# Creationism a majority opinion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836 "2006-03-10T15:54:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![blueslipper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5a626/32.png) [@blueslipper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blueslipper)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/61 "2006-03-22T10:57:24Z")
This just all seems to be the creationists vs the Science guys. Why does noone criticise a gallaup poll. Is Gallup infallible? If you study psychology enough and study how polling is done you would never take seriously an opinion poll. Are there not a lot of Buddhists,Hindus, Muslims in USA? So how can you ask a question " Were humans made like in the Bible? My Buddhist friends do not know how the Christian Bible Adam and Eve story. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/62 "2006-03-22T13:19:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Why does noone criticise the poll? Peter Noone of Herman’s Hermits? What does he have to do with this? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/63 "2006-03-22T15:19:54Z")
> [@Renton](#): > > If creationists want their ideas to be taught in science then they need to provide it in a scientific context without using the Bible. That’s what the ID theorists **purport** to do. Of course, one might question their intellectual honesty in that regard. See these threads: > **[Can the "intelligent design" theory be falsified?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330058)** > > Some politicians in South Carolina and Utah are campaigning to have the theory of “intelligent design” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent\_design) taught alongside the more conventional theory of unguided biological evolution in public-school... > **[Are there any "creation scientists" who are NOT traditional religious believers?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=205796)** > > For purposes of this thread, a “creationist” or “creation scientist” means a person who rejects the theory of humanity’s origins through biological evolution. A person who, for instance, accepts biological evolution but believes a conscious God must... ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/64 "2006-03-22T17:38:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Just “looking” for mana or fossils is not science. “Science” means you are applying the scientific method to something in the natural world. If part of that “something” is outside the natural world, you’re not doing science. Does that not make sense? If I say: _I found mana in the desert, and therefore it came from God_ I am not doing science. If I look for mana and show that if actually is the product of the “mana tree”, then God isn’t part of the equation. If fieldwork is not science, is lab work? Randomly walking down a path is not, but expeditions don’t randomly look for fossils - they study the geology of the area to determine the most likely places to look. If you limit doing science to those doing theory and evaluating the results of experiments, you would be excluding the experimental physicists from the realm of science. And finding manna is clearly not enough. You’d hypothesize natural sources for it. Finding it and saying that this proves that Exodus happened is indeed not science (or very, very bad science, at best.) But you’re assuming that there is a manna tree. Definitely the most reasonable hypothesis, but it still needs to be demonstrated. In any case, expeditions to the Sinai, looking for whatever, provide excellent negative evidence about the Exodus, and are thus valuable historically. I believe a while ago some thought that there was a migration, though smaller than in the Bible - today I believe that most doubt that this happened at all. I’d much rather falsify the supernatural by evidence, as opposed to defining it away. It’s worked fine for a couple of hundred years, and I doubt that will change soon. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/65 "2006-03-22T17:42:48Z")
> [@Renton](#): > > Here is an easy way to describe science. > Two scientist claimed to have produced cold fusion in 1989. Their research was published to peer reviews so other scientist could try to reproduced their results. No researchers has yet to reproduced their initial results. > That is basically science - a theory that is testable, provable and falsifiable. Just an important nitpick - no theory is provable. Results are reproducible, and reproducibility adds strength to the theory. Pons and Fleishman (?) announced before publication, which causes problems which are now all too obvious. But they at least did describe their experiment well enough for the experiment to be reproduced - which is how others found the flaw in it. Most results are not important enough to be reproduced - but they can be. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/66 "2006-03-22T17:44:50Z")
> [@blueslipper](#): > > This just all seems to be the creationists vs the Science guys. > Why does noone criticise a gallaup poll. Is Gallup infallible? > If you study psychology enough and study how polling is done you would never take seriously an opinion poll. That poll questions can be structured to influence results is no big news. Do you have evidence that this poll was? Statistically, polling is accurate, assuming the sample is chosen properly. You shouldn’t shoot the messenger. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/67 "2006-03-22T18:29:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If fieldwork is not science, is lab work? Randomly walking down a path is not, but expeditions don’t randomly look for fossils - they study the geology of the area to determine the most likely places to look. If you limit doing science to those doing theory and evaluating the results of experiments, you would be excluding the experimental physicists from the realm of science. > > And finding manna is clearly not enough. You’d hypothesize natural sources for it. Finding it and saying that this proves that Exodus happened is indeed not science (or very, very bad science, at best.) But you’re assuming that there is a manna tree. Definitely the most reasonable hypothesis, but it still needs to be demonstrated. In any case, expeditions to the Sinai, looking for whatever, provide excellent negative evidence about the Exodus, and are thus valuable historically. I believe a while ago some thought that there was a migration, though smaller than in the Bible - today I believe that most doubt that this happened at all. I think we’re saying the same thing because I don’t disagree with anything you wrote there. > [@](#): > > I’d much rather falsify the supernatural by evidence, as opposed to defining it away. It’s worked fine for a couple of hundred years, and I doubt that will change soon. But you can’t falsify the supernatural. If I allow for the possibility of a supernatural explanation, it can always be a parrallel cause even if there is a known natural cause for the same phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/68 "2006-03-22T18:41:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > .But you can’t falsify the supernatural. If I allow for the possibility of a supernatural explanation, it can always be a parrallel cause even if there is a known natural cause for the same phenomenon. Doesn’t Occam’s Razor apply here? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/69 "2006-03-22T18:42:43Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But you can’t falsify the supernatural. If I allow for the possibility of a supernatural explanation, it can always be a parrallel cause even if there is a known natural cause for the same phenomenon. I see the misunderstanding now. I agree that supernatural explanations are not valid in parallel with possible natural explanations - in other words, natural explanations always take precedence. A supernatural explanation should only be considered if there were no feasible natural ones - and if further exploration discovers a potential natural explanation, the supernatural one gets shelved. An example. In “The Age of Reason” Paine said he believed in a (non-Christian) deity because he could think of no other explanation for the order of the solar system. Neglecting that he should have read more physics, I’d expect that if he came back today he’d cheerfully abandon this supernatural explanation given the current state of science. And to repeat one more time, I know of no data today that suggests a supernatural explanation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/70 "2006-03-22T18:51:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Doesn’t Occam’s Razor apply here? Not in a scientific way. O’s R isn’t a law of science, it’s just an interesting way to look at things. It may often be correct, but it isn’t guaranteed to be so. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/71 "2006-03-22T19:29:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not in a scientific way. O’s R isn’t a law of science, it’s just an interesting way to look at things. It may often be correct, but it isn’t guaranteed to be so. But in the sense you’re using the terms, it would be impossible to “scientifically falsify” the existence of, well, practically **anything,** unoless that thing is theorized to be present and detectable at a particular time and place. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/72 "2006-03-22T20:15:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But in the sense you’re using the terms, it would be impossible to “scientifically falsify” the existence of, well, practically **anything,** unoless that thing is theorized to be present and detectable at a particular time and place. You completely lost me. What does that have to do with Occam’s Razor? But yes, science only concerns itself with things that can exist in the natural world, if that’s what you mean. I don’t see that as needing to go thru anyone’s razor. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/73 "2006-03-22T20:30:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But in the sense you’re using the terms, it would be impossible to “scientifically falsify” the existence of, well, practically **anything,** unoless that thing is theorized to be present and detectable at a particular time and place. That’s right, things that are not present, not detectable, and don’t have effects that are present or detectable are very difficult to falsify. That’s why they are not scientific. However, theories make predictions, and if the predicted things don’t happen, the theory is falsified. In real life, though, there are arguments about whether the evidence found supports or falsifies a theory, so it isn’t that easy. ---
**Author:** ![cloaca](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df788c/32.png) [@cloaca](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cloaca)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/74 "2006-03-22T20:33:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > However, theories make predictions, and if the predicted things don’t happen, the theory is falsified. In real life, though, there are arguments about whether the evidence found supports or falsifies a theory, so it isn’t that easy. Something not happening does not falsify a theory, just as something happening does not prove a theory. _Support_ is not the opposite of _falsify_. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/75 "2006-03-22T21:15:29Z")
> [@cloaca](#): > > Something not happening does not falsify a theory, just as something happening does not prove a theory. > > _Support_ is not the opposite of _falsify_. This depends on what the theory claims. If you theorized that a hammer and a feather would fall at the same rate when on the moon, and they didn’t, then your theory is wrong. Similarly, if your theory says that something is definitely _not_ going to happen, and it does, then the something happening has disproved your theory. Realistically, anything that does not falsify your theory could be said to support it, although we’d prefer it if the event actually had something to do with your theory. It supports it by the simple virtue that it doesn’t topple it. So in some sense, the two words are opposites in this case. ---
**Author:** ![blueslipper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5a626/32.png) [@blueslipper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blueslipper)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/76 "2006-03-22T21:20:42Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That poll questions can be structured to influence results is no big news. Do you have evidence that this poll was? Statistically, polling is accurate, assuming the sample is chosen properly. > You shouldn’t shoot the messenger. Of course I should shoot the messenger when the messenger is the problem.The message and messanger are not disconnected. What about this circular reasoning -“Statistically, polling is accurate…” Is that based on an opinion poll? I still find it odd that no-one here questions the poll and polling ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/77 "2006-03-22T21:29:24Z")
It does seem odd to be applying physical-world standards (e.g., replication, Occam’s razor) to supernatural phenomena, which by defintion don’t follow the rules. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836/78 "2006-03-22T23:17:34Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > It does seem odd to be applying physical-world standards (e.g., replication, Occam’s razor) to supernatural phenomena, which by defintion don’t follow the rules. Remember, “the rules” of physical phenomena are derived from observation. “Supernatural” phenomena – if the word can have any meaning – might be much more random and chaotic, or they might follow a completely different set of rules; we can’t know unless we can study them, which, so far, we can’t. OTOH, the rules of **logic** would still apply. Not even God can divide something into three halves, and so on. (I think St. Augustine wrote it is a sin to suppose God is any the less omnipotent just because he cannot do the logically impossible.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationism-a-majority-opinion/347836.md?page=3)