General More Americans Continue to Accept Creationism Than Evolution

[GetTriggerUnit-]

The percentage of Americans who believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is about the same as it was 30 years ago, a new survey indicates.

Today, 46 percent of Americans accept this creationist explanation for human existence, a negligible change from the 44 percent who said they agreed with it in 1982, according to Gallup polls.

More Americans Continue to Accept Creationism Than Evolution

The percentage of Americans who believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years has remained roughly constant for the past 30 years, surveys indicate.

www.livescience.com

_______

I find this quite scary.

 

[FireCat]

Oh crap, Religion has really gotten out of hand "Everywhere"

 

[Zakyath]

lol... nothing else to say really

 

[Dan]

The counter intuitive nature of God, is that people who consider themselves to be extremely intelligent tend to have disbelief in a God, while it would seem that it is the most obvious answer to primitive brains. I believe this is simply a consequence of people who have a good amount of intellect to want things to be of their own creation or directly from their own observations. Wanting something to be a certain way; however, does not mean it is any more reasonable than something that eludes you.

Creationism does not oppose evolution, but does oppose "singularity." Singularity is the "big bang" people speak of. Logically, singularity makes as much sense as creationism. Logically, singularity is just one step back in an infinite number of steps back. Furthermore, singularity is not observable, and thus does not directly fall under the domain of science.

Science studies what it sees. You can find pieces of information everywhere. Many people use those pieces to support the idea of singularity, but it does not mean that those pieces of information belong to singularity. Creationism, on the other hand, is another thing that is not observable. In the same way, it cannot be directly proven to be true. Then who is correct?

Atheist propoganda is no better than religious propoganda. We can study what we see every day for the rest of our lives, but on the idea of "why" there is nothing we will ever be able to "see" that will prove either point true. The difference, I believe, is that someone who believes in God has hope. An atheist cannot have hope for something he does not believe in.

In any case, it is rude to insult someone for being religious, just as it would be rude to insult an atheist.

 

[FireCat]

is that someone who believes in God has hope

What kind of hope? And what does "hope" have to do with. hmm god

 

[Dan]

It's not hard to understand really. As a Christian, I believe that there is life after death. I have hope that there is more to the universe than what we observe. By definition, an atheist cannot have this same kind of hope.

Hope: A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.

 

[KaerfNomekop]

By definition, an atheist cannot have this same kind of hope.

In the same vein, you wouldn't have an atheist's hope of no longer existing once you die. Imagine living forever, even when you're not alive. Ugh.

 

[Dan]

In the same vein, you wouldn't have an atheist's hope of no longer existing once you die. Imagine living forever, even when you're not alive. Ugh.

It's a cute thought, and I appreciate the discussion point. Firstly, do most atheists "hope" for death and nonexistence? I would think that atheists tend to hope for the same day to day things that a man of God would... and ultimately be worried about leaving a legacy to the world. I have read a lot of atheist material saying just that: they are realists and want to make the world better--a sentiment that most people would agree on but few work towards. But, if you must, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on the "hoping for nonexistence" thing.

I LOVE this topic. It's mind boggling either way; but the way I see it, we already know what it's like to live. If I told you that you could have a cookie, you would be happy. If I told you that there are no more cookies in the world, you would be sad. Cookie's are hope. There is hope for more cookies. I hope to have many more cookies in my life. I love cookies...

Existing forever can indeed be a scary thought, but so can the idea of not existing. Either way, we are dealing with the hope for more experiences, glory, and eternal happiness. Don't forget, the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth is one where there is really no negativity and downsides. If you only hope for nonexistance because it lacks pain, then you might as well hope for a heaven where there is no pain, but all of the good stuff... like cookies. many many cookies.

Also, it's a good idea to bring up the idea of time as being relative. Who knows how scary eternal life would be? The universe has many secrets left to reveal.

 

[KaerfNomekop]

I exactly don't share that point of view, but just thought up the possibility that an atheist might actually be scared of the idea of heaven, hence rejecting the idea entirely.

I like cookies. Cookies are nice. But if I never knew cookies, I wouldn't miss them. If I don't know eternal life, do I really subscribe to it, knowing that there's never going back, even if I'm going to hate it?

 

[camelCase]

Err..
Call me a "lesser being", if you will, but what has the "Big Bang" got to do with "Creationism vs. Evolution"?

 

[Dan]

Err..
Call me a "lesser being", if you will, but what has the "Big Bang" got to do with "Creationism vs. Evolution"?

Macro evolution vs micro evolution. Micro evolution is something we see every day. We know that plants do it all the time. We also see natural selection change the course of a species and brings a specialized group of them out in front in a population.

Inevitably, when you say creationism vs evolution, you are going much farther back. You are saying that people evolved from monkeys, etc. A creationist might say that God put humanity on earth as a whole. (A creationist can also say that God used evolution in order to bring life onto the earth, and thus a creationist can believe in evolution: http://creationproject.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/can-christians-believe-in-evolution/).

In any case, you can keep playing the "but how did that happen" game with evolution until you realize that you are now saying that at one point there were NO organisms. Then you must go on to say that at one point the earth evolved from nothing. At this point you start talking about singularity. You start talking about the evolution of the universe.

You are now not only arguing the idea of HOW things came to be, but are faced with the question of "why" do things evolve in this way. At this point, you have a faith in evolution. A faith that says that life is inevitable and that creation is the default that the universe (and every conceiveable universe) gives rise to. This is also where a creationist has a very simple answer. A creationist answers the question with "God." and is done. An atheist does not have an answer at this point.

I hope that answers your question of where I am coming from. It is important to note that you can be scientific and make intelligent arguments and still believe in God. I find it ignorant, weather you believe in God or not, to act like there are no rational arguments for the existance of God. Science has never, and can never disprove the idea of a God.

 

[Dan]

If I don't know eternal life, do I really subscribe to it, knowing that there's never going back, even if I'm going to hate it?

But you do know eternal life! Have you ever not lived at some point in the middle of your life? We really don't know anything except for living. I suppose you can say that you have "blacked out" during points of your life or that you have been put under for surgery...But the lack of a memory is on the same level of saying that you don't miss what you have never had.

I would think that eternal life is like lifting a bunch of worries off your back. Have you ever been worried about having time to finish school? Weight lifted... If I told you that you are going to die when you are 200 years old, wouldn't it just bring you more joy? What If I said 1000? It only increases the number of things that you get to do and enjoy. The downside would be that you would see more loss of life from friends and family; but in the kingdom of heaven, you essentially would be with a bunch of other people who are going to live forever too.

Everything is scary relative to our own experiences. Anything that we haven't done seems scary until it happens. And going back to what I said before about time being relative, who is to say what time really is like? (sorry to get all metaphysical.)

hehehe. If I sound like I'm getting really deep here with the idea of heaven and God, and it makes you feel uncomfortable or sorry for me, I can get VERY deep with scientific atheist viewpoints of the world. Any atheist who says "it doesn't matter" is really just dodging the question. If I were to try to conceive of all the possible answers to "why" that an atheist has to deal with, it would be very taxing on my imagination.

 

[Varine]

Err..
Call me a "lesser being", if you will, but what has the "Big Bang" got to do with "Creationism vs. Evolution"?

Nothing. He's trying to say something that doesn't make sense because creationism and the big bang concept aren't opposing unless you want them to be, just like any other science/religious dispute.

 

[Dan]

Nothing. He's trying to say something that doesn't make sense because creationism and the big bang concept aren't opposing unless you want them to be, just like any other science/religious dispute.

hmm... is there a problem? I believe what I said made sense. If there is something you would like to add to the thread I invite you to do so. Creationism and Evolution are usually considered opposing but there are arguments that bring them pretty close together. So if you don't want them to be opposing, you are entitled to that viewpoint.

For the sake of this thread, I brought evolution back a few steps to the idea of singularity only to compare the fact that at some point there is a faith in something even if you are coming from the atheist viewpoint. I thought that the title of this article was obviously leaning in the direction of "more Americans continue to be stupid," and decided to speak up.

Edit: The article is actually harmless, I didn't realize that you had to go through ads in order to read it... >.< Just statistics...

 

[FireCat]

Science has never, and can never disprove the idea of a God.

Can science prove or disprove the existence of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

 

[Dan]

Can science prove or disprove the existence of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Obviously not. Science cannot prove historical happenings. It is not logical that I went to the store this morning. There is nothing saying that I had to have gone to the store or that it was inevitable that this morning I would go to the store instead of going to the gym. What we can use to prove that I went to the store is not scientific deduction, but historical evidence. My wife can testify to it, the shopping list and receipt exists, and the cashier might remember me. There is no historical evidence for the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and so I doubt anyone would believe in him. There is; however, historical evidence that God exists. It's what we now call the Bible.

Furthermore, it is not necessary to fully know God, to speak of God. Anytime we are faced with an idea such as creationism, we are speaking about God in a general sense, as no one truely knows him. If you believed that the spaghetti monster created the universe and I believe that the universe was created by some mind, which I would call God, we would not be necessarily in conflict with each other at that moment, as you would simply be calling God by a different name.

PLEASE NOTE: I don't mean to say that God is a flying spaghetti monster, because I truly do not believe that he is.

 

[Nigerianrulz]

Obviously not. Science cannot prove historical happenings. It is not logical that I went to the store this morning. There is nothing saying that I had to have gone to the store or that it was inevitable that this morning I would go to the store instead of going to the gym. What we can use to prove that I went to the store is not scientific deduction, but historical evidence. My wife can testify to it, the shopping list and receipt exists, and the cashier might remember me. There is no historical evidence for the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and so I doubt anyone would believe in him. There is; however, historical evidence that God exists. It's what we now call the Bible.

I don't object people's belief in religion or God, I think religion is good for people in many different ways they may perceive it to be, however personally I find religion to be not much of use. That being said how is "historical" evidence provide the ground that God exists? Your arguments previously made strong points but this lacks all conviction, a book written by man is suppose to prove the existence of God. How in any way does that sound convincing? Science can prove historical happening... just not that far yet, however historical evidence doesn't support science... not all the time anyway.

Maybe this gets asked a lot but where did god came from? I believe we can make the assumption that god is a single entity in which in your eyes created the universe, but for it to exist, it must first be derived from something.

 

[seph ir oth]

I must implore those in the discussion to keep it at a discussion and not to dismiss each other's posts as not making sense. This is about religion, and there are those who strongly believe in their views. Please respect them!

 

[FireCat]

There is; however, historical evidence that God exists. It's what we now call the Bible.

a book written by man is suppose to prove the existence of God. How in any way does that sound convincing?

I agree with what Nigerianrulz is saying. The Bible is not a "evidence" that god exist at all. It's Just a book written by mortal humans. And btw: Without the Bible, the stories of God would Just be tales and myths.

If you believed that the spaghetti monster created the universe and I believe that the universe was created by some mind, which I would call God

Why would the universe been designed by an powerful creator really? It could Just Happen?

 

[Zakyath]

I must implore those in the discussion to keep it at a discussion and not to dismiss each other's posts as not making sense. This is about religion, and there are those who strongly believe in their views. Please respect them!

well you're tying our atheist's hands here. that's just the thing, religion does NOT make sense.