Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds

[selfAdjoint]

Not to rain on your shock but I'm pretty sure the widespread "belief in Heaven" predates " the American Dream" by a year or three.

In a general way, but the history of religion is non trivial. The "Great Awakening" with its implied promise of easy access to heaven (contra the Catholics, Calvinists, and others) only occurred after the American Revolution.

 

[DaveC426913]

How dare you misquote me.

 

[Astronuc]

Joseph Tracy, the minister and historian who gave this religious phemonenon its name in his influential (and still, to many, definitive) 1842 book The Great Awakening, saw the First Great Awakening as a precursor to the War of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening#Influence_on_American_political_life On the other hand, I strongly doubt the first Great Awaking was a strong influence on Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Jay, and many others who were inspired to take up the Revolution against the King of England.

The first Great Awakening was apparently established in 1740, and followed the activities of Jonathan Edwards from 1731-1739.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)

Most historians agree that the revolutionary era began in 1763,

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

However, while it would appear that this thread has drifted off course from the OP, which was concerned with the fact that evolution is less accepted in America, the rejection of evolution by many in America is the result of the evolution of religious belief that precludes acceptance of evolution.

 

[Kalimaa23]

Turn out they just did the same poll over here in a popular radio show

What do you think about evolution?

86% Of course I believe in evolution, it seems to most logical explanation
06% It's a possibility, but I'd rather believe that God created us
08% I don't buy it, I think it went differently.

People were shocked (and I as well) that SO FEW people over here think evolution is correct!

 

[Rach3]

Mmm interesting do they give a +- statistical error value? I know they do that with political poles[/color], I believe it's 2.5%.

Hey, can't a Pole be political without being accused of error?

 

[Tzemach]

Evolution and the Biblical concept of creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Those who are resistant to the possibility of Biblical accuracy currently take heart from the first chapter of Genesis. The world was not created in six days as the Bible says. The milestones of the six days of creation are enumerated day by day, but the Sun does not appear until day four. If this is the case how did they measure the days before the sun was created, surely we can’t be expected to believe that days were measured in twenty-four hour blocks in anticipation of the creation of the Earth. Science tells us that the universe was created (the big bang happened) about fifteen billion years ago and our Sun was formed about five billion years ago. The Sun has therefore only existed for the last third of the life of the universe, as the Bible says the Sun was created on day four of the six days it appears that science and the Bible are in concurrence, our solar system is one-third the age of the universe.

The main area of dispute between supporters of the Bible and those that are opposed to Bible teaching is in the area of evolution. Kabbalists and Bible students are well aware that the Bible does in fact allude to evolution, but as the method of creation is subordinate to the reason for creation (in the Bible view) only half a dozen verses (Genesis 20-26) have been devoted to four billion years of natural adaptation. The Bible lists the order of creation from aquatic creatures to land animals, mammals and eventually humans, which is the same order that we have established from the fossil record.

The fossil record does provide some clues that evolution may have had some help along the way. In the Cambrian period 550 million years ago we have what is known as the “Cambrian explosion ” of animal life, when with no indication in the previous fossil record countless new species simply appeared. The Bible also refers to dinosaurs, although because there were a number of Bible translations before dinosaurs had been discovered nobody knew what the Bible was talking about. In Genesis 1:21 the only animals to whom a size is attributed are the “big taninim” a term which has been translated at different times as whales, crocodiles and even dragons. The term “taninim” is the plural of the noun “tanin” which also appears in Exodus, when Moses staff turns into a “nachash” (snake) it is also referred to as a “tanin” (reptile). So that when Genesis 1:21 says that God created the “big reptiles”, it indicates that the Bible knew about dinosaurs three and a half thousand years before science.

 

[Astronuc]

So that when Genesis 1:21 says that God created the “big reptiles”, it indicates that the Bible knew about dinosaurs three and a half thousand years before science.

Not quite. It means that the people who wrote the Tanach (or Chumash) referenced the reptiles with which they were familiar, not dinosaurs.

The Bible also refers to dinosaurs, . . .

This is an unsubstantiated claim. It would correct to say that some people choose to believe that the Bible refers to dinosaurs.

Please read the guidelines with respect to speculative claims.

 

[Gokul43201]

Evolution and the Biblical concept of creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Those who are resistant to the possibility of Biblical accuracy currently take heart from the first chapter of Genesis. The world was not created in six days as the Bible says. The milestones of the six days of creation are enumerated day by day, but the Sun does not appear until day four. If this is the case how did they measure the days before the sun was created, surely we can’t be expected to believe that days were measured in twenty-four hour blocks in anticipation of the creation of the Earth.

Well, according to your Genesis, day and night were created before the Sun and Moon! Heck, the Earth was created before the Sun! Don't come to me and ask me what sense there is in that, but apparently there was a way to count days before the Sun was created, just as there was a way to have day and night on Earth with no Sun in the sky.

 

[George Jones]

Well, according to your Genesis, day and night were created before the Sun and Moon! Heck, the Earth was created before the Sun! Don't come to me and ask me what sense there is in that, but apparently there was a way to count days before the Sun was created, just as there was a way to have day and night on Earth with no Sun in the sky.

Well, someone (not necessarily me) might argue that this is just a concrete way of saying that time existed before the Sun and the moon.

When things are open to interpretation, any meaning is possible, which makes fact-based discussion difficult.

 

[Gokul43201]

When things are open to interpretation, any meaning is possible, which makes fact-based discussion difficult.

And when interpretation moulds itself to convenience (whales become dinosaurs, the Earth becomes the universe, day/night become metaphorical for time) and consistency goes out the door (sticking to that interpretation of the day, birds should have appeared on Earth a couple of billion years before man), any kind of discussion becomes difficult.

 

[loseyourname]

Well Greece (If you classify Greece as 'western') is more religious and also Cyprus than the states. Greece is the most religious country in Europe, it is completely intertwined into the culture, for millennia.

Armenia, too, if that's to be considered western. Never been to either country and don't know many Greeks, but I've spent enough time in the Armenian neighborhoods in Los Angeles and befriended enough immigrants to know that that country is extremely religious and their church constitutes either the single most or second most (after language) important foundation of the entire cultural identity.

 

[Yonoz]

Has anyone heard about the http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health19.htm" ? There's not much reference to it on the web.

In a provocative experiment with patients suffering from an unusual form of epilepsy, researchers at the UC-San Diego brain and perception laboratory determined that the parts of the brain's temporal lobe -- which the scientists quickly dubbed the "God module" -- may affect how intensely a person responds to religious beliefs.

People suffering from this type of seizure have long reported intense mystical and religious experiences as part of their attacks but also are unusually preoccupied with mystical thoughts between seizures.

That led this team to use these patients as a way of investigating the relationship between the physical structure of the brain and spiritual experiences.

In a carefully designed experiment, the researchers determined that one effect of the patients' seizures was to strengthen their brain's involuntary response to religious words, leading the scientists to suggest a portion of the brain is naturally attuned to ideas about a supreme being.

EDIT: It's a bit philosophical, and will obviously do little to convince someone who believes the existence of god, but it will surely feel like a small victory when science will be able to explain the belief in god as a biological/evolutionary trait. It's probable that a society in which individuals have a genetic predisposition to act ethically by some primitive sense of an omnipotent supreme judge will outcompete a rival society with unchecked aggression and power struggles. It's just a theory.

Also, check out the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome" .

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Hey, can't a Pole be political without being accused of error?

No, because people lie, change their minds at the last minute or just don't vote at all. This upsets the accuracy of the vote, in essence you always have to allow for human nature, the value of this in a political pole is about +-5%

So don't count on a win if it's a 35% to 39% lead.

 

[Yonoz]

No, because people lie, change their minds at the last minute or just don't vote at all. This upsets the accuracy of the vote, in essence you always have to allow for human nature, the value of this in a political pole is about 5%

I think she was referring to your misspelling of poll.

 

[Rach3]

I think she was referring to your misspelling of poll.

He!

 

[Yonoz]

He!

Huh, sorry. Thought Rach stood for Rachel.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think she was referring to your misspelling of poll.

Ack that's like the third time this week someone's corrected my spelling, are you just picking on me for humour or is this just general pedantry?

I have no sense of humour when it comes to grammar/spelling junkies, be warned

If I don't know how to spell pole it isn't exactly going to come acrosss, it's like trying to explain a mistake in English to someone who doesn't speak the language see.