Creationist Wikipedia
The problem is that a lot of creationists say the same about evolution, i.e., that it is a doctrine or belief. I used to debate them all the time, but I tired of it. Almost all creationists I have encountered come with the same talking points, and none of them are scientific.
Exactly. It goes to show how ignorant some people are of the scientific method and the rigor that goes into developing a theory.
In edition, it's funny how the creationist wiki has no entry for "vestigial structure." As a male, I happen to be curious as to the grand holy purpose of my nipples.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
The problem is that a lot of creationists say the same about evolution, i.e., that it is a doctrine or belief. I used to debate them all the time, but I tired of it. Almost all creationists I have encountered come with the same talking points, and none of them are scientific.
Exactly. It goes to show how ignorant some people are of the scientific method and the rigor that goes into developing a theory.
In edition, it's funny how the creationist wiki has no entry for "vestigial structure."
If you're actually interested here's the AiG section on Vestigial organs: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... organs.asp
Creationistwiki appears to be fairly new.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
Yes, and they confuse the scientific definition of theory (rigorous scientific explanation) with the popular one (a personal opinion).
lol
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Yes, and they confuse the scientific definition of theory (rigorous scientific explanation) with the popular one (a personal opinion).
No, Creation scientists don't. The main populous do. AiG and all that I know about know the difference between an hypothesis, theory, and law. Your above statement is either in ignorance or a strawman.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
In my case, it is based on years of experience dialoguing ad nauesum with creationists. However, admittedly, the vast majority of them had no substantial scientific education.
I am sure that, like you say, there are educated creationists who understand scientific nomenclature. It is also true that there is an inverse correlation between years of education and accepting creationist ideas. Creationists are, proportionately, less likely to have graduated high school, for instance, than those who accept evolution.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
Creationism does not comply with parameters established by the scientific method, so it is not really science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/earth ... metcr.html
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
Last edited by greenblue on 11 Jan 2008, 5:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
From the Gallup site, which has regularly asked questions on the subject of creationism, and from NORC data.
Edit: here is one example:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/Americ ... igins.aspx
Scroll down to the Education section of the page.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
Where the heck did you pull that statistic from?
Dunno where he got that, but I typed "are creationists less educated" in a search engine, and found this:
In the spring of 2007, following an all-candidates meeting of ten Republicans seeking the presidency, three denied a personal belief in evolution. This promoted the Gallup Organization to ask American adults between 2007-MAY-21-24: "Do you, personally, believe in evolution or not." This is one of the poorest polling questions that we have ever seen, because people generally hold one of three beliefs concerning origins:
bullet Naturalistic evolution: Evolution happened according to purely natural forces and processes without any divine guidance.
bullet Theistic evolution: Evolution happened and was/is guided by God.
bullet Creationism: Species were created separately by God.
The results, for what they are worth are a statistical draw:
49% believe in "Evolution;
48% do not;
2% have no opinion.
As expected, more highly educated adults believe in "evolution:"
74% of people with post-graduate degrees believe in "evolution," as do:
48% of college graduates
50% of adults with some college
41% of adults with high school or less.
More frequent attendance at religious services correlated with a lack of belief in "evolution:"
24% of those who attend weekly believe in evolution, as do:
52% of those who attend nearly weekly or monthly, and
71% of those who attend seldom or never.
As expected, political affiliation reflects a difference of opinion on origins:
Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" 68% do not.
61% of independents believe in "evolution;" 37% do not.
57% of Democrats believe in "evolution;" 40% do not.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
While more education seems to be somewhat correlated to a belief in evolution, it is not as strong of a correlation as faith (the ability to believe in things not proven, which may conflict with science). Political independents are more likely to believe in evolution than any other identified group.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
From the Gallup site, which has regularly asked questions on the subject of creationism, and from NORC data.
Edit: here is one example:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/Americ ... igins.aspx
Scroll down to the Education section of the page.
I wonder how they would rank someone who is homeschooled through high school, self-taught at the 4 year college level, corresponds with textbook authors for clarification, and so forth, on a phone interview.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
I don't know. I have never seen that issue analyzed.
However, my prediction would be that people who are homeschooled would be more likely to be creationists than the general population. I base that on the fact that a sizable percentage of parents who homeschool their children are fundamentalist (or sometimes conservative evangelical) Christians.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
re: stats on level of education and belief in creationism :: that's interesting,
it's true that until I reached a certain level of understanding, darwins theory of evolution and that of creationists seemed pretty equally a question of dogma. I would have been hard pressed to "support" one or the other, except that one was taught in schools.
As example of my level of understanding about the issues, despite a psychology and biology degree, I remember how interesting it was to find out, age 21 ish, that the much touted "urge for children" could not in fact be all that instinctual/genetic because it wouldn't have been very useful to homo erectus, wanting a baby; where was s/he going to get one from? ! The only useful "urge" was for sex.
My dad, otherwise very well read, did not believe in evolution until my sister persuaded him of it a few years ago. I was amazed when she told me. But i think if i had been taught one rather than the other i might have believed it until well into adulthood, my late 20s or even 30s, judging from other things i believed , no trouble, until then or later, which were quite fallacious.
Last edited by ouinon on 11 Jan 2008, 7:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I think there may be a problem only people who have that view would be the ones who know of it. Sure there are theists, but without knowledge of the details (which most Christians other than me and some college students don't read their Bibles) specific to that group. As for the Republican thing it would make sense that those who take the Bible seriously would have certain moral stances which are more (but not completely found) in the Republican party. I don't like the party all that much since they've been so wishy-washy, but who else is there?
I remember setting up a large table filled with soil for a physical geography lab - the table was tilted, and on one side, there was a pipe that could release water in various patterns and intensities. This apparatus was for modelling erosion.
A grad student from India wandered by and looked in to see what was going on - he had an engineering bachelors degree. I explained that this was to model erosion. He said he didn't believe in erosion. I looked at him in an incredulous way, and asked him how the Earth's landscapes got the way they are today. He said "The Gods" and walked off. That's why I said faith is the biggest opposition to science, not education.
That raises another question: Should we teach all theories of evolution in the classroom? Hindu creationism, Native American Creation beliefs, West African/Voudou ideas on the origins of the Earth? Or just stick to the science??
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I don't know. I have never seen that issue analyzed.
However, my prediction would be that people who are homeschooled would be more likely to be creationists than the general population. I base that on the fact that a sizable percentage of parents who homeschool their children are fundamentalist (or sometimes conservative evangelical) Christians.
Probably so, but then they can go to college and get reverse indoctrinated too.
Concerning education level of homeschoolers: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
that much of God’s creation was designed for human
enjoyment and for God’s own enjoyment, as He declared
it ‘good’ several times before man was created. A field of
dandelions is a thing of beauty that is famous the world
over (and thus a favourite of photographers everywhere).
Evolutionists never have explained how and why so many
structures could exist in humans (like the complex
structures that enable music, song, and dance) that confirm
no survival advantage yet delight millions. Only Creation
can explain this observation.
I'm actually familiar with answers in genesis, though I am not satisfied with this answer as it is not scientific. I just read one article, however, and I plan to read more. Thank you for finding it for me.
No. Science class is for science. However, if you're going to teach the Christian concept of creationism, you have to teach them all since they are all equally valid.