StarDestroyer.Net BBS

HemlockGrey wrote:What's the definition of creationism for this poll? Does it include divinely-started evolution?

I hope.

Anyway, the reason why all of this is happening is because Evolution isn't being taught well enough in school, and even when it's taught, people would rather listen to their minister, fundie family member, or a Creation "scientist" like Kent Hovind than actual, certified scientists. And it's a downward spiral: People grow up in a fundie family, become Creationists, tell their kids to ignore science and become creationists too, and then their kids will do the same thing.

HemlockGrey wrote:What's the definition of creationism for this poll? Does it include divinely-started evolution?

That is what I was wondering. That would be very reasonable and there is nothing really to disprove divinely-started evolution, as there is not really any science that contradicts or argues with it.

NF_Utvol wrote:if they had added 'intelligent design' in this, i wonder what it would have gotten

What difference does it make? Young-Earth creationism indicates a single-digit IQ while intelligent design normally indicates an IQ of about 20. Not enough to make a difference.

NF_Utvol wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:What's the definition of creationism for this poll? Does it include divinely-started evolution?

That is what I was wondering. That would be very reasonable and there is nothing really to disprove divinely-started evolution, as there is not really any science that contradicts or argues with it.

There is the logical principle of parsimony, which is part of the basic scientific method. If you can explain it without adding an extra term, then the extra term is redundant. If the extra term does not improve the explanation in any way, then the extra term is redundant. Either way, the extra term is redundant.

Darth Wong wrote:[There is the logical principle of parsimony, which is part of the basic scientific method. If you can explain it without adding an extra term, then the extra term is redundant. If the extra term does not improve the explanation in any way, then the extra term is redundant. Either way, the extra term is redundant.

It might well be redundant but it's hardly the same as biblical literalism. And I suspect they lumped anything having to do with God as Creationism.

Stormbringer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:[There is the logical principle of parsimony, which is part of the basic scientific method. If you can explain it without adding an extra term, then the extra term is redundant. If the extra term does not improve the explanation in any way, then the extra term is redundant. Either way, the extra term is redundant.

It might well be redundant but it's hardly the same as biblical literalism. And I suspect they lumped anything having to do with God as Creationism.

The Time Magazine poll specifically asked people if they believed the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's pretty hard to spin-doctor that, and it is fairly consistent with the 48% figure from Gallup.

I'd seriously like to know exactly how these polls were taken. I never trust a statistic until I have proof of how it was done.

Darth Wong wrote:The Time Magazine poll specifically asked people if they believed the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. It's pretty hard to spin-doctor that, and it is fairly consistent with the 48% figure from Gallup.

It's entirely possible. But I'd like to see the stuff this is based on. Especially the Time study because, frankly, Time is rather alarmist on religious issues.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Well I have normally been told to doubt most surveys today due to the amount of manipulation that can arise if the group conducting it has bias, but I also like to think what my reaction would be if they were 100% true to their word, in which case this is quite frightening.

Just to clarify this for our Non-UK denizens, the veracity of polls and statistics in general are heavily doubted out here and have been for some time since the Spin Doctors came to prominence in the early 90's. Most Brits reaction to polls these days is to immediately question where it came from, who sponsored it and how the results were reached. We've been well trained in cynicism regarding Stats of any kind.

Durran Korr wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/opinion/04KRIS.html

You don't have to read the whole article, this is the most important quote;

"A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren't sure or lean toward creationism). According to recent Gallup Tuesday briefings, Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution."

I hope this isn't an accurate poll!

I know I'm generalising here, but this is nearly a Uniquely American problem. When I first heard about Creationism (on the Net, no less), I had to look it up as it had never got more than a passing mention in R.E. (Religious Education - learning about various belief systems and how they are structured) class at school when I was 13. The only model of Human creation taught in the UK is Evolution, where it is considered a science not a belief. If you asked the majority of people in the UK what they believed in : Evolution or Creationism, they'd probably look at you as to ask "There's another way except Evolution?", then ask you what the hell Creationism is.

I know from Netsurfing, that Creationism does have adherents here in the UK, but they number about the same as Flat Earthers, and have the same credibility. How America got to thi state is amazing to me.
People here have no problem having a faith in God and still accepting Evolution as fact, so what's the problem in the States? I still remember laughing when I heard about the Kansas education board fiasco, when it happened, and then the horror at realising it wasn't a joke, it was reality!

Britian may hav a few problems with education at the moment (dropping exam standards to raise pass Levels - which has been arrested by the way as Employers are complaining about the standeard of young workers and the subsequent increase of Dole Applicants has forced the Government to do something about it far faster than teacher protet ever did ), but it never got to the level where Science got confused with religion. I hope the Education standards start raising over there, or my joke made in the 'thirty years from now' thread might just become reality.

If the problem with creationism in America were not real, politicians would not be voting with their feet and instituting church-friendly constraints upon science education. Some may prefer to believe this is an exaggerated problem, but given the many political gains made by creationist idiots over the last few years, I seriously doubt it.

Darth Wong wrote:If the problem with creationism in America were not real, politicians would not be voting with their feet and instituting church-friendly constraints upon science education. Some may prefer to believe this is an exaggerated problem, but given the many political gains made by creationist idiots over the last few years, I seriously doubt it.

I never said it wasn't a problem. Now more than ever. But I'm just saying I find it hard to believe numbers that extreme. Especially given the controversies that have arisen.

I distrusts those survey's highly because the methods often produce very slanted results.

Darth Wong wrote:If the problem with creationism in America were not real, politicians would not be voting with their feet and instituting church-friendly constraints upon science education. Some may prefer to believe this is an exaggerated problem, but given the many political gains made by creationist idiots over the last few years, I seriously doubt it.

I don't think anyone doubts it's a real problem, just stood agog at the fact it was allowed to become a problem in the first place.

Bush has stated that the "jury is still out" on evolution? That's hardly surprising. Fucking idiot.

It is a problem here. Part of the problem is that our public education system is so fucked up that the kids don't learn anything anymore. The NEA and the teachers unions long ago put education on the back burner so they could engage in social engineering. The result is a couple of generations now of ignorant kids who can't think critically and are easy prey to the kind of fallacious arguments creationists employ.

Stormbringer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:If the problem with creationism in America were not real, politicians would not be voting with their feet and instituting church-friendly constraints upon science education. Some may prefer to believe this is an exaggerated problem, but given the many political gains made by creationist idiots over the last few years, I seriously doubt it.

I never said it wasn't a problem. Now more than ever. But I'm just saying I find it hard to believe numbers that extreme. Especially given the controversies that have arisen.

I distrusts those survey's highly because the methods often produce very slanted results.

It doesn't say where the survey was carried out, nor what sampling methods were used (what slice through the income brackets, social status's, Education backgrounds, personal belief's was made or if they were all taken from one set of them all).

Perinquus wrote:It is a problem here. Part of the problem is that our public education system is so fucked up that the kids don't learn anything anymore. The NEA and the teachers unions long ago put education on the back burner so they could engage in social engineering. The result is a couple of generations now of ignorant kids who can't think critically and are easy prey to the kind of fallacious arguments creationists employ.

We were very close to steering the same course not too long ago, but the economic effects became prevalent rather quickly (higher young Dole recipients and less Employers interested in the newly educated - who wants to pay to teach someone the things they should already know?). The Government has implemented short-term fixes for the youngsters it hurt with the lowered standards and has started the long haul to get education standards back up as it costs less in the long run for them. The years of Teacher and media protests did fuck all, the damage to the Budget got a solution inside of 3 months!

Hopefully the US can start doing something before the situation gets really bad.

Perinquus wrote:It is a problem here. Part of the problem is that our public education system is so fucked up that the kids don't learn anything anymore. The NEA and the teachers unions long ago put education on the back burner so they could engage in social engineering. The result is a couple of generations now of ignorant kids who can't think critically and are easy prey to the kind of fallacious arguments creationists employ.

A bigger problem is the culture of irresponsibility. Schools cannot enforce discipline because parents go apeshit if you suggest that little Johnny just might not be a saint. Administrators and school board politicians do not want to anger parents, so they do as little as possible, and when problems do arise, they blame teachers. What it really boils down to is parents will not take responsibility for their brats. They will not be told that their children are problem makers. If there is no way to avoid the fact, then the child has a learning disability or ADHD. Our educational problems are all the fault of the teachers and their unions (a nice convenient "them" to blame), not the administrators and politicians and the voters who elected them, and certainly never the parents.

Most people in America are stupid, lazy, and irresponsible. They do not want to think. They do not want to pay taxes. They do not want to be told things they don't like. They want politicians who will never ever make them work harder or give more or make tough choices.