Creationism

I'm curious about where this statistic is from.

Exactly what I was going to say. I believe this is being referred to as the "intelligent design" theory?

As long as you don't take the Bible literally, which most people outside of the US don't, then you can have your evolution and your Jesus.

Obviously every American who doesn't post to ILX is a blithering bible-thumping idiot, like those Japanese with the bad teeth

fletrejet, you should really get out of the house some more

I'm not equating any desire for easy answers with being stupid, FWIW. It's just what it is; a desire for a place and a kind of logic and foundation for life. If you have the need, it's there, and it probably doesn't even matter a whole lot whether it's true or not.

I have no doubt that belief in "creationism" (not the same thing as belief in the Biblical account(s) of creation) is common in the U.S. But here is an alternative interpretation.

Millar, fuck you.

I didn't say anything about "easy, catch all answers".

And the link Stuart provided showed around 44-50% belief in creationism. And if thinking that nearly half of the people in the US in 2003 believing some dumb shit about noah's ark is sad = I am ILX elitist, well fuck you.

Oh yeah, fuck you.

Like a lot of polls, the results seem to vary depending on how the questions are phrased. I think the most important thing is that we need to keep religion out of politics. I believe that a majority of Americans are with me on that.

that said creationism should be debunked at every opportunity - the drive behind it has nothing to do with science and little to do with religion. as for debunking that 'stat' (the science behind it's as shady as the science behind creationism), break it up - do 50% of American Muslims believe in creationism? clearly no. do 50% of Jews? clearly no. do 50% of Catholics believe in creationism? clearly no. do 50% of Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.? clearly no. even with your more stridently evangelical branches - Southern Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists - I don't think the number would reach 50%, and even if it reached 100% those branches hardly equal a large enough sector of the American public to tilt the overall poll to 30%, nevermind 50%.

Nick, I think I saw that doco as well. Did it feature Christian bands putting the boot into crazy ol' Darwin with ROCK?

So in this case, all you have is the imperfect tool of surveys, which put the number at 30%-50%. Even if they are imperfect, they are far better than your argument, which boils down "No way that many people believe that shit!". Apparently they do.

There are many flavours of creationism - one kind, the day-age theory, says that the "days" in the Bible are actually periods of time lasting millions of years. This allows you to have an old earth, and dinosaurs long dead before humans.

I think is fairly reasonable form someone to be skeptical about single cell organisms slowly morphing into fish slowly morphing into hippos into spiders into monkeys into people over many generations. Personally I think is pretty astonding that there is a large amount of people that totally believe evolution is full answer. There are too many 'missing links.'

a good debunk from talk.origins FAQ:

Q How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young.

A According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.

this is not a serious country any more. 4 more years of this horseshit.

...as the scientific knowledge of the general public increases(despite the best efforts of some), these assholes have to use increasingly scientific-sounding language to justify their positions, since they can't exactly do so otherwise.

A program requires a programmer

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

i love this, it's a crazy creationist guy claiming pterosaurs still fly in Papua New Guinea!

http://www.searchingforropens.com

bioluminescent glow?? wha??? where's this video he's talking about? I want to see glow in the dark dinos!

Fun at the Creationism Museum

Early in the museum, the visitor is given advice on the proper mind frame to have for your visit: “Don’t think, just listen and believe”. As you can see in the picture below, Human Reason is the enemy and God’s Word is the hero. Descartes represents Human Reason, saying “I think, therefore I am”. But God tells us there no need to waste your beautiful mind, for God says “I am that I am”.

(with photos!)

I want to see glow in the dark dinos!

this just in, shocking photo straight from Papua New Guinea!

http://dts.ystoretools.com/1270/images/100x500/glowdin.jpg

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home

Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.

“I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.

When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.

“Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry,” said the minister, who took chemistry and physics courses as an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo.

“I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. … I think we need to recognize that we don't know.”

Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.

Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments.

Evolution is a scientific fact, Dr. Alters said, and the foundation of modern biology, genetics and paleontology. It is taught at universities and accepted by many of the world's major religions, he said.

“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”

Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution.

“The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions,” he said.

Mr. Goodyear's evasive answers on evolution are unlikely to reassure the scientists who are skeptical about him, and they bolster the notion that there is a divide between the minister and the research community.

Many scientists fear 10 years of gains will be wiped out by a government that doesn't understand the importance of basic, curiosity-driven research, which history shows leads to the big discoveries. They worry Canada's best will decamp for the United States, where President Barack Obama has put $10-billion (U.S) into medical research as part of his plan to stimulate economic growth.

But in the interview, Mr. Goodyear defended his government's approach and the January budget, and said it stacks up well when compared to what Mr. Obama is doing.

He also talked about how passionate he is about science and technology – including basic research – and how his life before politics shaped his views.

Now 51, Mr. Goodyear grew up in Cambridge. His parents divorced when he was young. His father was a labourer, his mother a seamstress who worked three jobs to the support her three children.

His first summer job was laying asphalt when he was 12. At 13, he got a part-time job at a garage, pumping gas. At 17, the young entrepreneur started his own company selling asphalt and sealants.

He was in the technical stream at high school, taking welding and automotive mechanics. No one in has family had ever gone to university, but he secretly started taking academic credits at night school so he could get admitted to the University of Waterloo. He didn't want his family to know.

He took chemistry, physics, statistics and kinesiology, and was fascinated by the mechanics of human joints. After three years of university, he was admitted to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, where he was class president and valedictorian.

He had his own practice in Cambridge, where he settled down with his wife Valerie. He worked as chiropractor for two decades, and set up private clinics to treat people who had been injured in car accidents, sometimes using devices that he invented to help them rebuild their strength and range of motion.

He had sold that business when, before the 2004 federal election, a friend approached him about running for the Conservative nomination in Cambridge. His two children were then in their late teens, so he agreed. He took the nomination and won the seat. He was re-elected in 2006, and again in 2008, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper named him science minister.

“Now I have got a portfolio that I am absolutely passionate about and frankly connected to,” he said, adding that his days of experimenting with engines in high school automotive class gave him an appreciation for what it feels like to come up with something new.

“When I was in high school, we were already tweaking with a coil that would wrap around the upper radiator hose and it got an extra five miles to the gallon. … So I've been there on this discovery stuff.”

Commercializing research – the focus of the government's science and technology policy – is an area where Canada needs to make improvements, he says.

“If we are going to be serious about saving lives and improving life around this planet, if we are serious about helping the environment, then we are going to have to get some of these technologies out of the labs onto the factory floors. Made. Produced. Sold. And that is going to fulfill that talk. So yes, we have to do all of it, we have to do discovery … but it can't end there.”

I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate

IT'S A SCIENCE QUESTION DIPSHIT

Also dude is a chiropractor. That is not good science.