That’s a piece of the puzzle. 22% of Catholics are strong believers in creationism, and I’m guessing they don’t get that in the pews. So-called Christian radio might be the ultimate source.
So regarding the OP, people believe in Creationism because 3/4 of all Protestant ministers do, evolution is mocked though not argued against during sermons and evolution is attacked on Christian radio. Of course textbook censorship and occasional crackpottery in secondary schools and home schools may also play a role.
40%. Sheesh.
Here’s another effect. The General Social Survey had a short vocabulary test that apparently correlates with IQ. Average and low scoring people had equal tendencies towards creationist belief. But those with high scores were a lot more likely to accept evolution.
I draw a less obvious conclusion from that. I think that those with better vocabularies read more and tend to pride themselves on their intelligence and commitment to conceptually valid reasoning. They may also have somewhat lower social intelligence on average, though this is pure speculation on my part. What this suggests to me is that while scientific education will continue to play a role, much of the low hanging fruit in that regard has been picked. A pro-Judeo Christian / pro-science / pro-life-skill bundle of rhetoric might find a few takers.
I heard that it has something to do with the “begats” in the bible and that if you added up all the ages and generations, it actually comes out to 6,000 years old re: the age of the Earth…because that book is “inerrant,” don’t cha know.
Harold Camping, the rather charming crank who (twice) predicted the day of the end of the world, calculated the Creation to 11013 BCE.
His method suggested that some of the begats involved dynasties or groups of people; it isn’t as straightforward as Ussher thought. It’s a vaguely interesting approach (perhaps from a psychological standpoint as much as a theological one…)
Yes I grew up with them. “If all the monkeys turned into people like those atheists say why are there still monkeys?” I’ve heard from the pulpit. But they never have any evidence for their point of view just laughing at the possibility of anyone believing what they don’t.
The wiki article on burning at the stake suggests that the punishment has applied to both sexes, though in Great Britain the punishment for treason followed watchwolf’s claim: “The traditional punishment for women found guilty of treason was to be burned at the stake, where they did not need to be publicly displayed naked, whereas men were hanged, drawn and quartered.” Death by burning - Wikipedia
Would you mind reporting which region of the country you grew up in? Because so far all of the anti-evolution preachers described have come from the South, but such beliefs aren’t currently restricted to that locale. Also, more reports of clerical commentary on natural selection are welcome. Where I grew up (northeastern US) science was thought to be as controversial as apple pie, at least AFAIK.
Your defense of my position is more eloquent. Evolution says nothing about why, so any and all efforts to answer such a question will be radically different from evolution’s answer, which is nothing … and as they say in the trade … ||.
What is a “theistic evolutionist”?
What is “special creation”?
If it is these you wish me defend, then please tell me what they are. If you’re disputing the human genetic bottleneck … I don’t know what to tell you … I refuse to defend my concession to evolution.
If you need 4.6 billion years to explain “how” the earth was created, you’ve got it. If it’s my permission you need , I give it willingly. The Bible only needs 6,000 years to explain “why” the Earth was created, it’s not complicated. Have a happy PV = nRT.
The Sermon on the Mount is accessible to those of below average intelligence. That’s roughly half of us. How many of us have taken core biology?
I understand this was worked out by one James Ussher, a seventeenth-century English bishop who, based on all available clues from Genesis, concluded that the world had been created one October day in 4004 BC, at nine o’clock in the morning. One assumes he meant GMT.
That being the case, where do contemporary young earth creationists get a pass for suggesting other geologically recent creation dates, if they’re taking every word in Genesis to be literally true? It seems self contradictory.
The only reason you’d need a why for evolution if you think it was somehow designed to produce beings who look like us. If you accept that our form is relatively accidental, then no why is needed.
You should really read more on this, since you don’t seem to understand basic terms. Theistic evolution is the doctrine that species developed just as science says, but that it was rigged to produce us by God putting his thumb on the scale, as it were. It is unfalsifiable, and those who believe in theistic evolution can study it just like those who don’t, since they are discovering, not predicting, what God did.
Special creation, I believe, usually refers to creation in Genesis, not the form that says God made the Universe 13 billion years ago and let it run.
My point, which you missed, is that a species going through a bottleneck did not necessarily get created at the time of the bottleneck. So evidence of a bottleneck does not support creationism.
If you found one 4.000 years ago, when the Flood was supposed to happen, that would be another story.
That is what the evidence says. Can you get it through your head that no one gave that number first and then tried to prove it.
Yeah, the Bible says 6,000 years, but the evidence is rather skimpy. My ancestors wrote the damn thing, but most of us don’t accept that date as true.
It’s complicated. No, I dont strictly believe in a “10,000” year old date. I believe the earth has been there for millions of years. Animals like the dinosaurs lived and died. Some early proto-humans like neanderthals also developed. However “around” 10,000 years ago I believe God did a major intervention and put modern homo sapiens on Earth and created much of the world we know today. Even biologists would tell you that around that time the earth was emerging from the last ice age and it seems a whole new classification of life sprung up with new species of plants, animals, and insects (including modern homo sapiens) becoming dominant.
So its complicated. It’s like asking a mathematician if 2 plus 2 equals 4 and the answer is yes - sort of - because 2 plus 2 can equal other numbers depending upon how you look at it.
Yes, the earth is hundreds of millions of years old. But much of the animal and plant life we have today is around 10,000 years old.
Modern homo sapiens have been around for a lot longer than 10,000 years. And compared to the changes over the billion years of the earth’s existence, any changes to the earth over the time since modern homo sapiens evolved have been very small.
No they wouldn’t. There were no major changes in earth biota that coincided with the appearance of modern homo sapiens. Minor changes, sure, but these were very minor when compared with the huge changes over most of earth’s history. Humans have been around for a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth’s life.
Complicated, sure – but your assertions are not supported by the data.
Billions.
False. Most species of animals and plants today are a lot older than 10,000 years old.
The OP would like to know where people get the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. UrbanRedneck: I’m guessing that you accept the existence of pre-historic dinosaurs, have attended church on occasion, and have attempted to square those circles. Is that accurate? Like I said, the only anti-evolution propaganda I’ve come across is by Jack Chick, historical depictions and the internet. Never heard it when I attended church.
No it isn’t complicated. If you are using “4” this implies you are working in base 5 or greater. In any such base 2 + 2 = 4, which can be proven in the axiomatic definition of arithmetic.
Cite that there was an immense speciation 10,000 years ago?
We also have detailed cave paintings that have been dated to prior than 10,000 years ago. If that wasn’t “modern humans” that created those, what did God have against these intelligent beings that he didn’t include them in his grand plan?
If you’re familiar with Jack Chick, one of his booklets explains this away - just because something is “dated to prior than 10,000 years ago” doesn’t mean that it’s actually more than 10,000 years old (he then gives some actual examples of misdated objects, and uses this as evidence that all carbon dating is incorrect; IIRC, the problem is, carbon dating doesn’t work in cases where the objects are exposed to excessive (or is it insufficient?) Carbon-14 in their environments.
