Religious Views On Evolution

The creation museum in the US opened with a big bang.... Over 400 thousand folks paying 25 bucks a head to see displays of dinosaurs walking with humans, of teachings of instant canyonification (how the grand.canyon was created from 30 days of rain receding) and more.

No telling what percentage came for education, validation or simply to scratch their head in wonder. But since then they've added a butterfly dome, a botanical garden, 17 million dollar ark, and raised the prices and are now under 300 thousand per year... Still profitable as they still receive donations..

http://www.challies.com/articles/why-i-am-a-six-day-creationist
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Which is a testimony to the ignorance of all too many Americans. No other industrialized country I can think of has such a large percentage of superstitious citizens. Where what they want to believe is more important to any and all evidence to the contrary.

This type of thinking is what may end up costing us a Trump presidency. And when everything goes to hell, and it will, they will continue to believe his outrageous lies that it is everybody's fault but his own. The world order is rigged against him, blah, blah, blah.

And no I am not going off topic. It is the religious thinking of too many Americans that is the problem when they take that kind of thinking and uses it to make decisions for our country.
 
According to a very well known and widely published genetic biologist and militant atheist, whose name I won't mention -- 45℅ of Americans believe in a literal reading of Adam and Eve? That they were real, actual people.

Can that be true?

Dawkins usually has his facts right.
 
There's no way that Richard Dawkins, or anyone else, could know what 45% of Americans actually believe. That figure might be based on some survey or poll, but that simply means that a bunch of people gave a certain answer to a question on a form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
The aforementioned biologist went to the US and filmed a TV documentary in which he debated with Evangelical Christians, and not even the theologians of Evangelical Christianity, but the average lay person.

A secular TV critic in the UK likened the debate to 'shooting fish in a barrel' and lamented that fact, and said, "I'd like to see him go up against a Catholic moral theologian" ...

He (the aforementioned biologist) would have made mincemeat of my dad, but then I bet my dad was more practical round the house fixing things, and my dad happened to give me an example and a moral compass that's seen me through some quite testing heavy weather, and quite possibly those fish in a barrel might also have been more rounded human beings, if not as intellectually heavyweight, as their inquisitor.

Having said that, and I know I've said this before, but aforesaid produced quite a hefty tome to make his thesis, and it's fundamental error was pinpointed with unerring simplicity in a 'pamphlet' by a Dominican monk.

So even heavyweight intellectuals (if you believe him to be such) can get it wrong!
 
Dan0813 said:
There's no way that Richard Dawkins, or anyone else, could know what 45% of Americans actually believe. That figure might be based on some survey or poll, but that simply means that a bunch of people gave a certain answer to a question on a form.
Click to expand...

Ummm. That is what a survey is. You ask people to answer questions on a form and use statistical analysis to generate a general idea of what the majority of people believe. It is precisely because a bunch of people gave a certain answer to a question on a form!

Polls have a use, though we need to be very careful about the results depending on a bunch of factors including:

1. Who is doing the polling? I.E. do they have an agenda in coming to a specific answer, or are they attempting as best as possible to be unbiased.
2. What are the questions in the poll. How questions are phrased make all the difference in what kind of responses one gets. Ideally when I see the results of a poll, I want to see the questions that were asked in that poll.*
3. What is the sample size and how well represented is the public overall within the sample size.
4. What is the margin of error. Which includes both how much accuracy can the poll predict, as well as how honest are people likely to be in their answers.

There are more; those are the important ones. For me personally, I am rarely impressed with any one poll. It is far more discerning to view the polling data from a reputable pollster over time. The more one gets similar results time and time again, the more likely the polling is likely to be accurate.

*A great old saw, which might even be apocryphal but which I still think is an excellent example (as well as one of my favorites). Two men are arguing whether it is appropriate to smoke while praying. So they each went to their pastors and asked the question. The two responses only confused them the more because they got one 'yes' it is appropriate and one 'no' it isn't.

Then they compared their questions.
The first asked his pastor is it okay to smoke while praying? And the pastor said "Of course not! Praying is serious business, you should not be smoking".

The second asked his pastor is it okay to pray while smoking. And that pastor said "But of course it is appropriate. Prayer is appropriate no matter whatever else you are doing". :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Devils' Advocate said:
Ummm. That is what a survey is. You ask people to answer questions on a form and use statistical analysis to generate a general idea of what the majority of people believe. It is precisely because a bunch of people gave a certain answer to a question on a form!
Click to expand...

The fact that someone puts information on a survey form does not mean that opinion represents the person's actual beliefs. I realize that's a deep concept, but if you try really hard, you may be able to absorb that concept into your tiny brain.
 
Thomas said:
... it's fundamental error was pinpointed with unerring simplicity in a 'pamphlet' by a Dominican monk ...
Click to expand...

Can you post a link for this pamphlet? I'd really like to check it out :)
 
Dan0813 said:
The fact that someone puts information on a survey form does not mean that opinion represents the person's actual beliefs. I realize that's a deep concept, but if you try really hard, you may be able to absorb that concept into your tiny brain.
Click to expand...
I'll ignore the tiny brain part...I'll just insure the powers that judge have the opportunity on that one while indicating it has no purpose in discussion.

But surveys are what they are and yes rely on tilting or not tilting questions depending in their agenda and assuming that the majority of.people will answer to the best of their abilities and are not just snarky asses who wish to skew the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lux
wil said:
I'll ignore the tiny brain part...I'll just insure the powers that judge have the opportunity on that one while indicating it has no purpose in discussion.

But surveys are what they are and yes rely on tilting or not tilting questions depending in their agenda and assuming that the majority of.people will answer to the best of their abilities and are not just snarky asses who wish to skew the results.
Click to expand...

I agree, that is an unprovoked comment. Remember the code of conduct, Dan, and don't call people names. We're here to engage in interfaith dialogue. You can disagree with the person's position but you cannot attack the person.
 
RJM Corbet said:
Can you post a link for this pamphlet? I'd really like to check it out :)
Click to expand...
God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins Author: Thomas Crean, O.P.

Not quite a pamphlet, actually, but a very slim book that successfully demolishes Dawkins' arguments.

What Crean and other philosophers make clear, is Dawkins' book lacks philosophical rigour, rather he just repeats the same populist atheist stereotypical statements that pass for 'fact' when really they're just opinion.
 
Thomas said:
God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins Author: Thomas Crean, O.P.

Not quite a pamphlet, actually, but a very slim book that successfully demolishes Dawkins' arguments.

What Crean and other philosophers make clear, is Dawkins' book lacks philosophical rigour, rather he just repeats the same populist atheist stereotypical statements that pass for 'fact' when really they're just opinion.
Click to expand...
This is just great! Now I know what to get all my atheist friends for Christmas! :D
 
Well Crean's book is a polite dismembering of Dawkins' book.

Dawkins himself publishes to the populist market, rather than to scholarly peer-review. The populist market tens to buy books because they're already into the topic, and then accept the author's opinions or indeed in some instances prejudices as fact.

Or because the author is 'cool', so they buy the book, but never actually read it. I think Stephen Hawkings and Marcel Proust are one of the two huge authors which everybody talks about, but who is rarely read cover to cover. I could not get beyond page 2 with Proust. Hawkings' "Brief History" I read from cover to cover. I really liked his creation as 'U' shaped rather than 'V' (that space didn't extend out from a point, but rather centre and periphery were both there in the same instant) ... but did I understand what I read? No. Most of it way over my head ... I couldn't argue a case for or against the thesis of the book.

Peer review, as you know, is like the examination of a mathematical theorem, testing the thesis line by line, not necessarily to believe or disbelieve, but to see if each step is argued coherently and logically, and that the end result is the only logical conclusion. That's what Crean does ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Dawkins plays to the crowd, no doubt about that. Whether his books pass any level of scientific muster I cannot say as I have never read any of his books. Still Dawkins is a huckster first. Not that he doesn't have the creds in education; rather because he uses sensationalism because that is what gets the attention in today's world. If one doesn't get heard, your message is irrelevant. It is a sorry state of affairs as any reputable scientist demeans themselves by taking the sensational route. And yet if one doesn't one is ignored.

I can say even less about Crean as this is the first I have heard of him. After doing some google hunting I did find a curious situation. There are plenty and plenty of rebuttals of Dawkin, many mentioning Crean. I could not find one single rebuttal of Father Crean however. And I did try quite a few combinations of questions. I'm not sure what this means, if anything; just found it interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Lux said:
This is just great! Now I know what to get all my atheist friends for Christmas! :D
Click to expand...

I realize you are joking (at least I think you meant that as a joke). It does raise a problematic issue within the framework of this discussion. It has been my experience watching many, many others, (not to mention my own internal struggles to attempt to remain neutral, which I fail at far more than I like to admit) that we lean towards the pov that makes sense to us. Nothing Dawkins says is going to persuade a theist that he knows what he is talking about. And nothing Crean says is going to convince atheists that he knows what he is talking about.

Certainly there is the rare occasion when one of the two groups 'Sees the Light' and joins the other camp, which works in both directions. They are a minority. The majority are preconditioned by society, by upbringing, by education and most of all by self determination that one side is in the right and the other is misguided. This majority is simply not going to be persuaded. It is an enormous stumbling block, for which I have no solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top