Any conservatives want to defend Palin on these quotes?

Wow. What an idiot.

Can anyone defend this crap?

I’m not a conservative, but I can see many of them saying, “What’s the problem here.” I grew up, and currently live, in a very conservative part of Texas (just let THAT sink in :slight_smile: ) and many of the people here advocate, with the straightest of faces, that it is best if one lets God take over every part of their lives. It’s an attitude that lets them justify dismissing science and logic on the grounds that “Man’s wisdom is God’s folly.” In other words, even though an idea makes sense scientifically and/or logically, what God says (or better, what some people think he says in “the” Bible") always wins out.

And even on matters that the Bible doesn’t speak about, such as evolution, some staunch conservatives will have a vague sense that attributing the origin of homo sapiens to anything but two people in a magical garden is blasphemy. Sad but true.

This is not to say that being a conservative is tantamount to being a religious nut (there are several conservatives on this board that I wager don’t believe this stuff). But there is a large amount of overlap in the Venn diagram between the religious and the politically conservative.

It’s easy to forget sometimes that Christianity - real, believing Christianity - has 2,000 years behind it. 2,000 long years, century after century after century of people believing - really, truly believing - in God. Conquering nations, constructing cities, building cathedrals, creating art, sculpture, music, all in the name of God. I’ll never understand peoples’ indignant surprise that there are “still” people out there that literally believe in their religion’s scriptures. This board is not a representative sample of America or the world.

So? Most of those people’s ancestors believed in all sorts of other nonsense as well; from magic to fairies. Somehow they seem to have managed to shed those particular bits of superstition. They still believe in Christianity because they are willful fools, not because they lack the capability to enlighten themselves; otherwise they still would believe in fairies and all the rest.

I’m going to let this simmer in Great Debates for a while in the hope that an actual discussioin breaks out, but with a well so thoroughly poisoned by the OP, itself, I suspect that I will be sending this to the BBQ Pit fairly soon.

If you would like to engage in a serious discussion, let me know, I will close this and let you open a new thread with a modicum of civilty.

[ /Modding ]

Which just proves my point. Religion is so universal that it’s been with mankind practically as long as mankind itself has been around. Breaking out of this conditioning is the exception and not the rule.

But surely the considerable majority of Christians, as with the population in general, believes in evolution in the U.S.? So far as creationism is “conditioned”, at least in this example, surely it’s continuing to believe that is the exception?

Nope

I don’t think i’ve ever been unhappier to have been proved wrong.

So has belief in magic, yet that is no longer the norm. Of course, unlike religion we don’t feel it necessary to bend over backward pretending that belief in magic should be treated as reasonable.

Neither was the kind of Christianity nor the type of creationism put forward by Palin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-witch-hunter-anoints_b_128805.html

Pentecostals are not a very good representative sample in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

http://www.livescience.com/culture/080901-sb-palin-creationist.html

And it is important to point out that creationists are divided, and they are even less capable of being a representative sample of America:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmske/is_4_10/ai_n29087270/?tag=content;col1

Well, I wouldn’t believe such a ridiculous theory either, if there were such a thing.

Not quite, the second group was the “36% that don’t have an opinion either way”

Only 25% were willing to say that they did not believe in evolution.

Bad, but not as terrible, it is clear to me that most Americans would still have serious doubts on putting creationism into the school science curriculum.

You’re distinguishing between magic and religion as if they are different things. They aren’t. What we now call mainstream religion is really just an extension of the magic people believed in before there were mainstream religions.

I think most Christians probably don’t really believe in the Adam & Eve version of creation. Where the rub is, I believe, is that in speaking of evolution the prevalent idea is that evolutionists are saying that some living cell somehow got sparked in some random way and that all life as we now know it grew and evolved from that, and IMO that’s as unlikely and hard to believe as is any religious belief.

Why, for example, didn’t that randomly created cell just die, like one would expect. And if it didn’t die, how did it replicate? And if it did replicate, why was it necessary to devolop even more sophisticated ways of replication? And if it could already get around and eat and reproduce, why did it need to develop eyes (and how could something as complex and multi-facted as a visual system develop on it’s own just because it would be handy)? And how and why develop teeth and an extemely complex digestive tract if the organism was already eating and sustaining itself? Etc., etc., etc.

Human and animal life and everything about it is extremely complex and it’s hard for most people to grasp how any of it could have “just happened,” which is what I think most people believe evolutionists are saying.

(And then there’s the possiblilty that evolution was just God’s way of creating and growing life in the first place. So even if a person comes to find legitimacy in the idea of evolution itself, it doesn’t necessarily disprove to them the existence of God.) :smiley:

Only 6-12% of scientists identify with the GOP. No idea why.

Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.

How do you know it didn’t? If one randomly created cell is possible, more than one randomly created cell is also possible - perhaps there were many millions, many billions, many vast-number of cells that died. A billion-to-one chance isn’t so unlikely if you have a billion chances and only need one to work. As for the rest of it, pretty much the short answer is “natural selection”, I would guess.

(Not sure if this is actually your argument or you phrasing the arguments of others, but you did say the subject was in general hard for you to believe).

But not only id iy ytur yhsy Christianity != Fundamentalism ,but Christianity has NEVER equaled fundamentalism. The earliest Christian commentaries on Genesis give it a non-literalist, symbolic reading.

Do you still believe in phlogiston and Piltdown Man? Or do you have critical faculties enabling you to distinguish between good and bad science? If the latter, why do you assume all religionists are bereft of them?

Yes, but remember, that highly unlikely event is only the beginning. How does the cell survive? How does it reproduce? And if it is surviving and reproducing, how is it managing to develop the highly complex electrical and chemical and organic systems that have developed in its wake when there is no apparent need for them in the first place? I don’t think these questions can be answered merely by laying them at the feet of natual selection.

Pretty much 50/50. :smiley:

But I will say I find it very hard to believe that organisms could develop teeth and eyes and split into opposite sexes, both of which are necessary for reproduction (and why would this be necessary if the organism was already reproducing…and how could the transition be made without the organism dying in the process even if the need to make such a transition should suddenly spring forth in the first place?