The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism
| 1486 | 258256 |
im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism
- 1,486 Replies
hi Moe, thanks for looking at the poll. I didn't add the numbers right, when I first looked at it, not good in maths I suppose. So I added them up again. It goes like this:
American Scientists:
13% Creationists.
49% Atheist
38% Theistic Evolutionists
----
American Scientists who are Creationists (38% + 13%) on the Nature of God:
42% say He's a Personal God.
42% say It's impersonal.
----
American Scientists:
13% Creationists.
49% Atheist
38% Theistic Evolutionists
----
American Scientists who are Creationists (38% + 13%) on the Nature of God:
42% say He's a Personal God.
42% say It's impersonal.
Interesting let's see how it compares to this survey.
Scientists as âspiritual atheistsâ
Wiki also has an interesting bit on atheistic demographs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.
If your wondering if it's just made up they have the sources cited.
Some more on acceptance of evolution in the scientific community.
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
said Alters. "Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory,"
I might try to find more links later on this since I'm in a bit of a rush.
But anyway regardless of what the majority believe the evidence for evolution is still there, and that's what counts. Where is the evidence for Creation?
I know I said I'd argue the Creationist side,but I just can't help myself. Never hire me for a lawyer.
I was told that all scientific theories must be possible to prove incorrect. Creationism, whether right or wrong, is therefore not a scientific theory. Of course, one wonders why anyone would think the supernatural would be bound by science anyway. Science can only direct us in the natural world. Religion is not science- it is what we use to direct us in the supernatural world. Creationism is an attempt to prove the supernatural by use of science.
Not gonna happen.
Religious people cannot ignore science. Scientific people can can choose to ignore religion. Those who believe in nature and nothing else will never accept religious arguments for Creation. Because Creation is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, it will always lose. Always.
That doesn't mean it's wrong, its just impossible to prove wrong and therefore unscientific. The issue of Creation is religious, but it may be true. The problem is that it can, therefore, not be taught as "science", while evolution can be. It is therefore unrepresented in many areas.
There is evidence that humans were created by a higher being-though not necessarily in a six-day creation story. There is and never will be scientific proof for or against that story.
So, arguing Creation using science is stupid. What I don't get is why you guys need to introduce atheism to say that. Creationism being a religious viewpoint doesn't make Christianity groundless. The trouble is, Christianity, too, is religious. Like Creation, it overlaps into the natural world, so some try to use science as some sort of evidence. Atheists choose to ignore Christianity as unscientific, because it is. Trying to use scientific arguments in the realm of the supernatural is just as pointless as using religious ones to explain the natural world: if you're right, it's not because of superior logic.
Both science and religion can co-exist peacefully, but not by one worldview's being conquered by the other. You have to accept both as possible and legitimate realms of debate if you want to reach a complete understanding of the possibilities.
I'm sure you guys have guessed why I quit the Creation/Evolution debate years ago. Creationist may be a convenient title in my life, but it doesn't get me any closer to what I want.
Truth.
You may believe me. You may not. But that's how it is, and that's how it's gonna stay.
Just as a small side note I found a cartoon I found very interesting. Basically it points out that the "normal" scientist discovers evidence and then forms a conclusion on said evidence; however, a creationist already has a conclusion and looks for evidence to prove this conclusion. This goes against the scientific method.
a creationist already has a conclusion and looks for evidence to prove this conclusion. This goes against the scientific method.
Yup. Because Creation is not a valid scientific theory. I wonder why nobody I know agrees with me on that...
Yup. Because Creation is not a valid scientific theory. I wonder why nobody I know agrees with me on that...
Thanks nova, good points in the big long paragraph. Good stuff
@MGW, you used surveys that only included part of the scientists...ELITE. The LA poll included all scientists. When you argued that 'Evolution' was correct and 'evolutionism' was incorrect, you were using 'all scientists' as your reference. So using the partial polls was incorrect.
In either case we're both showing that evolution is a matter of belief, not a matter of scientific fact, as if it was a matter of scientific fact, then it would be followed by all scientists, and it is not.
This is just running into the dirt now, so I'm just gonna move on to something else.
If there was no evidence for Creation, then why do 9 of 12 US Supreme Court Justices believe in a Creator? They have been trained and were selected from the best, for their abilities to draw conclusions only after thoroughly examining all the evidence.
Since my last post I was giving this some thought. the term accept is likely a better word to use then believe when it comes to acknowledging a theory.
accept; to receive willingly, to give admittance or approval of, to recognize as true
@nova2772
I agree with your post to an extent. The problem is when there are claims of the supernatural having an effect on the physical. Once someone says something physical happened as a result of supernatural means it then does fall into the field of scientific study.
, then why do 9 of 12 US Supreme Court Justices believe in a Creator?
LOL!
Being a Justice means nothing. It means you have connections with powerful political families. Our justice system is very messed up and backwards, but I'm being political, not on topic.
@MGW, you used surveys that only included part of the scientists...ELITE. The LA poll included all scientists.
The LA poll had a broader range of "scientists". If I teach math to a bunch of freshmen, I could technically be a scientist because math is a very pure form of science. Political scientists, could be a part of that poll, even though they do no real science work.
n either case we're both showing that evolution is a matter of belief, not a matter of scientific fact, as if it was a matter of scientific fact, then it would be followed by all scientists, and it is not.
Nope. Just because a theory isn't held universally doesn't mean anything.
If there was no evidence for Creation, then why do 9 of 12 US Supreme Court Justices believe in a Creator?
government positions can be very hard to get with a nontheistic stance because of the majority of theists in the US.
The belief in a creator is likely taken by these people on faith, (holding the belief without proof) just as any other theistic belief is held.
I don't know for sure but I don't think any of the Supreme Court Justices are scientists, so is ti really required of them to have knowledge of scientific theories? If not, what relevance do there opinions hold on the theory?
For that matter what opinion from anyone holds any relevance on a scientific theory? Saying someone even a reputable someone holds a belief in something isn't evidence for what that person believes.
For that matter what opinion from anyone holds any relevance on a scientific theory? Saying someone even a reputable someone holds a belief in something isn't evidence for what that person believes.
There was a previous post that said Creationists draw conclusions before weighing the evidence. I was giving an example where those trained to weigh the evidence before making conclusions are mostly Creationists.
There was a previous post that said Creationists draw conclusions before weighing the evidence. I was giving an example where those trained to weigh the evidence before making conclusions are mostly Creationists.
Witch is true, they want there beliefs to be true so they tend to ignore any opposition. For example, lets say you found a stone. You give the stone to your grandma, and she gets cancer but it goes away while she was holding your stone on her bed. You may then want to think that stone cures cancer, so you try it on other patients. Half of them, it seemed to heal(along with chemotherapy) and the other half it seemed to have no effect on. You want the stone that cures cancer, so you may ignore the failed half and look to the seeming success. Of course it is unlikely that you are correct, but so is the Creationist belief.
There was a previous post that said Creationists draw conclusions before weighing the evidence. I was giving an example where those trained to weigh the evidence before making conclusions are mostly Creationists.
Again what evidence?
If they are weighing the evidence then drawing conclusions from that evidence then why are they basing it all on a preconceived notion? It would seem they are indeed taking a conclusion and making the evidence if it.
@nova2772:
I agree with your post to an extent. The problem is when there are claims of the supernatural having an effect on the physical. Once someone says something physical happened as a result of supernatural means it then does fall into the field of scientific study
Granted. But the supernatural cannot be dealt with using science, and purely religious arguments are invalid as scientific theories. Are we agreed here?
Although you can scientifically study the circumstances surrounding a particular event, you cannot scientifically prove or disprove that said event was supernatural in origin. You will never be able to deal with all possibilities until you are willing to accept- at least temporarily, for argument's sake- the possibility that the supernatural world exists.
why are they basing it all on a preconceived notion?
Belief in a creator is a personal decision based on one's own experience. Their decisions to choose creation over random chance doesn't have to involve any preconceived notions.
Thread is locked!