Creationism Tops Evolution

And some of those people reject facts, like hundreds of documented cases of people that died and came back to life and could describe everything happening in the room, even what was happening when they were clinically dead. Things they could not possibly have seen from where they were even if they had been concious.
Facts like hundreds of documented cases of terminally ill people that are given up to die and recover overnight with no traces of the illness they were dying from. I could go on and on, but people won’t believe facts. People who won’t believe facts could be likened to someone in a forest where all they can see is trees. If they would only climb to a higher elevation they could not only see the forest, they could see everything surrounding it. The difference between me and you, my narrow minded friends, and yes Mr. Dvorak, you are included, is that I’ve been where you are, but you’ve never been where I am.

I actually can believe what Hillary Clinton says about herself — politicially liberal yet personally conservative.

I am an evangelical Christian — not from the southern bible belt from the northern breed of evangelicals.

We tend to be quite CONSERVATIVE in our PERSONAL theology, reading of the bible, ethical behavior, etc.

But we tend to be LIBERAL in our voting and sense of social responsibility.

We “northern bible belters” aren’t usually the ones pushing creationism, for instance. We believe that God DID create the world (probably using evolution) but we understand that others don’t believe like we do and we should respect those differences.

Pushing our personal agenda in the schools, just isn’t neighborly.

Christians that believes in the �light-switch� theory of creation so that theories like the Big Bang and Evolution fit nicely into their world are really deists in disguise. The bible clearly contracts science as well as itself in numerous locations.

It is a fact that most people are afraid of the unknown. Thus, in order to alleviate that fear, they eliminate the unknown by attributing it to a higher power(s). That a person given up to a medical solution is suddenly cured is symptomatic of how much we still have to learn about the human body and its diseases. There is an explanation, but it may not be known for years to come. That such a person lives provides no credence to the theory that an uber-being(s) saved them.

Faith and science both seek truth, the difference is their methods. History has proven that science is far more effective in finding truth than faith. It is an affront to our education system when 1/3 of the population believes that a real science theory should be scraped from science classes.

In terms of Hilary, that�s a different situation. In the next four years, remember to evaluate Hilary�s statements and decisions in light of her wanting the White House in 2008. So she�s going to spend the next four years making herself appeal to the red states. That means providing credence to creationism, claiming herself to be religious and perhaps even moving back to Arkansas.

I noticed that Thomas didn’t comment on Mr. Blackoak’s comment about near death experiences. I’m guessing that’s because him and his scientists friends don’t have an explanation. I’m assuming that’s because of the typical myopic, head in the sand stance that people like him are most fond of.
I’m with Blackoak. The problem is that a people like them can be likened to someone drinking water and eating crackers in the foyer of a banquet hall, watching others go in and out of the banquet, all the while vociferously denying that there actually is a banquet and that all the people claiming that they had a wonderful meal are either lying or are mistaken. Enjoy your water and crackers, but there really is much more available.

Giving scientific credibility to what is commonly known as �creationism�, or any other cosmology for that matter, is the same as saying that the sun orbits around the earth. It is such a na�ve belief that it is hard to believe that so many people still give it more credit than the credit attributed to a children�s book � I don�t think that the Vatican, or any other. The classical theory of evolution (the one outlined by Darwin, without �Mendelian inheritance�) on the other hand is such a natural and sophisticated idea and such an easy one to prove by means of the observation of the biological world that the thing that keeps it from being as well accepted as the one that assures us the earth is not flat are some strong misconceptions, one of those is the fear that God doesn�t take place in such a world, or that in such a world (the governed by the laws of natural selection) Man would be compared to all the other �beasts� that inhabit it; these were fears that even Darwin had. If we talk about the modern theory of evolution then we talk about something that can explain the origin of every living thing on this planet, galaxy and universe (and, if there any, in other �universes�) in a deterministic way. There is, it�s a fact, the idea of the Intelligent Designer or Design, which is a more elegant and modern way of including God in the great scheme of things but that is not creationism and which does not necessarily deny the theory of evolution.

I am an atheist and believe that Science, as well as the Arts and Religion, can offer some great �feasts� of knowledge and understanding of the reality that surrounds us but I can accept that others can think otherwise. But the awareness that the scientific perspective offers us, incomplete as it may be, is something unique, and something that one can not throw away just because it sometimes goes against our personal beliefs.

Hey! Once when I was about 8 years old, this is true, I had a dream in which I was floating around my own bedroom and had a clear picture (well in b/w to be honest) of my bed and some other furniture from the height of say 1 ft; I was really afraid at the time. I was, I’m sure, in perfect health and not in a comma and there was no one there with me. Would this apply for the $1 million dollars reward?

resende, no that would not qualify you since you were not clinically dead at the time and had no witnesses.
Science is not a dirty word, it’s okay as far as it goes. It has always been (once again, look back at history) based on the best knowlege available at the time. However, it does not have a track record of being right all the time. If you want to religiously base your beliefs on science you certainly do have a lot of faith. I’d rather look at the whole truth, including the things science can and can’t explain.

Marvinsky, there is allways a certain amount faith asked from anyone in order to believe in something. You use the terms truth, faith and beliefs in a rather ambiguous way as they assume different meanings in religion and science. In science you need truth to have faith and in religion you need faith to have truth. When I speak of believing in science I am not speaking of ‘beliefs’ and I’m sure I don’t “religiously” believe in the thing (science) because I don’t need to, I need proof.

Utter trounch to your hearts content. I’ve never discounted science. The problem with the narrow minded in either camp, I have already pointed out. Creationists and evolutionists are both right and both wrong. It’s all a matter of perpective and those with perspective can see it, those without cannot. The blind will continue to follow the blind. Misery loves company etc… etc…
You can say there’s no such thing as Santa, but as for me and Granpa, we believe.

Again, people think that creationists and evolutionists simply have different opinions. That’s the not the issue. Creationism is not science and should not be taught as science in science classes. I have no problem with people teaching creationism as any other type of course. I would think that religion (probably the best fit) or cultural anthropology would be the best fit. Just don’t try to claim it as science. What’s next: teaching astrology as science?

That said, I suspect that, in fact, the charts are misrepresented and the lower chart is some sort of subset and the top chart should have benn cited with “and/or” rather than “and.”

I also wonder if it might be a sign of pragmatism on the part of some Christians, with the hard-core 45% wanting Creationism only, while the total rises to 71% when you add the pragmatists who want Creation taught, but know they can’t eliminate the teaching of Evolution.

The original article seems to back the idea that the two questions were asked seperately, not as an either/or choice.

“Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included. “

John Dvorak Benefits from the Public Stupidity he Decries

I really hope this creacionism thing stays in the US ……

So the religious right in the US now wants to push Creationism to the top of the political agenda… Sorta like those radical Muslims tend to do with their Anti-Amercian beliefs.

Amercians JUST DON’T GET IT!
They call A young man who picks up a gun for his religion in IRAQ is called a terrorist
but
A young man who picks up a gun for his country (who believes that “their” god created man) in the USA is called a patriot!

Yup can’t understand why half the planet is pissed at the the USA!?

Those that don’t believe in quantum mechanics must also not believe in the existence of neon lights, mercury lights, sodium vapor lights, lasers, LEDs, electronics (TVs, computers, etc.) and other common technologies that work because of quantum mechanics.

I believe the Bible has some wisdom in it, but it certainly wasn’t written by . In many cases the original author’s name is also the name of the book he wrote. Fundamentalism is thus a logical fallacy.

it should also be noted here that many Christian religions do not consider the Bible to be a source of good science, as the authors of those books knew almost nothing about science or the scientific method.

The most pathetic thing about most people that have the nerve to call themselves a Christian or Catholic in this country is that everyone that I have spoken with somehow believes that they can pick & choose the aspects of “their” religion that they believe (kinda like a smorgasboard) and ignore the things that sound a little “far-fetched” to them. That’s like someone calling themselves a “white supremist” but wants to make exceptions for a few of their black and jewish friends. You either believe ALL the teachings that make an organization what it is or you are NOT a member nor follower (not to mention whom are void of true and full faith)! BTW, you are also not a “member” of a belief system simply by birth! I don’t understand how “non-practicing Christians” can call themselves that simply because their parents are (believers of) Christians!? Oh…the insanity of needing to belong!

Regardless of whether humanity truly evolved from blobs of jelly and monkeys, Creationists cannot prevail in the ongoing debate about our origins. Their position is fatally flawed. You see, the Creationist position fundamentally relies upon the premise that the Judeo-Christian Bible is the Word of God. If it’s not; if the Bible is just a book, then there is no Creationist position. Recently, a lawyer embarked upon a mission to become the greatest Christian on the planet. In his quest he made a profound discovery. He discovered that the Bible is unequivocally not the Word of God. His argument is compelling. After reading his thesis, I am both shocked and embarrassed that I spent my whole life as a Christian and a Creationist. And while his thesis does not invalidate the so-called theory of “Intelligent Design,” it absolutely dismantles the theory of Biblical Creationism. You can read his Thesis at http://www.InDefenseOfGod.com/