newton and Leibniz. Seems valid to consider this; how we 'prove Darwin's ideasí has itself in practice evolved. Surely the tests and problems applied to the study of life change and grow with time and the piling on of information and the birthing of new geniuses and savants to carry on the investigations. Anyone up on his or her Dan Dennett? 'cause DD's attempts to 'prove' philosophical quandaries with as much science as possible seems to fit into this discussion, esp. as he has been called a Darwin Fundamentalist and more confusingly, has writ a tome called Darwinís Dangerous Idea. One review posits the book as"..the most important philosophical legacy of evolution: the death of essentialism. With evolution, the idea of a nonómaterial ìghost in the machine,î which distinguishes man from the rest of creation, must be abandoned. We differ from the animals not in kind, but in degree. Much of western political philosophy is based on the premise that manís uniquenessónamely, his knowledge of good and evilóis the source of his rights. Hence the dilemma that Darwinís Dangerous Idea poses to political theory. How can we derive the laws of our behavior, if we are not fundamentally different from the animals? It would be exceedingly frustrating if there is no way to connect morality or politics to anything more permanent and real than fads."
Unfortunately in most of America, Red and Blue, the perceptions that form the basis for our values - our laws of behavior - are manipulated and media-tized for the public's consumption, so that they become faddish and by that design are absorbed without question or debate.
(Except in fine forums such as this, of course.)
The majority of this country is polarized by the Presentation alone, because they want to base the justifications for how they think about life on headline blurbs, and not on substance and debate. Quick acceptance of reenforcement is faster, requires less reading and allows more time to shout about the quantification of penalty minutes doled out in the latest sporting dust up.
Sterling, you are an idiot, but I still enjoy watching the squaking lefties. Keep it up: as the next topic, may I suggest coming up with scientific proof that god is a white American from Kansas? Me, I can't take this totally seriously. But I think I know the process by which you get this stuff.
You find a go-go growth tech guru of the 1990s bubble who lost all his money or is otherwise discredited. This person, unable to make a living in the financial markets any more, capitalises on the affections of his army of loyal dupes eager for certainty (viz. you) by writing a lot about other things they don't know about. Said loyal dupes, anxious for certainty in a world they don't understand, forget their gurus lost them all their money, and suck it up credulously.
The ones you have picked so far include Jimmy (Dow 30,000!!) Glassman -- Dow currently 10,000-- and now you approvingly cite Georgie (Buy JDS Uniphase at $200!!) Gilder (JDSU now $3.15). I bet you read Don Luskin, too. If not, you'd like him.
You forget to mention that this Behe is also a fellow of Gilder's cod-science Discovery Institute, and in fact almost every idea you cite here seems to be as well. Just as you forgot to mention in our recent discussion about "Supersize Me" and MacDonalds, that all your links and objections came from a site called Techcentralstation which is err, SPONSORED BY MACDONALDS.
Here's a suggestion: outside of MF, try and follow the advice of SUCCESSFUL people in the stockmarket, and make up your OWN mind about the other things. If you have to follow the advice of stockmarket gurus, try and use the ones who have made people money; like George Soros for instance (hahaha). Otherwise, I fear for your stockbroking clientele.
Posted by: eurof on November 23, 2004 12:00 PM"Thirdly, you know I'm an atheist. I.D. is appealling to me not because I believe in God but rather the opposite: I cannot make the leap of faith to wholly believe in materialism."
Sterling, atheism is de facto materialistic, in the sense that you believe there is nothing outside of quarks and bosons in a frenetic dance of which we are the macro level emanations. You can of course be a materialist and still believe in God -- a God that set the universe in motion and left it at that. I have no qualms with that God, as its existence is unknowable by definition.
But you cannot be an atheist and believe that there exist paranormal, metaphysical, Intelligent Design-like interjections of non-causal forces in the universe -- or you could, but it would defeat the entire point of being an atheist, which is that you are ruthless in excising from your worldview those beliefs that are not grounded on sound scientific basis.
Which brings us back to ID versus evolution. I have a far easier time believing that there are spurts of evolutionary development and periods of stagnation (in fact, shouldn't there be?) that to posit the notion seriously that there is interference from some kind of paranormal force that aims to push us all in the "right" direction. It's a frankly ludicrous notion, and I see Darwinism being nowhere near the point where it needs to grasp at such explanations.
(As for your views on entropy, and how it relates to information "adding" and "subtracting", we've been there before in another post.)
Posted by: Stefan Geens on November 23, 2004 12:34 PMThird of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory
Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago
by Frank Newport
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- Some 145 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, controversy about the validity and implications of his theory still rages. Darwin personally encountered much resistance after his book was published in 1859. Seventy-nine years ago, the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee brought the issue of exactly where human beings came from into sharp public focus in the United States. Indeed, as recently as this month, a court case in Cobb County, Ga., dealing with the treatment of evolution and creationism in school textbooks received nationwide publicity. November's National Geographic Magazine asked on its cover: "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then proceeded to devote 33 pages to answering that question.
Darwin might be surprised to find such debate still raging nearly a century and a half after he published his book. He might also be surprised to find that even today there is significantly less than majority agreement from the American public that his theory of evolution is supported by the evidence.
Gallup has asked Americans twice in the last three years to respond to the following question about Darwin's theory:
Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is ñ† [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?
Supported
by evidence
Not supported
by evidence
Don't know
enough to say
No
opinion
%
%
%
%
2004 Nov 7-10
35
35
29
1
†
†
†
†
2001 Feb 19-21
35
39
25
1
Just a little more than a third of the American public is willing to agree with the "scientific theory well supported by evidence" alternative, while the same percentage chooses the "not well supported by evidence" alternative. Another 30% indicate that they don't know enough about it to say or have no opinion. There has been essentially no significant change in the responses to this question since 2001.
What do we make of these responses? To be sure, most Americans are not scientists, and it's probable that the last formal exposure to biology and evolution theory for many came decades ago in high school or college -- if then. Confronted with this question asking for thoughts about a scientific theory, it's perhaps surprising that even more did not choose the "don't know enough to say" alternative.
Yet, this is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."
Thus, it is of great interest to the scientific community to find that the public appears just as willing to say that the theory of evolution "has not been well supported by the evidence" as it is to say that it has been well supported.
Certainly, as noted, some of this skepticism about the scientific validity of Darwin's theory comes from a lack of basic training or knowledge of science. But there's more to views of the theory of evolution than just scientific knowledge. The highly controversial aspect of the theory -- the one that caused such an uproar when Darwin first promulgated it almost a century and a half ago -- was that it implied a contradiction with the story of man's creation as told in the book of Genesis in the Bible.
Creationism
The recent Gallup Poll found strong presumptive evidence that this implication of the theory of evolution for the origin of mankind may be driving some of the lack of public belief in the theory.
The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God -- as stated in the Bible -- essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?
Man developed, with God
guiding
Man developed, but God had
†no part in process
God created man in
present form
Other/
No
opinion
%
%
%
%
2004 Nov 7-10
38
13
45
4
†
†
†
†
2001 Feb 19-21
37
12
45
5
1999 Aug 24-26
40
9
47
4
1997 Nov 6-9
39
10
44
7
1993 Jun
35
11
47
7
1982
38
9
44
9
Forty-five percent of Americans agree that God created man in his present form about 10,000 years ago. (This time frame was included in the question when it was originally framed in 1982 because it roughly approximates the timeline used by biblical literalists who study the genealogy as laid out in the first books of the Old Testament.)†
About half of Americans agree with the two alternatives that are compatible with evolution -- that human beings developed over millions of years either with or without God's guidance in the process.
These views on the origin of man have essentially not changed over the last 22 years. Although there has been minor fluctuation in the percentages choosing each alternative across the six surveys in which the question has been included over the years since 1982, the basic patterns have remained remarkably constant. Indeed, the percentage of Americans who choose the "10,000 year" alternative has varied only within the narrow range of 44% to 47% across the six surveys (and two decades).
Biblical Literacy
Although 45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago -- a view that corresponds to the account of creation as presented in the Bible -- only 34% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word:
Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?
†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††
Actual
Inspired
Fables
No opinion
%
%
%
%
2004 Nov 7-10
34
48
15
3
†
†
†
†
2002 Dec 9-10
30
52
15
3
2001 Feb 19-21
27
49
20
4
1998 Jun 22-23
33
47
17
3
1993 Jun 18-21
35
48
14
3
1991 Nov 21-23
32
49
16
3
1984 Nov
40
41
12
7
1984 Sep
37
46
12
5
1983 May
37
43
11
9
1981 Dec 11-14
37
42
11
--
1980 Jul 29-Aug 2
40
45
10
6
1978 Apr 18-May 1
38
45
13
6
1976 Aug 24-27
38
45
13
5
Forty-eight percent of Americans believe that the Bible was inspired by God, although is not to be taken literally, while 15% say that the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."†
Gallup has been measuring these attitudes using this question since 1976, and there has been little substantive change since. Indeed, the current views of the American public on the issue of biblical literacy are remarkably similar to what was recorded in August 1976, almost 30 years ago.
The discrepancy between the 45% who believe that man was created by God 10,000 years ago, and the 34% who believe the Bible is literally true suggests that there are some Americans whose belief in the "instant" creation of humans is not necessarily based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
A segmentation of Americans based on their responses to the questions about creationism and biblical literacy finds that a quarter of Americans can be considered to be true literalists -- believing not only in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but also in the creationist view of the origin of humans. Another one in five believe in the creationist explanation, but not in biblical literalism. Nine percent believe in biblical literalism but not creationism, while the largest group -- 46% -- neither believe in biblical literalism nor the creationist explanation for the origin of humans.
Belief in a Literal Bible and in Creationism
% of Population
Characteristics
Biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago
25%
Women
Age 30 and older
No college degree
Conservative
Republicans
Weekly church attendees
Protestant
Believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago, but not biblical literalists
20%
18- to 29-year-olds
Biblical literalists but do not believe humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago
9%
High school or less
Not biblical literalists and also do not believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago
46%
Men
East and West Coasts
Urban
College graduates
Higher income
Liberal
Independents
Seldom, never attend church
Catholics
It is not surprising to find that the biblical literalists who believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago tend to be more religious and Protestant. Given the recent emphasis on the importance of religion in the Nov. 2 presidential election, it is of interest to note that this "true believer" group tends to be more Republican than the sample average. This group also skews toward those who do not have a college degree.
At the other extreme, the roughly half of Americans who tend to reject biblical literalism and creationism are much less likely to attend church, tend to have higher levels of formal education, and to be political independents.†
The Demographics of Support for Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Here is the breakout of support for Darwin's theory (that is, those who say that it is a scientific theory well supported by the evidence) within subgroups:
Subgroup
% Who Believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Is a Scientific Theory Well Supported by the Evidence
Postgraduate education
65%
Liberal
56
College graduate
52
West
47
Seldom, never attend church
46
Catholics
46
50- to 64-year-olds
44
Men
42
East
42
18- to 29-year-olds
41
Independent
40
Democrat
38
Moderate
36
†
†
SAMPLE AVERAGE
35
†
†
Nearly weekly church attendance
35
30- to 49-year-olds
34
Some college
32
Women
30
Republican
29
Midwest
29
Protestant
28
South
27
Conservative
26
Weekly church attendance
22
Age 65+
21
High school or less
20
The same basic patterns are found here as reviewed in reference to the creationist and literalism question. Belief that Darwin's theory has been well supported by the evidence is strongest among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and among Catholics.†
The lowest levels of belief that Darwin's theory is supported by the scientific evidence is found among those with the least education, older Americans (many of whom say they are unsure about the theory in general), frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans.
Survey Methods
These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,016 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Nov. 7-10, 2004. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Sterling,
You have recently given me a polite critique of my personality, and my cosmopolitan fetish. Please allow me to return in kind.
You are one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, blessed with a sharp mind and a razor wit, someone who is good at both realizing a strategic vision as well as mastering the messy details. Few people are good at being both a general and a foot soldier. In college, and indeed in this forum, you have helped expand my horizons, and I thank you for it.
However you are prone to conspiracy theory. Recently your libertarian instincts have been blunted by a more red-meat conservatism, some of which is laudable but some of which I find a little disturbing. The disturbing bits include an illiberal stance toward people with differing views (such as your call to ban the BBC), and this support for including ID in public school science class.
I am not attacking your general defence of American evangelicals. Clearly, both in blue-state areas and among many foreigners, there is a knee-jerk antipathy toward the pious. The assumption - widely disseminated in the European press after Bush's reelection - that middle America Bush-voters are stupid neanderthals is clearly arrogant and stupid.
But I think this is an issue that you have muddled. While it is fair to argue that natural selection should not be taken as Gospel (and that school systems should point this out), I just can not reconcile an argument saying that it should be taught alongside what strikes me as religion in a cheap dress. In fact I think it is dangerous to do so. Religion flourishes in America because it is so rigidly kept out of the public sphere, so ID in schools is a disservice to believers and non-believers alike; it is a disservice to our children.
I think your fetish for paranoia and conspiracy manifests itself here in your belief that Something is working its voodoo on us, because science hasn't adequately explained things. Chances are science is NEVER gonna explain things, but it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
Respectfully yours,
Jaimito
Jame, was that use of the term "foot soldier" ironic? Shame on you. It's OK for me to be nasty, but I would expect better from one of his friends.
By the way, I really do have a knee-jerk antipathy towards the pious. So should everyone.
Posted by: eurof on November 23, 2004 01:37 PMHow come nobody's arguing Gallup is biase? I mean, they could just as well have written up their report thus:
"Over a third of Americans now believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence. Already fifty-five percent of Americans don't believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years, and a whole two thirds of Americans refuse to accept the Bible is the actual word of God and to be taken literally, word for word."
I think that's clear evidence of liberal bias among pollsters.
Sterling, you say: "Without a spiritual aspect to the universe there is no reason to do good. If Darwin was right, from a natural selection viewpoint it is preferable to sterilize the weak and gather up and kill undesirables."
I disagree. Doing good might actually further the survival of the species. In fact, that probably explains why we do it - it's been selected for by evolution. Species which look after their own, even if not in their short term individual interest, survive to propagate longer and more widely.
You claim that evolution has an information theory problem. Patently false. As any number of computer models can show, it's perfectly possible to introduce information into a system by a process of mutation-selection. Indeed, as I'm mentioned in another thread, that's now a very active area of research in the area of computer algorithms.
Lastly, you argue that perhaps Darwinism isn't a scientific theory because future timescales are too long for us to see results. However, there are two problems with this argument:
Firstly, you didn't read my definition. I said future *observations*. We could observe, in the future, something which exists right now, but just that we haven't observed yet. That would count. For example, there might be predicitions about statistical distributions of current data which would be future observations or analyses.
Secondly, when you're talking about viruses, and some bacteria, the timescales are *not* too short. We *have* seen viruses and bacteria evolve astonishingly rapidly in response to changing environments. In particular we see bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics, and viruses mutating to render vaccination useless. That's why you always finish your course of antibiotics, and why you need a new flu shot each year.
You're getting hung up on speciation (which is indeed a process which takes a long time), while ignoring the fact that we absolutely can see the process of evolution via natural selection going on right now, all around us. The process *works*, Sterling, we can *see* it.
Posted by: Lurker on November 23, 2004 04:36 PMEurof - "...may I suggest coming up with scientific proof that god is a white American from Kansas?"
You've got God confused with Superman, you ankle-biting son of a bitch.
I mocked Dow 36000 when it came out, and I've always considered George Gilder to be wacky. I think Gilder's defense of I.D. in Wired a few months ago was about 50 words that made sense and then 1200 of bullshit. If it makes you feel any better, I tried to pick a fight with Henry Blodget when we were on a panel together at Internet World in 1999, but Bill Burnham said something so wrongheaded that I went after him, instead.
Stefan - Call me a deist if you want. I don't believe there's any kind of anthropomorphic Supreme Being, but at the same time I can't believe the universe is entirely the result of happenstance. Both beliefs are too much of a leap - the truth is somewhere between the two. To my mind it looks as if the universe was at intended to be a life-friendly place.
The Gallup survey is better than I thought it would be - the summary does it a grave disservice.
Jame - You forgot to mention how good-looking I am.
You're right - I definitely see intentionality sometimes when there's none present. But I don't look for intentionality in all things or all the time, only when an event triggers a certain bullshit-calling neuron in my brain. I recall that Carl Sagan postulated that if God exists, we might find his unmistakeable signature hidden in everyday life when we begin to do serious number crunching - in Contact, I think, he depicted a mathematician finding circles hidden in binary code millions of digits to the right of the decimal point in pi, and seeing that as evidence of God. Tech people call this sort of notion - a treat, tag or gag hidden in the code - an "easter egg". I look at the Mandelbrot Set and I wonder if it's not an easter egg. Download a Mandelbrot viewing application from Shareware.com or Tucows and spend a half hour in it, then come back and tell me with confidence that the universe is not designed.
And you have to admit, Jame - on more than one occasion when you thought I was being paranoid, you've later said something to the effect of, "Sterling, I thought you were imagining things but..." (Of course there are probably more examples of times when you initially agreed with me only to later conclude that I was wildly off-base.)
I don't think I.D. should be taught in school classrooms - at least not yet. But I do think it's refutations might be used by biology teachers to show that there are valid critiques of Darwinism.
Also, I do not want to squash the BBC because of its "differing views", but because it is a hostile entity that is jeopardizing success in Iraq and elsewhere, and increasing the likelihood of a second successful round of mega-terror attacks. If a bank were to do business with Osama bin Laden the US Gov't would take measures to punish that bank. The BBC is just another company doing the work of jihadists - the US Gov't should act forcefully against it. These are not normal times.
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 05:21 PMLurker - I do not question nor do I.D. people question nor do even a lot of old-Earth creationists question that natural selection happens.
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 05:24 PMYou.
Jimmy and George are fine in their weird little bubbly cyber-con worlds, with a lot of cultish adherents to hang on their slightest utterances and say, "yes, master please take the money from my pocket and burn it in front of me if by that way I can participate in the new economy."
Posted by: eurof on November 23, 2004 06:32 PMOooh...you said "new economy"! Gave me a little frisson.
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 06:34 PMYes, what amazes me is that republicans who lived through that still want to privatise social security and bet the country on the stockmarket. Honbeleevable.
Posted by: eurof on November 23, 2004 06:39 PMWell, it's got more to do with Jeremy Siegel than people like Henry Blodget, James Glassman, Josh Harris, etc. And it doesn't really have to be a good bet on its own merits - it simply has to be a good bet in comparison to Social Security as it exists now. So with some privatization maybe we're looking at 60/40 odds of things going horribly awry, versus 90/10 if we don't privatize it.
Also, because Social Security has such a shitty rate of return as an investment vehicle, not much of a person's contribution needs to be privatized to make a potentially big difference.
Privatization is the only way out of the hole.
Posted by: Sterling on November 23, 2004 06:56 PMi think the old man in the sky rested on the 7th day to marvel at his creation.
am i the only one who finds it ironic that sterl should bring up intolerance?
Posted by: sp on November 23, 2004 07:42 PM"Without a spiritual aspect to the universe there is no reason to do good. If Darwin was right, from a natural selection viewpoint it is preferable to sterilize the weak and gather up and kill undesirables. Eugenics and brutality are the logical outcomes of Darwinism. Christians recognize this, and do not want their children being implicitly educated to believe that there is no God."
I think I read it in Janet Brown's biography of Darwin, but I recall he regretted ever using the phrase "survival of the fittest" since it gave an easy handle for eugenic bosh like that. What he actually meant was somewhat different:
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
And:
"In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed."
So, if Darwin was right, we should hold on to our wide genepool and work together. On the other hand, if you pick an episode of ethnic cleansing at random, what're the odds religion wasn't involved?
As for intelligent design, how exactly does it help? From what I understand it challenges Darwinian theory on the basis that some things could not have evolved, so they were designed. But that simply leads to the question how did whatever designed the unevolvable evolve?
Plus, of course, if I was actually designed, I have some serious design flaws I want to bring to attention and would be expecting a large refund should the designers ever be found.
Posted by: Auz on November 23, 2004 09:43 PMits all about lack of data. god was invented by humans as a way to explain what was unexplainable. not the other way around.
Posted by: sp on November 23, 2004 10:03 PMJame & Sterling: Your guysí mushy mush makes me all teary-eyed. Makes me think of that old Budweiser commercial: ìI love you, man!î How sweet, Iím glad you boyz can encounter your more feminine sides every now and then. Just donít start hugging.
Posted by: michelle on November 23, 2004 11:42 PMThe only way I'd hug Jame is if he was on fire and I had a flame retardant blanket.
Posted by: Sterling on November 24, 2004 02:21 AMThe spin put on polls like this will tend to be much more along the lines of "X% of Americans are morons" than "X% of Americans have some valid doubts about the detail of Darwin¥s theory". The "liberal bias" is indeed incredibly deeply entrenched, especially in Europe. In a similar way, whilst it is generally accepted in those "liberal" circles that Bush "stole" his first election win, the second - won by an outright majority terribly inconvenient to liberal taste - is now ascribed either to the stupidity of American voters or the failings - read pro-Right bias - of the US media. The Michael Moore-type propoganda of the left is just overseen, as is all of that bleeding-heart thespian Hollywood/Rock the Vote stuff. It¥s simply inconceivable to such types that a majority of perfectly reasonable and intelligent Americans preferred Bush to Kerry. They literally close their eyes to it. The religion angle is a God-send (sorry) to them. And with this Gallup poll - a blunt enough instrument at the best of times - you can bet that¥s how it¥ll be spun.
Posted by: willem oomkens van ommeland on November 24, 2004 11:54 AMFair points from Willem. But dude, what's up with that surname? You made it up. I know you did. I just can't figure out why.
Sterling: "these are not normal times" is a bullshit response. The Constitution was built for all kinds of weather. So is liberalism. You're a traitor to your own ideals if you believe in shortcuts.
Jame, it's early in the morning here but did you just call me a bitch? Shame on you.
Posted by: michelle on November 24, 2004 02:24 PMNot so fair points, Willem, unless you are willing to rephrase that distinction between the perceived policies and values of Bush versus the actual. Everyone is saying branding is dead, but actually, it simply moves where the money is. This election was a billion dollar marketing buy, outstipping every corporate client, and larger than most markets, save autos, and perhaps financial services (consumer goods are too segmented). Brand Bush was by far perceived as superior to Brand Kerry, even thought Kerry the Product would more consistently meet the majority of consumers' needs. Rove read a little Al Ries and realized people would elect a president with the same aspirational projection with which they buy shoes. Bush is the SUV president. It is difficult usurp the dominant brand in a market segment, but even as commentators are crowing about how Brand Democrat is dead, that gap is similar to Hertz-Avis or Nike-Adidas as a matter of brand value, this is more like a Coke-Pepsi split. Revenue for both brands runs pretty even, so it's simply a matter of marketing. The Dems should hire Wieden+Kennedy, not fucking Bob Shrum.
Posted by: Mr. 99th Percentile on November 24, 2004 07:07 PMJame - well then your ass can burn. I'll just stand there laughing with my blanket.
Incidentally, I'm at my parents' house and I found a picture of us. It's a spare proof from the campus newspaper, and I took notes on the back of it:
March 1991
Left to Right:
Diane Jackson
Greg Conko
Melissa Wajnert
Shannon Ayres
Jame DiBiasio
Rob Carmel
Jame DiBiasio
Anthony Clay
Forehead and eye of Stu Nolan
Robert Sterling (V)
Dan Villanueva
Kenn Freeze
Todd Dale
Jen (?)
Michelle, sorry, was that you? I thought it was Eurof.
Sterling, Go ahead and email that photo to me. I need a good dart target; I'll be aiming at Jame.
Posted by: michelle not Eurof on November 25, 2004 05:36 AMMr 99th Percentile - I don¥t buy your point that if revenue for the two political brands is equal, as you assert, that it then follows that those brands are equally robust. The robustness of a political brand in a democracy surely depends on its ability to get people to vote for it, not so much on its fundraising ability. You also state that "Product Kerry" better meets consumers¥ needs than "Product Bush". And that if Kerry¥s "product values" had been better communicated, he would have won. Both of these claims are "debatable". But either way, anyone at wieden&kennedy would tell you that brand values grow out of product (or service) values/properties and cannot be divorced from them. Before w&k can work their advertising magic, you need to agree with them exactly what message it is you want to say. You assume that the Democrats have got their product values right and they just need to communicate them better. I think Democrat values are a bit inchoate and selfcontradictory at the moment and Kerry¥s campaign, in its inability to focus effectively on key issues, actually expressed this pretty well. They¥re all over the place, and so was Kerry¥s campaign. Do you really think if the Democrats had doubled their adspend they would¥ve won? Surely not. They had most of the media and Hollywood and Springsteen and Moore cheerleading for them, but the consumer, having seen all this, still decided not to vote for them. I conclude from that that the Dems haven¥t identified what it is they need to say and how they can best say it to connect with people and get people to vote for them. If they want to do so, they first need to get to grips with what you call their "product values".
Posted by: willem oomkens van ommeland on November 25, 2004 11:38 AMW: whereas you give a decent read on the genesis for branding in principle, it doesn't reflect mass consumption patterns today. Certainly quality products command a slightly higher profile and have more brand equity, but marketing (be it in the form of direct ads, or careful management of placement) has a corollary effect, Caphalon being a good example. Even though there are several brands of cookware of equal quality at a similar price point, they have positioned themselved as *the* aspirational purchase for 'quality' cookware.
The Bush/Kerry product differences are pretty simple and easily explicable: position on Estate Tax, health care and abortion, for instance, all pretty clearly favor the majority (most people will not benefit from the abolishing of the Estate Tax, whereas its revenue will bolster things like spending on health care, and the majority favor legalized abortion). But, again, Brand Bush was intended to project attributes that aren't tangibly connected to policy, and it worked. A 'strong' America. Most people could not coherently atriculate policy positions that would 'strenghten' America, but buying Bush was buying 'stength'. Even with historically unprecedented deficits, record levels of household debt, a consumer spending bubble funded by ursurious credit, and an Iraq that is less safe for just about everyone than it was a year ago, or five. No reducting in nuclear proliferation among rouge states. Almost universal derision for our foreign policy. And more jobs and health care lost than created.
You can manufacture brand value once, and if, the product owner understands that consistency of positioning is all that matters. Nike does not make the best shoes, and they don't aspire to that positioning. They make the 'cutting edge' products, and their advertising relentlessly reinforces that (that info, by the way, comes from the brand manager at Nike in an interview, not a presumption on my part). Some people might argue that cutting edge shoes are the best shoes. But it doesn't matter, as long as the messaging is in synch with the visuals. Aquafina wants to be known as the single serving size bottled water product (ditto - brand manager interview). That is their positioning.
Kerry, or his people, thought that people had become uncomfortable with their product. But, in fact, they had not. It's like an SUV or McDonald's. There is no doubt it's bad for you, and that some aspects of it are factually contradictory (SUVs have higher death rats per mile driven, but people buy them to be safe), but a mediated existence means that one's projected image is far more important than an unvarnished assessment. And Bush won on that hands down. The Dems could were they to embrace that model, but their brand managers are envious of the GOP brand (since many of them are wealthy, and they are stuck in a historically contradictory position, are are many of the pundits), so they are doing what every failed second place brand has done, which is to claim they are 'All That, and Some of This, Too'.
Posted by: Mr. 99th Percentile on November 25, 2004 05:36 PM
Ok, here's the deal. Just as there are two states: Red and Blue, there are two species. Blue States are populated by the MPs Monkey People as described by Darwin. Red States are frequently inhabited by human beings who are made in the image of their Divine Creator who calls himself God. There are a few of each species in the wrong states, but we need to be careful. I live in a Blue state, but was created by a loving God in his image. I try to blend in- really I do.
BTW- Did you see National Geographic last month? Cover was about the inadaquacies and inaccuracies of Darwin. Science always contradicts itself.
Posted by: Branch Rickey on November 25, 2004 06:57 PMYes, that's right Branch Rickey. Science always contradicts itself. In fact a number of scientists attached to George Gilder¥s Discovery Institute are in the vanguard of a movement against the so called "theory" of "The Wheel". According to them, a loving god actually designed it so it works best when shaped like a burrito.
Posted by: eurof on November 25, 2004 09:01 PMMichelle not Eurof,
I'm the pale one with glasses.
Speaking of darts, I recently played a game of Killer with some buddies one lazy afternoon at the Smuggler's Inn, Stanley, and it took me about five goes before I was able to land a single dart on the right space, capping one of the least illustrious histories of darts-playing the world has ever seen. Most people had a mispent youth and therefore are very good at things like darts and pool, but unfortunately, I had a well spent youth, doing things like playing campus politics with people like Sterling; what a waste. I have, however, discovered a latent talent at karaoke.
I know your nerdiness (karaoke? holy crap!) hasn't changed but have you at least gotten a tan and contacts since the photo? Sterling says he's good looking. Is this true? I've known very few good looking nerds. Truth be told, I'm terrible at darts and pool too but I have an affinity for fooseball though I haven't much coordination in general.
Posted by: michelle on November 26, 2004 05:53 AM99 - It seems overly cold and cynical to me to see the 2 parties as basically offering the same thing, differentiating themselves only via their branding.
But is it actually right? Eg.- re "Strength", Bush promised to continue fighting the terrorists, Kerry was saying he would make sure USA passed the "international test" first. In saying such things, Kerry qualified Bush¥s singlemindedness, and so watered down his (Kerry¥s) potential image of strength.
But this posturing of Kerry¥s was by no means just branding. For sure, if Kerry¥d got to the White House, the place would be crawling with UN ambassadors, corrupt French presidents, cowardly German chancellors and their sorry ilk, all bleating about how they were going to restart the peace effort through the international talking shop. The Kerry product, in this instance, would have matched the Kerry branding. So everyone, everywhere, knew that chucking out Bush would be a sign of weakness in the eyes of the terrorists, the US voters saying, "sorry, we got it wrong, maybe we were too aggressive, won¥t do it again." And for all Kerry¥s wanky gun-toting publicity stunts, electors rightly saw beyond that: to elect him would send out a message of weakness,a lack of resolve.
Then again, he couldn¥t credibly claim he¥d be better at balancing the budget either, since he is, and was seen as, a spendthrift liberal. Similarly, he didn¥t play as well among the religious.
So there were loads of concrete differences between the 2 sides. And so to reduce it all down to a question of branding misses the point. One of Kerry¥s weaknesses was that although the Kerry branding sent out one mesage (eg. I love hunting) the Kerry product sent out another (ie. I am a spoilt cosmopolitan liberal). Nike¥d never make the same mistake. Their NPD programme is geared to the strategy of their overall promise. Their products look and are more cutting edge than the competition¥s and their message reflects that. The Dems should be aiming for a similar consistency. Good branding doesn¥t mean you can sell a crap product, not long term at any rate. And in any case, political brands don¥t get bought the same way people buy a pair of trainers. The differences are more significant than the similarities.
Posted by: willem oomkens van ommeland on November 26, 2004 10:48 AMMichelle,
I've kicked the nerddom. And since your country invented karaoke, you should realize that, in Asia, it is a skill that can advance your objects in both business and l'amour. I use it only sparingly.
I am, alas, plagued with a very fair complexion. I don't tan so much as burn. But what is ridiculous in the West has turned in my favor in Asia, where for many, the whiter, the more attractive. After many years of despising myself for shunning the beach, my karma done come good.
Nothing you have ever written here has provided any evidence that you've "kicked the nerddom". And the karaoke thing is definitely a setback.
Filipinos invented karaoke (Minus One)? Hmm, that's news to me. I just tried to google it and it looks like the Japanese are staking claim to this embarrassing invention.
Funny you should mention complexion. I personally like being dark but I don't tan per se (as in laying out or solarium). I spent a month climbing and sunning on the beaches of southern Thailand and then went to the Philippines to visit family. They were semi-disgusted in how dark I was. But then again, it's also 'cute' to be fat there.
Posted by: michelle on November 26, 2004 04:24 PM"Without a spiritual aspect to the universe there is no reason to do good."
Which is what scares me most about religious people. If you take away their superstition, would they go completely amoral, ripping people off, killing and other things that their religion forbids?
The reason to do good is because it's good - for yourself, for others, for the world. Being spiritual does not to enter into it, unless you are an amoral being held in check by the promise of Heaven/threat of Hell. That must be an absolutely miserable existence.
Posted by: John E Thelin on November 27, 2004 04:34 PMI'd bet that if you joined a Universalist or an Episcopal church and became a Sunday School teacher with a pretty good science curriculum, you'd get a hearing. In my own parish we're beginning to look into it because we can use more interactive and experimental curricula.
Dennett does argue that evolution is the acid that burns through all religious faith. However, modern theologians are a bit more attuned to science than the culture lets on. For liberal protestants, there will always be religion - but will it be a religion that encourages creativity or be "demonic" in its control [imagine totalitarianism, for example], or will it be one that is persuasive or coercive? Hierarchical, or panentheistic.
Religion is a way of framing one's life and ritualizing productive patterns. When we start talking about religion as if it is merely a logical set of principles, we leave the empirical.
People are not "religious" because it is logical, but because it offers an emotional breathing space.
Posted by: John Wilkins on November 27, 2004 05:05 PMWilkins - I was wondering when someone would bring up the Unitarians/Universalists. My suspicion is that most people who get married in that "church" are doing it to get even with their parents.
Thelin - The only material reason not to do bad is a rational universalization of behavior: the Golden Rule. There's no compelling material reason I can think of to justify altruism, manners, etc., except for social "lubrication". And that doesn't apply in most circumstances.
Posted by: Sterling on November 28, 2004 02:36 AMThe more "nuanced" candidate, Kerry, should have done that poll. Creationism may be the only thing he did not try to take a poll.
The result is that Kerry ws simply left with the voters who would swallow any old thing - or nonexistant Plan.
Posted by: charley on November 29, 2004 08:42 AMhttp://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/
Posted by: Lurker on November 30, 2004 02:30 AMSTERLING
I suspect you have been told before, Iíll tell you again. When a person comes to believe that God exists, it is because they approached God on Godís terms, not on that personís terms. (Re #18)
Doubting that God exists is not really the issue that keeps people from God. It is the prideful human heart living in denial of the harmful consequences of its own existence.
Nietzsche got it right, but then missed his own point, when he said that Christianity is guilt-driven. If the Biblical God does not exist, he correctly dismisses Christianity. But if He does exist, repentance is in order, and guilt is dismissed.
If you cannot stomach this, it is cuz you do not have a vivid understanding of the righteousness, wrath, and mercy of God. And, of the love driven personal sacrifice of God on your behalf (Re: the Passion).
Check out ìNew Evidence That Demands A Verdictî by Josh McDowell. It is a tedious book that only serious students would tolerate.
OK, now kill this thread B4 any one else sees this!
Sage7
In retrospect, In my previous post I should have used the word ìchoicesî, as in:
ìDoubting that God exists is not really the issue that keeps people from God. It is the prideful human heart living in denial of the harmful consequences of its own CHOICESî.
I had expected either this thread to be shut down, or to be criticized for not explaining HOW a person can approach a God they doubt exists. Since this thread is still up, I will talk more about that and explain. I realize I am really stepping on toes when I talk about human pride, but maybe the light will go on for somebody!
On Human Pride
and the transition
from doubt to belief:
Since human pride is a major offense to God, that quality is by design excluded from the process of coming to God. ìso that no one may boastî. (Eph 2:9, 1Cor 1:27-29). If you did finally prove that God does exist, you could be really proud of that accomplishment! But that would not bring you closer to God.
The Bible takes the position that it is obvious that He does exist as there is plenty of evidence in nature (and Mandelbrot sets)..., and in a counter-intuitive but accurate assessment of human nature, and in fulfilled prophecy (For example, that exactly 173,880 days would pass between the decree of King Artaxerxes for Neiamiah to rebuild the City of Jerusalem (444BC) to the day Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem on a Donkey (33AD). Re: The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict book.).
Biblically, the process from doubt to belief must start with an accurate assessment of your own life; admitting to AND regretting sorrow that your life has caused. People not willing to do that never even get started in the process. I see that as a kind of filter that eliminates most people... but maybe I am wrong on that.
Once that admission occurs, and a person hears about Godís remedy for that state, there is a decision to make. Do you trust a God you are not even sure exists? Or do you stay rational and reject the whole absurd notion? It is in fact a leap of faith to trust that not only does God exist, but that He in love will rescue you from your wretched state (MY wretched state? Owww... what a put off!).
But if the leap is taken, the Bible tells us that an irreversible supernatural step in the process then occurs. The Holy Spirit (a part of God) intervenes to help our unbelief. This means that a human can bring nothing to the bargaining table but an admission of unworthiness relative to God who is flawlessly righteous and for all practical purposes is infinitely powerful. And then God does the rest. (But I am fearful of losing control of my life to .... whatever God may be!)
You know the rest, either Godís love for you as declared in the Bible and demonstrated in the ìPassion of the Christî is trustworthy, or it is not. If you in faith DECIDE it is trustworthy, the process is Spiritually completed FOR you. Millions of people have done this, and it has changed their lives constructively. And it dramatically alters their worldview... no more moral escape hatches!
True, some say they have done this, but there is no evidence of it in their lives. In those cases they are at best just kidding themselves.
But make the distinction between these people and real Christians who still stumble but are intent on growing Spiritually, to ever better please God with their lives. For them, Bible study and Worship of God and Service in His Name become a way of life. And yes, there is a wide variety of experiences here, a rocky road upward as God help us grow into better people.
ëNuf said. If you have questions or comments, please direct them to bona3fide@yahoo.com, or... post them here if the thread survives this posting.
Sage7
Posted by: Sage7 on November 30, 2004 11:44 PMOn the repugnance of Christianity.
Many people find Christianity repugnant as it calls for the Christian to be humbly repentant before a flawlessly righteous judge (God Himself) who knows all our secrets. Also objectionable is the possibility of coming under moral judgment from possibly mistaken moral people. E.g., being literally held morally accountable for our offenses to God and to other people. Personal pride alarms go off at the mere thought of it all!
Humility before people and before God are vastly separate issues, so I will say a little about each.
As for humility before flawed people, it is certainly problematic. But you can appeal to the fact that the only human motivation that God respects is interpersonal love. You can insist that your human judges adhere to that standard. If they do, their judgments are likely to be fair and constructive. If they do not, they have no real moral authority.
Humility before God is a matter of perspective. If you accept God as He defines Himself in the Bible, it is absurd to be in any way prideful in the presence of an intelligence that created the universe! Especially such an intelligence that would care about how we treat each other on a person by person basis! We are but specks of dust in an obscure solar system in an obscure galaxy in a universe of millions of galaxies.
Any kind of scientific background inclines us to reject the concept of such a caring God. How could there exist any intelligent being that is responsible for every sub-atomic detail across a universe that spans billions of light years? And given that vast scope, why would it care about us?
Well, why not? It is mind boggling to the max, but who are we to say otherwise when such a being could do whatever it wanted and there is so much evidence of intelligent design in the universe? In fact, it would take such a capable being to monitor the thoughts of every person on earth. And what prohibits such an intelligence from informing us about itself and its intentions with respect to us? Christians believe that is how we got our Bible. And it is the Bible that tells us that He cares about us.
Sage7
On Loving God:
Faith is vital to God as an act of love. The Bible says we cannot please God without faith. God could make Himself plainly visible, but for now He chooses to make Himself obscure; ìwe see through a glass darklyî. But the Bible tells us that someday another testing period will occur (the millennium) where He will be clearly present to all people. And still human pride will cause some people to reject Him. It is like He is proving a point to someone about human nature!
God presents Himself to us in the Bible as a ìpersonî that wants our love. God made the first move in this love relationship by paying our ransom from judgment at great personal expense (the Passion of the Christ). When we choose to accept the reality of that and return our love to Him (trusting by FAITH that He IS, and is trustworthy), the love relationship is completed and rewarding. We become part of His family, His children (complete with an inheritance of eternal existence!).
The value of love lies in the fact that it is voluntary. In fact, whom we choose to love is the ONLY thing over which a human has complete control. That our salvation is a function of our voluntary love is a great design because it leaves us without excuses. No one, no thing, can stop us from loving whom we choose. Thus, Christianity is a (non-sexual) love relationship between God and humans.
Christianity is not an imposition of resented rules. And we do not buy Godís love by obeying Him, cuz we already have His love. Instead, we obey God because we love Him and trust that all of His rules are in our best interests. Awareness of this gives us an amazing positive shift in our attitude!
The Bible makes it clear that our love of God is the only acceptable motivation for any obedience or service we may offer to Him. Any other motivation cancels the deedís love-value. Recall that in the preceding post I mentioned that ìthat the only human motivation that God respects is interpersonal loveî.
I write these posts cuz I love God, especially in the persona of Jesus. If only one person reads these posts and comes to understand what is going on, God will know, and be pleased.
Sage7
More on the repugnance of Christianity:
A genuine Christian has emotions of brotherly love toward other people, and often that motivates him/her to meet the needs of family, friends, or strangers, expecting nothing in return. By the same token, a genuine Christian wants to avoid bringing sorrow to family, friends, or strangers.
Indeed, many non-Christians do the same from an instinct of compassion.
But for the Christian, it is not only caring for the other person, it is also caring about God and His attitude toward the people HE loves ( That often causes Christians to love the un-lovely; a singular evidence of Godís influence in us.). According to the Bible, when we bring joy to another person, we bring joy to God. And when we hurt or in any way cause another person any sorrow, we also bring sorrow to God because He loves that person.
The Bible says that God is EXTREMELY offended when we bring sorrow to others. This, because God is a God of perfect righteousness, and because of the EXTREME INTENSITY of His love for the offended person, and His unlimited awareness of how much harm was really done! Thus what seems to a human to be a small offense is a major offense to God. So the significance of moral issues are greatly magnified with God. Whereas with people, their own offenses to others are mentally minimized or even denied.
The Bible points out that humans have a strong tendency to cause sorrow. Through selfishness, greed, lust, licentiousness, lack of wisdom or caring ..., our choices bruise the lives of other people. This is why from Godís perspective, we are extremely wretched people!
But people do not like to think of themselves as wretched. ìHow unpleasant! How demeaning it is to be thought of a wretched. Christianity is telling us that we are absolutely wretched? Thank you very much, but I can do without THAT!î And Christianity is rejected as repugnant.
But when we finally understand what is going on, why we are so offensive to God, we can be more appreciative of Godís mercy in forgiving us! The Bible says that a person that has been forgiven little, loves God a little (Luke 7:47).
So we reason conversely: a person who realizes how great an offense they have been forgiven, loves greatly! And the level of gratitude in the forgiven person is far greater. That gratitude leads to a greater love for God, and a greater desire to please Him with our lives. And the strong desire to please Him leads us to worship of Him. This is why Christianity is stronger in people who realize how much they have been forgiven.
Yes, this is guilt. But it is not guilt that depresses. It is accurate and constructive guilt leading to immediate forgiveness and glorious relief when it is finally submitted to Godís grace.
Basically, God simply wants us to have an accurate picture of reality. He is perfectly righteous, we are the opposite, but His extreme grace can erase the extreme offense between us and Himself. When we accept the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross, we are forgiven by His grace, and we can enter into the immediate presence of God, whereas before we could not.
God loves all people, even the worst of us, even Saddam Hussein. If Saddam were to accept Godís gift of mercy, he would like the rest of us, be forgiven and escape the severe judgement that he, and we, deserve, and join the rest of us in the presence of God when this life is done.
Sage7
Posted by: Sage7 on December 2, 2004 05:42 PM
I stand corrected, and appreciate the feedback.
I missed an important point when I stated: ìBut you can appeal to the fact that the only human motivation that God respects is interpersonal love.î
The problem is with ìinterpersonalî. It was pointed out to me that a degree of self love is also neccessary. This, on the bases of Matt 22:39: ì...You shall love your neighbor AS yourself.î (caps mine)
According to this, if you have no self-love, you cannot love your neighbor. I also take it that it is a mistake to love yourself more than your neighbor. So we are to attempt an equality between self love (and respect, I would think.) for oneís self and oneís neighbor. And, even improve reasonable self-love so we can better love our neighbors.
I am not sure how to include this thought in the problem sentence without it getting too wieldy. Iíll work on it.
Also, I appreciate the powers that be for letting this thread live for a while. It will help folks better understand the evangelical mindset even if they do not agree with it. I do not even care if some laugh at it!
Someday I may indeed ìget a roomî of my own, when my schedule permits. I have been reading you folks a lot since I arrived and have come to like the folks in this room. All of them. But I donít know where you find the time to do so much of this! Are any of you employed full time? I pretty much have to get back to my other obligations. But I will check in now and then to see what is happening.
Thanks
Sage7
James Glassman defends Dow 36,000 in a column today.
Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2004 07:51 PM