Hmmm., OK, but I wouldn’t defined ‘IDist’ so broadly - I’m talking about the collection of folks who say there is a way to detect design and want their ideas included in the science curriculum.
Incorrect. The majority of Americans are creationists. America is a deeply irrational, ignorant country.
I meant that they can have faith that science will prove their faith right. Why not? miracles occur, right?
Interesting distinction. My personal view is the for the most part God set things in motion via the big bang, or similar in such a way that the earth will form, life will come up, humans would evolve. etc. I consider myself as part of the ID camp. I don’t expect to be able to prove that a ‘God’ is needed to create the universe till long after we can travel at warp speed and have transporters, if at all I (barring divine intervention), so I don’t expect such theories to appear in the next issue of Scientific America.
Der Trihs your cite shows that I am totally correct, did you even read it?
55% of Americans believe that God created humans in present form. Note that does NOT mean creationism, but does include them. So a majority of Americans believe in some form of ID.
I would say that way under 55% of the population is creationists.
:rolleyes: Yeah, no wonder we are so poor, technologically backward, and have contributed very few scientific or engineering advances to the world.
The US is an unusually religious country (for a 1st world country) and not too receptive to evolution. But we manage to “limp along” just fine despite that fact. There’s a lot more to science than just evolution.
Eh? Yes it does.
Personally, I think the reason for this was summed up nicely in Stephen King’s The Dead Zone in the philosophies of one of the characters who believed 95% of humanity was basically inert, 1% were saints, 1% were assholes, and the remaining 3% were the productive creative types who got things done. It’s not necessary that America be made up entirely of scientists for America to be a scientifically advanced nation. What is needed is for the critical 3% to be allowed to go about their business unimpeded, coming up with ideas and hiring from the inert but useful 95% the muscle needed to put those ideas into action. I see ID as an effort by saints (or people who believe themselves to be saints) to get in the critical 3%'s way, and that’s annoying bordering on intolerable. The critical 3% do best when they can trade unvarnished, unslanted, un-politicized information back and forth and introducing nonsense alongside science and calling them equal can only hurt the process.
Sure, it’s elitist. So what?
Well not really, if you consider evolution in a broader sense than just how apes became humans. Life itself is evolution because there’s nothing that’s unchanging … though creationists would deny this, of course.
You can but you shouldn’t. Science doesn’t work on faith, science works by attempting to falsify the other guy’s conclusions (which is fun) and your own, which is what good science is all about. In an ideal world only papers that passed such rigorous hurdles will get published, in the real world junk does get published, but it gets shot down if it is wrong and anyone actually cares. But any paper requesting faith would get rejected so fast the author’s head would spin.
Please stop saying this. It doesn’t help.
Why?
Lots of Christians thought exactly this in the early 19th Century, when science was quite the hot thing. Some of the shock from the publication of the Origin was not only did science not prove the Bible correct, but it cut the feet out of a very fundamental belief, special creation of man. Those Christians who rejected science from the beginning wound up looking better to disgruntled believers.
Lucy, eh Mangetout, 'xplaln please
Creationism is the religious theory that God created the universe, all the way to man in 6 days, and women shortly after after out of the rib, how the ---- do you take that that equals that God created man in present form, what type of twisted logic is that?
From the poll
55% think"God created humans in present form"
OK, that qualified as ID, and includes the subset of creationism
Additionally 27% think Humans evolved, God guided the process
Which is just ID, no creationist.
And 13% who think Humans evolved, God did not guide process , which includes BOTH ID and not ID people, but again no creationist. It includes ID’ers because of my and other’s believe that God set into motion the conditions for humans to have evolved naturally.
So we have 40% non-creationist and 55% creationist .
From that poll we have:
I am making a jump here, but lets assume that these 37% are of that 55%, and are the creationist. That leaves 18% ID’ers, leaving:
37% Creationists
45% ID
18% either ID or non-God origins
This should have read 40% non-creationists and 55% which contains a subset of creationists.
What are you talking about ? That does mean creationism.
It’s called “living off the past”. We leapt ahead due to various advantages, have gone well along the path of squandering those advantages, and are being overtaken by other cultures do to that IMHO.
Of course, but it is a major part of science. And as an increasingly religious country, America is becoming more and more hostile towards science.
While technically incorrect, I think we know what **PB **meant. Sure, humans are apes, but in the verancular we make a distinciton between humans and non-human apes. And I assume (s)he means how some apes evolved into humans (not all apes). If this were a GQ discussion on the subject it might be worth nitpicking, but I think we can let it slide here.
No, that’s Young Earth Creationism, aka YEC; a subset of creationism.
The idea that God created humans in their present form is creationism - so are those other things you mentioned, but even without the rib and the six-day thing, there’s no getting away from the fact that ‘God made humans in their present form’ is a creationist statement. What would you(r ‘twisted logic’) call it?
We’re not “deeply irrational”. We’re narrowly irrational on the subject of evolution. And the funny thing is, most people think they are following their religion by holding such beliefs when in fact many (if not most) belong to religions that are perfectly OK with evolution.
But we didn’t “leap ahead due to various advantages” and any anti-science tendency in the US that isn’t related to evolution has nothing to do with religion.
You just have to exagerate the situation because your own position is extreme and, well, irrational. And you make up “facts” exactly the way creationists do, you just do it to support your own position.