Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals/

poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.

At 67 percent and 65 percent, respectively, the numbers of Democrats and independents who believe in evolution have remained more or less the same since 2009. They’re also in step with the population nationally: Six-in-10 Americans say they believe humans have evolved.

According to the survey, a majority of white evangelical Protestants and half of black Protestants reject evolution. Overwhelming majorities of white Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they do believe in evolution, but among those half say a “Supreme being” guided it, rather than natural processes.

So there you go. In another piece I found the following nugget about eduction levels....

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/30/republicans_reject_evolution_acceptance_has_plummeted_among_the_gop.html

The more educated Americans become, however, the less likely they are to deny evolution: According to the Pew poll, acceptance of evolution correlated closely with level of education. 72 percent of college graduates acknowledge that humans have evolved over time, while only 51 percent of those with a high school degree or less accept human evolution. Young people, too, are less likely to be creationists: 68 percent of American age 18-29 accept evolution, while only 49 percent of those age 65 and up acknowledge its validity.

Interesting stuff, especially on the heels of the Science Savvy thread.

Weird. I literally don't know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as the principle force behind human, well, evolution.
No, that's not true. I knew one guy who changed to a religiious fanatic practically overnight.

'Course, I'm not an American.

Um... how come it is not 100% of college graduates acknowledge humans have evolved over time. Who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to an educational institution to come out of it still not able to see the evidence of evolution. That is Biology 101.

I don't understand where all these literal bible groups of Christians are because that is not what Catholics believe and everyone else started from there, You can't reasonably go 'more extreme' than the source material.

Everything Pre-Moses was dictated to him by god. Take a 3 year old with no frame of reference or knowledge of the source material and show them Star Wars and see how it turns out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0

Yeah, God could have explicitly explain Evolution and the secret of life, and we get Genesis as a result. Moses was cool, but he was still basically a caveman from the stupid ages.

nkelsch wrote:
Who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to an educational institution

A better question.

This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.

All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.

This ignorance is nothing new.mits disheartening, but nothing new.

 Polonius wrote:
This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.

All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.

At what point can you stop considering yourself semi-educated and move to educated?

nkelsch wrote:
Um... how come it is not 100% of college graduates acknowledge humans have evolved over time. Who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to an educational institution to come out of it still not able to see the evidence of evolution. That is Biology 101.

Look up "Liberty University". They teach creationism. It is not the only conservative Christian university to do so.

nkelsch wrote:
Um... how come it is not 100% of college graduates acknowledge humans have evolved over time. Who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to an educational institution to come out of it still not able to see the evidence of evolution. That is Biology 101.

I don't understand where all these literal bible groups of Christians are because that is not what Catholics believe and everyone else started from there, You can't reasonably go 'more extreme' than the source material.

Everything Pre-Moses was dictated to him by god. Take a 3 year old with no frame of reference or knowledge of the source material and show them Star Wars and see how it turns out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0

Yeah, God could have explicitly explain Evolution and the secret of life, and we get Genesis as a result. Moses was cool, but he was still basically a caveman from the stupid ages.

Yes, there's nothing standing between a reasonable interpretation of the bible and Evolution. Unfortunately, there are quite a few literalists out there who think everything happened *exactly* as mentioned in the bible, and there can be no thought about interpretation or leeway at all. How they square this with the different versions and translations of the bible, who knows, but you can't reason someone out of a belief they weren't reasoned into.

They don't even square it with the contradictions within the bible so I wouldn't expect a little thing like translates to phase them.

Not to mention literalists pick and choose what they believe in. Ask how many of them don't eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They don't even square it with the contradictions within the bible so I wouldn't expect a little thing like translates to phase them.

Not to mention literalists pick and choose what they believe in. Ask how many of them don't eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fibres,

 Maddermax wrote:


Yes, there's nothing standing between a reasonable interpretation of the bible and Evolution. Unfortunately, there are quite a few literalists out there who think everything happened *exactly* as mentioned in the bible, and there can be no thought about interpretation or leeway at all. How they square this with the different versions and translations of the bible, who knows, but you can't reason someone out of a belief they weren't reasoned into.

That is the confusion part... Moses was *NOT* a Christian. He did not write 'the bible'. He wrote the Torah. The Torah is not and was not a literal transcription of the word of God.

The Bible's old Testament, a lot of it is taken from Jewish writings and stories since before the whole Christ thing, there were not Christians.

So you wanna take the new testament literally as a Christian, go ahead. Knock yourself out. I don't see how a Religion can take another religion's stories and texts which are not Literal in that religion and see them as literal in theirs. I can see how a group of people can start off being literal and change to a general interpretation, I just don't see how you can go the other way.

There is no foundation for a literal interpretation of the the old testament of the Bible in Christianity. It doesn't exist as Christianity didn't exist so it has no ability to determine the literalness of the author. I am genuinely confused how these people came to this belief because it isn't a foundation of Christianity.

Because they believe thusly. Duh.

Your opinion is as irrelevant as mine is on the issue.

 Easy E wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.

All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.

At what point can you stop considering yourself semi-educated and move to educated?

Well, I think you need to understand that an education never truly ends. You also need to distinguish education from training, in that it's not simply about preparing for a career or learning specific skills/information.

But, in my very humble opinion, an educated person has learned to think critically about both the beliefs of others, and his own, and is able to look past superficial cause and effect to analyze a situation. Part of that is seeing how enormously complicated even very simple appearing things can be, and part is understanding that their own world view is only a best guess.

nkelsch wrote:

That is the confusion part... Moses was *NOT* a Christian. He did not write 'the bible'. He wrote the Torah. The Torah is not and was not a literal transcription of the word of God.

The Bible's old Testament, a lot of it is taken from Jewish writings and stories since before the whole Christ thing, there were not Christians.

So you wanna take the new testament literally as a Christian, go ahead. Knock yourself out. I don't see how a Religion can take another religion's stories and texts which are not Literal in that religion and see them as literal in theirs. I can see how a group of people can start off being literal and change to a general interpretation, I just don't see how you can go the other way.

There is no foundation for a literal interpretation of the the old testament of the Bible in Christianity. It doesn't exist as Christianity didn't exist so it has no ability to determine the literalness of the author. I am genuinely confused how these people came to this belief because it isn't a foundation of Christianity.

That is a very profound observation, I had not considered this argument before and will be spending some time dissecting and pondering it, thank you.

nkelsch wrote:
I am genuinely confused how these people came to this belief because it isn't a foundation of Christianity.

You are talking about people that also believe that Jesus was a blond haired and blue eyed white man... There is nothing logical about any of it, they simply choose to believe in things that are more comfortable to them because the alternative to the dogma is too "scary" on a personal level.

nkelsch wrote:
I can see how a group of people can start off being literal and change to a general interpretation, I just don't see how you can go the other way.

This might surprise you but it has everything to do with the development of scientific materialism.

I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.

It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...

 gunslingerpro wrote:
I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.

It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...

 gunslingerpro wrote:
I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.

It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...

QFT

I believe as a catholic and I believe in evolution. It's my opinion that God had a hand in the transition from instinctual behavior to sentient thought.

Folks who claim the theory of evolution discounts the existence of God or God's relationship with the universe are really selling God short. Pretty narrow view of an omnipotent, omniscient being if you ask me.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.

It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...

Yeah, I would like to see the same polls which differentiate 'creationism' from 'intelligent design' or if they are lumping both together as 'disbelief in evolution'.

I find a large degree of difference between those who believe that 'the laws of the universe are an action set in motion by a 'creator' and science is a gift to mankind' VS 'Dinosaurs never existed and fake bones were buried to test our faith'. I am curious if the poll makes that distinction.

I believe in evolution but looked into it, read about it, connect the dots.

To accept it at face value is little better than "creationists", question the accepted "facts" because they may only be theories that have not been disproven yet.

 Frazzled wrote:
Because they believe thusly. Duh.

Your opinion is as irrelevant as mine is on the issue.

No, we must make fun of those who think differently from us

 Polonius wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
This is a classic "generalissimo francisco franco is still dead" type of story. It comes out every year or so, more if multiple polling companies are having slow periods.

All in all, it drives links, as semi-educated people react in mock horror to the beliefs of other semi-educated people.

At what point can you stop considering yourself semi-educated and move to educated?

Well, I think you need to understand that an education never truly ends. You also need to distinguish education from training, in that it's not simply about preparing for a career or learning specific skills/information.

But, in my very humble opinion, an educated person has learned to think critically about both the beliefs of others, and his own, and is able to look past superficial cause and effect to analyze a situation. Part of that is seeing how enormously complicated even very simple appearing things can be, and part is understanding that their own world view is only a best guess.

You are just no fun.

Fun? What does this look like to you a game? This sir is the internet. Srs buznis.

 LordofHats wrote:
Fun? What does this look like to you a game? This sir is the internet. Srs buznis.

I am genuinely curious at what point in the Protestant tree and which of the 33,000 denominations did a denomination 'break off' with a literal interpretation of the old testament and who/when did it start? If someone at least could speak to that point in defense of their belief, I would have no problem with it. While Prodestants do believe for the most part in the new testament being literal, there is no foundation for old testament literalisims in the Protestant 'tree'. I have actually spoken with Baptists, Protestant and Methodist priests on this particular issue. New Testament literal, old testament , translations of other religions.

In turn, I have no issues with Mormon beliefs because they at least have a chain of custody from the literal translation of their literal texts back to the divine prophet who got it directly from God. At least they can point to that and say 'that is why I believe'. I simply can't find that for Bible literalists as there is no chain of custody or literal divinity transcribing of that writing.

Hell, if there was a priest in 1576 who saw an angel and said 'The bible is literal! Dinosaurs never existed! Believe!' and that started a denomination offshoot and they had that chain of custody to their beliefs, so be it. I can't actually reconcile 'who told them it was literal' or why they believe it is literal. Are there any Literalists or know someone who is a literalist who can explain how that belief system started? Google fails me.

nkelsch wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:
I've found when you really talk to people, they understand evolution and agree with its concepts. The differentiation comes with people believing God had at least some hand in it or none at all.

It's really all in the posing of the question. Though there are quite a few people who refuse to acknowledge fossil evidence of any sort...

Yeah, I would like to see the same polls which differentiate 'creationism' from 'intelligent design' or if they are lumping both together as 'disbelief in evolution'.

I find a large degree of difference between those who believe that 'the laws of the universe are an action set in motion by a 'creator' and science is a gift to mankind' VS 'Dinosaurs never existed and fake bones were buried to test our faith'. I am curious if the poll makes that distinction.

Intelligent design is just creationism rebranded in order to sell it as a science unrelated to religion.

 Manchu wrote:
Folks who claim the theory of evolution discounts the existence of God or God's relationship with the universe are really selling God short. Pretty narrow view of an omnipotent, omniscient being if you ask me.

True that. Was it Descartes who said God lies just beyond are farthest concept of him?

Without trying to sound "holier than thou", I do find 2 things quite hilarious:

1. I hear more evolutionists rant about how right they are than creationists.
2. I hear more atheists preach about how there is no God(and with far more condescension) than I hear Christians, Muslims, Bhuddists, Wiccans or people of any other religion or faith preach their own beliefs.

You know how to find an atheist in a crowd? You don't need to, they will tell you. Right up there with vegetarians.

We get it, you insist you are right and they are all wrong.

Here's a thought: how does you taking away someone's belief(even if it ends up being wrong in the end) in something that they feel helps them cope? Who gives you the right to take away that comfort, even if it's a lie?

I get that you lot don't want religions imposing beliefs on you and your life, but then it seems that you do exactly the same thing by imposing your beliefs of the opposite.

My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.

I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen. I'm saying we don't have enough answers to say with absolute certainty one way or the other. And while many Christians (and more loudly fanatics claiming to be Christians) might preach creationism as fact, it is actually faith. And until you can prove 100% that there is no God, then you cannot discount it as a possibility(I hear you evolutionists love probability and possibility).

I don't push my beliefs on others. But I will take the wind out of someones sails if they insist on trying to do the same to me.

For all I know as fact, I could be wrong just as much as right. But please let's not all go around acting like we know every secret of the universe and how it came about.

And the "Christian God" is not the only form of intelligent design that has been discussed. Ben Stein had a good documentary a few years back on Netflix about it.

 Aerethan wrote:
Here's a thought: how does you taking away someone's belief(even if it ends up being wrong in the end) in something that they feel helps them cope? Who gives you the right to take away that comfort, even if it's a lie?

I always wondered how that works. Don't you find yourself wondering if you're wrong? Do you really have absolute faith that your religion (and not the thousands of other religions) is the correct one? What does that doubt do to you, in the context of your own or your loved ones' mortality?

 Aerethan wrote:

My OPINION on evolution:
I deem it inconclusive. For every answer someone gets, a ton of new questions arise that demand answers. Darwin's black box and all that. Then we have irreducible complexity in molecular machines to consider.

Science is always inconclusive. That's the point of it. Nothing is ever "100% proven." It's always possible to find new situations the current theories can't explain, or find new theories that explain the observations better.

Evolution's looking pretty good, though.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I always wondered how that works. Don't you find yourself wondering if you're wrong? Do you really have absolute faith that your religion (and not the thousands of other religions) is the correct one? What does that doubt do to you, in the context of your own or your loved ones' mortality?

For myself, I find this kind of questioning assumes that faith is a belief or opinion that one can assert this or that knowledge about the divine. I think faith is less like this and more of an orientation to one's own experience of the world. In that sense, I don't lose much sleep wondering if Jesus really is God. And I have virtually no doubts that the highest moral obligation are articulated in the Gospel and, for that matter, that suffering is not actually meaningless.