Page 1 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 5:22 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
At least they admit it's doctrine or belief and not science.


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.


_________________
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


Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

11 Jan 2008, 5:25 pm

nominalist wrote:
Phagocyte wrote:
At least they admit it's doctrine or belief and not science.


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
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 5:31 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
nominalist wrote:
Phagocyte wrote:
At least they admit it's doctrine or belief and not science.


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
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 5:36 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
Exactly. It goes to show how ignorant some people are of the scientific method and the rigor that goes into developing a theory.


Yes, and they confuse the scientific definition of theory (rigorous scientific explanation) with the popular one (a personal opinion).

Quote:
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.


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
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 5:43 pm

nominalist wrote:
Phagocyte wrote:
Exactly. It goes to show how ignorant some people are of the scientific method and the rigor that goes into developing a theory.


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
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 5:49 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
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.


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


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

11 Jan 2008, 5:52 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
Exactly. It goes to show how ignorant some people are of the scientific method and the rigor that goes into developing a theory.

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


Quote:
Religious beliefs about the world are not technically science because they are based in faith instead of in skepticism, and thus do not make extensive use of the Scientific Method (i.e. Nickels et al., 1996 ).


_________________
?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
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 5:53 pm

nominalist wrote:
Creationists are, proportionately, less likely to have graduated high school, for instance, than those who accept evolution.


Where the heck did you pull that statistic from?



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 6:00 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Where the heck did you pull that statistic from?


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


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

11 Jan 2008, 6:09 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
nominalist wrote:
Creationists are, proportionately, less likely to have graduated high school, for instance, than those who accept evolution.


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:


Quote:

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
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 6:13 pm

nominalist wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Where the heck did you pull that statistic from?


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
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Jan 2008, 6:19 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
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.


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


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

11 Jan 2008, 6:21 pm

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.

8)



Last edited by ouinon on 11 Jan 2008, 7:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 6:24 pm

monty wrote:
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.


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?



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

11 Jan 2008, 6:33 pm

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
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Jan 2008, 6:33 pm

nominalist wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
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.


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