News More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

[chemisttree]

However, there are many more people who like to adhere to a much softer form of creationism, which is just a philosophical stance: a deity "created" the laws of nature, and evolution is just a part of it. I know some catholic French people who say that they are "creationist" in this sense, but are entirely accepting a billions-year old Earth and humans-evolved-from-apes and all that, in as much as there is scientific support for that. Their stance is simply that the laws of nature where made such (by their deity) that the way evolution happened, was a (planified) result of them. This is of course an unfalsifiable position, but not in contradiction to science.

I think you would find this true in the US as well although not so much as in France. I believe that roughly one-third of French citizens are acknowledged athiests (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131) whereas only 5% of US citizens are.

 

[chemisttree]

The whole field of evolutionary biology? Genetic algorithms? Explaining drug resistant bacteria, domestication of animals? drug discoveries?

In fact, you should read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

Genetic algorithms? Leave out the word 'genetic' and nothing is lost. Perhaps you meant to say 'directed evolution'. Drug resistant bacteria can be completely understood without resort to evolution. Humans have been domesticating animals for thousands of years... you prove my point exactly!

I don't know how you get "drug discoveries" from knowledge of evolution. Do you?

 

[Astronuc]

It's all religion vs anti-religion,

Not quite.

It is about the degree to which religion is involved in public education.

Church attendance is not mandatory, but attendance in school is. Religious instruction belongs in one's home and religious institution, not in the public classroom. Discussion of religion is an entirely different matter, and I don't see why a course in comparative religion or study of religion should be a problem, except where someone invokes the idea that one's religion or set of beliefs is the only 'right' or 'correct' one, and all others therefore are not.

The debate on evolution vs creationism is largely a philosophical conflict, but also one of public policy, which does affect the effectiveness of the educational system.

 

[Dr. Proof]

I've never had to use evolution or creationism in any scientific endeavor. We never talked about it in Physics, Chemistry, Engineering or Math. So how is it that this minor point is given so much importance?

Can anyone name a single unique useful scientific discovery that was based on evolution or creationism?

Amen and Amen.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

uses of evolution

 

[Moridin]

More recent Gallup polls and articles

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27682

About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.

There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814

 

[siddharth]

Genetic algorithms? Leave out the word 'genetic' and nothing is lost. Perhaps you meant to say 'directed evolution'. Drug resistant bacteria can be completely understood without resort to evolution. Humans have been domesticating animals for thousands of years... you prove my point exactly!

I don't know how you get "drug discoveries" from knowledge of evolution. Do you?

I'm not a biologist, and I might be wrong, but from the earlier link, what I understand is that

(i) Genetic algortihims in computer science directly use major principles from evolution such as natural selection, mutation and recombination.

(ii) An understanding of evolution surely offers insight into how resistances are built up in bacteria. For example, how bacteria respond to the selective pressure of the antibiotics, and how mutations and how the inherited trait of drug resistance changes from generation to generation

(iii) I think that the concept of common descent is used to find out how unknown genes function, by tracing the evolutionary pathways of genes with known function, and see how they relate to the unknown gene.

Besides, what practical applications have creationist theories resulted in?

Maybe Moonbear or someother biologist will have more to add on the practical aspects of the theory of evolution?

 

[chemisttree]

Not quite.

It is about the degree to which religion is involved in public education.

Church attendance is not mandatory, but attendance in school is. Religious instruction belongs in one's home and religious institution, not in the public classroom. Discussion of religion is an entirely different matter, and I don't see why a course in comparative religion or study of religion should be a problem, except where someone invokes the idea that one's religion or set of beliefs is the only 'right' or 'correct' one, and all others therefore are not.

The debate on evolution vs creationism is largely a philosophical conflict, but also one of public policy, which does affect the effectiveness of the educational system.

I agree with most of this but disagree with some points (in a minor way). I think that religious belief has no place in a science classroom, however; it offers a spectacular opportunity to teach the scientific method and illustrate how the scientific method cannot be applied to prove or disprove an article of faith. A very useful lesson these days...

 

[Kurdt]

I agree with most of this but disagree with some points (in a minor way). I think that religious belief has no place in a science classroom, however; it offers a spectacular opportunity to teach the scientific method and illustrate how the scientific method cannot be applied to prove or disprove an article of faith. A very useful lesson these days...

Which ultimately brings one to question faith because it allows people to believe whatever they wish with no evidence in support of it. Thus its usefulness to the pursuit of the truth of the universe is non-existent.

I believe this thread has made the unfortunate descent into the usual bickering that generally occurs with critiques of faith.

 

[out of whack]

I am a critic of faith. What I find alarming in this story is the willingness of so many people to base their entire system of belief on ancient unverified stories in preference to what can be seen and verified today. Most religions are collections of unprovable stories and beliefs, I don't think this is in dispute, and this is why the word "faith" is needed. Those who make the decision to accept such unsubstantiated hypotheses on faith willingly abdicate their right to use reason and their ability to verify the validity of these beliefs against what is actually verifiable. Making this conscious decision is the saddest thing. Seeing the proportion of Americans who favor superstition over science is alarming.

 

[Evo]

Not quite.

It is about the degree to which religion is involved in public education.

Church attendance is not mandatory, but attendance in school is. Religious instruction belongs in one's home and religious institution, not in the public classroom. Discussion of religion is an entirely different matter, and I don't see why a course in comparative religion or study of religion should be a problem, except where someone invokes the idea that one's religion or set of beliefs is the only 'right' or 'correct' one, and all others therefore are not.

The debate on evolution vs creationism is largely a philosophical conflict, but also one of public policy, which does affect the effectiveness of the educational system.

And this is what is scary, when religious groups want to require an entire nation to be forced to believe as they do and will go to just about any length to accomplish it.

Religion does not have a place in a public school science class.

Those who make the decision to accept such unsubstantiated hypotheses on faith willingly abdicate their right to use reason and their ability to verify the validity of these beliefs against what is actually verifiable. Making this conscious decision is the saddest thing. Seeing the proportion of Americans who favor superstition over science is alarming.

Yes, it is a problem in the US.

As usual, these threads reach a point where there's nothing new left to discuss.