Posted on 10/23/2005 12:06:32 AM PDT by GretchenM
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A majority of adults support the biblical account of creation according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll -- the latest in a series of polls reflecting Americans' tendency to reject secular evolution.
In the poll, 53 percent of adults say "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." Another 31 percent believe humans "evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided" the process. Twelve percent say humans "have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God has no part."
The poll of 1,005 adults, conducted Sept. 8-11 and posted on Gallup's website Oct. 13, is but the latest survey showing Americans tend to reject a strictly secular explanation for the existence of life:
-- A Harris poll of 1,000 adults in June found that 64 percent believe "human beings were created directly by God," 22 percent say humans "evolved from earlier species" and 10 percent believe humans "are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." In another question, only 38 percent say humans "developed from earlier species."
-- An NBC News poll of 800 adults in March found that 44 percent believe in a biblical six-day creation, 13 percent in a "divine presence" in creation and 33 percent in evolution.
"Nobody starts out as a Darwinian evolutionist," said William Dembski, professor of science and theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and the author of "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design."
"You start out with a wonder of creation, thinking that there's something beyond it. And then it has to be explained to you why there really is no wonder behind it."
The Gallup poll was released amidst a trial in Harrisburg, Pa., over whether Intelligent Design can be taught in a Pennsylvania school district. Intelligent Design says that patterns in nature are best explained by pointing to a creator (that is, intelligence). Supporters of the theory of Darwinian evolution have opposed Intelligent Design, saying it is not science. Evolution teaches, in part, that humans evolved over millions of years from apes.
But despite the fact that public schools are teaching evolution as fact, Americans are not buying it. A November 2004 poll of 1,016 adults found that 35 percent said evolution was "just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence." Thirty-five percent said evolution was "well-supported by evidence," while 28 percent didn't know enough about evolution to answer. In addition, a February 2001 poll of 1,016 adults found that 48 percent said the "theory of creationism" best explained the origin of human beings while 28 percent said the "theory of evolution" made the most sense.
Reflecting the argument Paul makes in Romans 1, Dembski said the "beauty" and the "extravagance" of creation -- the "beautiful sunsets, flowers and butterflies" -- points to the existence of a creator.
"Unless you're really indoctrinated into an atheistic mindset, I think [the beauty of creation] is going to keep tugging at our hearts and minds," he said.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called the Gallup poll findings "incredible" and said they should be "encouraging" to conservative Christians. ...
Said Dembski: "The secularized education system ... is not being executed as effectively as the secular elites would like. So that's something that we have to be thankful for -- that a lot of schools are not implementing it and forcing it down kids' throats. But it's still happening, and as far as it happens, the indoctrination can be quite effective."
For example, Dembski said, there is little public outcry over PBS programs such as "Nature" that are publicly funded and regularly present evolution as fact. Also, Americans themselves seem conflicted over what to believe. An August Gallup poll found that 58 percent said creationism was definitely or probably true and 55 percent said evolution was definitely or probably true -- meaning that many of those surveyed saw no conflict between creationism and evolution. And the Harris poll that found only 22 percent of adults believing humans evolved from earlier species also found that 46 percent believe apes and humans have a "common ancestry."
Americans, Dembski said, often try to take a middle road by believing God guided evolution. Nevertheless, he said, the poll numbers are promising for Intelligent Design proponents who are making their case in the public square.
"I think anybody who is on the God-had-something-to-do-with-it side -- whether it's through a direct act of creation or through some sort of evolution process -- is likely to give Intelligent Design a second look,” Dembski said. “We have a great pool of people that we can appeal to.
You're a legend in your own mind,...
You're so lacking in a command of language, you have to steal lines from a Clint Eastwood movie?
If you don't know, how can you be so sure the theory of evolution is wrong?
Don't waste my time....
It's a simple question. Take as much time as you like.
They do compete. Add up how many churches and religions there are compared to public schools. The children have a choice, and the other choice is up to their parents to decide where to teach them about creationism and Intelligent Design. Also, Biology Class has proof and proven evidence, so biology is NOT religion.
Its not a matter of one persones intrepetation vs another. The artical clearly misstates what the theory is. I don't find it my duty to teach you what you should have learned in the 7th grade.
ID has proof and proven evidence and is against the law to teach in a school system that is manditory for students to attend. The taxes to support the athiest church are manditory for all, even if your child does not attend the church of humanism.
The church of humanism must be supported by the taxpayer, because they are too selfish to put money in the plate if it was passed around.
How's that for being God's advocate?
You know, this is not a religious discussion with me, I truly am interested in science and the things of Creation. I do not have a problem quoting things that state that parts of what you say are right. I welcome them as common ground. I would hate it worse than you if ID was presented in schools as some stupid religious doctrine, as that would be just one more way to discredit it.
I want the truth of the matter my "friend".
As for the radiation output difference in the sun over the last five years, if we were to extrapolate the lesser output back over time, would not the dating figures be badly over inflated as the radiation would be much less, causing the carbon uptake to be much less than expected. And as time passes the ability to detect the increasingly small amounts of radiation that have passed half-life point reach the limits of instrumentation, the smaller amount of radiation available at the start has a greater and greater effect on the date in a logarithmic effect.
By holding on to your faith by insisting all things are going on as before, you ignore the implications of what we are discovering now for fear of your shaky theology collapsing like a house of cards.
Frankly we all have bigger problems than Darwin, The recent appearance of CME events and the increasing sun radiation output are the prescribed events of a yellow sun going red dwarf in a nova.
Better we should be contemplating that problem and its solution than worrying about dead prophets of evolving bugs that design humans.
Hope you understand it the way I do before you reach the end of the road.
Ahhh, the truth at last... you are a newspaper troll!
Actually, I haven't read an real newspaper in years, except for glancing at headlines when I pass a stack at the store or whatever. So yet again you're mistaking your wild presumptions for "the truth".
What I was saying, however, is that I wouldn't have to explain these things to you if you actually took the time to keep up with current events, which you clearly haven't.
The First Amendment says no such thing,
I'm sorry that you're ignorant of American history. Madison and Jefferson both felt very strongly about the separation of church and state (even using that very term), and wrote of the importance of not using the public moneys or institutions to support one or more religions. In Madison's famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", he wrote strenuously against using public money to underwrite in any degree the promulgation of religious teachings. In another opinion, he wrote:
A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. [...] On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.In another essay, he wrote:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.And:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. [...] If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience!Writing of the success of the First Amendment's unique new approach to the age-old problem of religious/government entanglement, Madison wrote:
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.And in the same vein:
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.But hey, what would Madison know, he only *wrote* the First Amendment...
As for Jefferson, he also wrote favorably of "a wall of separation between church and state" on many occasions, for example:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.Like Madison, Jefferson was likewise of the opinion that public schools should be secular. When the College of William and Mary wanted to become Virginia's state university, Jefferson would allow it only if that school divested itself of all ties with sectarian religion. The college declined, so Jefferson himself instead founded the first truly secular university, University of Virginia. Of his new University, Jefferson wrote:
A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution.And to teachers at his University, Jefferson said:
This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.And from a famous earlier historian of the US:
... I questioned the faithful of all communions; I particularly sought the society of clergymen, who are the depositories of the various creeds and have a personal interest in their survival ... all thought the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.The "complete separation of church and state" is no modern ACLU invention...
-- (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859
The modern court cases upholding this principle of keeping religious advocacy out of the schools merely uphold the original intent and meaning of the First Amendment, and indeed make explicit reference to Madison and Jefferson's writings on this matter:
As the momentum for popular education increased and in turn evoked strong claims for state support of religious education, contests not unlike that which in Virginia had produced Madison's Remonstrance appeared in various forms in other states. New York and Massachusetts provide famous chapters in the history that established dissociation of religious teaching from state-maintained schools. In New York, the rise of the common schools led, despite fierce sectarian opposition, to the barring of tax funds to church schools, and later to any school in which sectarian doctrine was taught.So yes, just as I said, attempts to get religious views taught in public schools, whether overt or thinly disguised, are a violation of the First Amendment -- not just the modern view of the First Amendment, but the original intent as well.[...]
The upshot of these controversies, often long and fierce, is fairly summarized by saying that long before the Fourteenth Amendment subjected the states to new limitations, the prohibition of furtherance by the state of religious instruction became the guiding principle, in law and in feeling, of the American people.
[...]
The preservation of the community from division conflicts, of government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the state to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual's church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice. [...] The extent to which this principle was deemed a presupposition of our Constitutional system is strikingly illustrated by the fact that every state admitted into the Union since 1876 was compelled by Congress to write into its constitution a requirement that it maintain a school system "free from sectarian control".
[...]
We find that the basic Constitutional principle of absolute separation was violated when the State of Illinois, speaking through its Supreme Court, sustained the school authorities of Champaign in sponsoring and effectively furthering religious beliefs by its educational arrangement. Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between church and state speaks of a "wall of separation," not of a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart. "The great American principle of eternal separation"--Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition--is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."
-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education, the 1948 decision that forbid public schools in Illinois from commingling sectarian and secular instruction
classic Marxist/ACLU double talk...
Yeah, boy, that Theodore Roosevelt, what a Marxist and ACLU lawyer:
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."You're pretty funny when you're frothing.
-- Theodore Roosevelt Address, New York, October 12, 1915.
No, since past amounts of radiocarbon have already been properly calibrated. No recent fluctuations will have any effect on the past concentrations, needless to say, unless you've got a time machine in your pocket.
And as time passes the ability to detect the increasingly small amounts of radiation that have passed half-life point reach the limits of instrumentation, the smaller amount of radiation available at the start has a greater and greater effect on the date in a logarithmic effect.
No it doesn't, since the logarithmic "tail" is cut off by the limits of the instrument sensitivity. An "X%" reduction in original quantities would only produce an X% change (not a logarithmic change) in the number of samples for which the measurement returns an answer of "this sample is older than we can reliably measure with this particular method, go use some other method that's better on older samples".
"I find it curious that you can prove that there was no genetic bottleneck in the past, as all genetics stem even in evolution from the ultimate genetic bottleneck, the original breeding pair."
Another reason that Adam and Eve are myths. It is not possible for all of mankind to be the product of 2 people. On a different note, are you saying that their children married each other? Was incest somehow OK then? You can't have it both ways.
"You simply do not understand how Koala's got to America and Europe either."
Yes I do. I asked you how they got to Australia after the flood though. Don't change the subject. Noah didn't take them there. They only eat one type of tree. How did they swim that far? Or the kangaroo. It's easier to make up a story about a worldwide flood when your *world* is as small as was thought of in ancient times. We know better now.
...and if you had bothered to read the many responses, you'd have learned that "the article" (from a creationist source) was lying about that point. The lab had *not* made such a claim.
Remember the lab was the one dating the sample and is one of the same labs quoted by evolutionists to prove their theory's.
Yes, but real scientists don't lie about the results, like the creationists did.
Like the standard complaint of ID people, if the data does not fit the thesis, evolutionist throw it out.
There's *another* creationist lie. No, evolutionists *don't* do that.
Why not repeat the experiment with other samples and show the contamination was the problem? Nope, that is not done because it shows simple contamination was NOT the problem as the methodology shows.
Yet another lie. Gee, thanks.
How can this lab be the proof when its data that contradicts is so easily dismissed as flawed when it is contradicting, yet is quoted stock in trade when it fits?
I've got a novel idea -- why don't you ask a question about what *really* happened, instead of making numerous false accusations?
If the sample is contaminated, as the lab states organics could not do it due to its careful methodology, it must be mineral contamination.
That's not what was said, try again.
And if mineral contamination, IT PROVES that Carbon 14 migrates and therefore proves that radio-metrics is unreliable at large date spans.
Still wrong.
But rather than face the obvious, the whole data must be tossed out, or it will open a whole can of worms for evolutionists.
Wow, what spin -- do you get dizzy when you do that?
No, sorry. What actually happened was that a creationist sent a strange sample to a lab to be radiocarbon dated. The lab tested the amount of radiocarbon in the object, and sent back a report indicating that the amount of radiocarbon found in the object indicates an age of XX thousand years, *if* a) the radiocarbon was original and not contaminated to some degree with modern radiocarbon, and b) the object was once part of a living thing which acquired its carbon primarily from direct or indirect well-mixed atmospheric sources.
All scientists know that these are the conditions necessary to get an accurate and meaningful radiocarbon date. If those conditions are violated, all bets are off, and only an idiot or a liar would use the results in that case - which of course is exactly what the creationists did.
*Real* scientists will only report dates (indeed, will only bother sending samples to be dated in the first place) if they can be "certain beyond a reasonable doubt" that their sample meets the requirements (see above) needed to result in an accurate radiocarbon date. There are many ways to do this, and many ways to cross-check results, and scientists routinely do so when dating specimens, and before reporting them. And if there are any lingering doubts on any point, they'll report that at the same time and include the amount of potential error in their results (which is why dates are usually reported as "XX years old plus-or-minus YY").
The creationist, on the other hand, didn't bother with all of that "real science" stuff. They just sent in a strange sample of unknown material, from unknown sources, of unknown level of contamination (thereby grossly violating both conditions "a" and "b" mentioned above), and then gleefully reported the lab results as an "obvious flaw in radiocarbon dating". Um, no. If they had been honest, they'd have actually reported it as, "hi, we had no idea whether this was even an appropriate thing to radiocarbon date, nor did we even try to find out, but we submitted it to the lab anyway, and to no one's surprise we got an answer back that was probably invalid, as anyone could have predicted in advance, so this is just a typical case of 'garbage in, garbage out', don't mind us"...
But the creationists weren't that honest, so they just lied about what their idiotic exercise actually revealed.
Sorry guy, but both of these situations are checkmate situations and tossing over the chessboard is not a valid scientific solution. Your reactions are called science by faith, not by sight.
See above. You haven't a clue.
Rather than argue the whole point I thought I would bring up the simplistic samples from two separate sources that prove the fallibility of radio-metrics. But, if you insist... -grin-
The only "fallibility of radio-metrics" is that they don't produce valid results on samples that they're not designed to measure (just as, for example, a fever thermometer won't give correct results when placed in molten steel). Real scientists submit appropriate samples, because they want to get valid answers. Creationists submit inappropriate samples, because they *want* to get wrong answers. It's as simple as that. All that really "proves" is that a) creationists are dishonest, and b) using a method in ways known to be inappropriate will give inappropriate results (duh).
The methodology cannot be refuted, as this work was done in top level labs,
Nor does it need to be. The "methodology" correctly reported the amount of radiocarbon in the sample. But the creationists dishonestly (mis)interpreted the results, due to their (intentional) failure to determine whether the sample was of an appropriate nature which would enable the radiocarbon measurement to be translated into a meaningful, accurate date.
With only a few very special exceptions, radiocarbon dating only works on things which were once alive. If your sample wasn't, then you're going to get a date which is meaningless. It's up to you to ensure that your sample *was* once a living thing. The creationists didn't even bother. They just lied about it. So they got a meaningless "date". Whoopee. This is a "problem" for radiocarbon dating methods *how*, exactly?
so attack the messenger seems to be your only answer to all these honest and quite puzzling questions I have posed here.
There is nothing "honest" nor "puzzling" about your questions.
You display far more smoke and mirror than a Catholic Priest questioned by a teenager on sexual issues.
Uh huh. Sure. Look, if you don't understand the explanations, feel free to ask for clarification. But I suspect that instead you're just playing dumb.
A little honesty would help,
Yes, it would -- feel free to start, and to get your creationist heros to do likewise.
and I am afraid this thread is a perfect example of the level of honesty that ID would be delivered to the children in your humanistic indoctrination sessions called public school by the priests of PC science.
Indeed -- it would honestly be shown to be the work of charlatans and liars, like the ones who wrote the intentionally deceptive "radiocarbon dating of an unknown thingy" article.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you're not fooling anyone.
And if pigs had wings...
One has to actually address the issue.
Yes. That's why I did exactly that.
Despite all the long winded arguments, sometimes it takes a only a simple approach to discover valid data. What do you think, if the item was organic or not, how could it have read 32,000 years old in 200,000 year old sandstone without bringing radio-metrics in question?
Because the authors didn't even bother to determine if it was originally in the sandstone or entered it later, nor whether it had been affected by internal contamination. Duh.
This was explained quite clearly in those "long winded arguments" you obviously didn't bother to read.
If the item was wood, there is an excuse, but if it is stone, there is no excuse. If the lab cannot even recognize between wood and stone, is any data valid!
Clue for the clueless -- it's not the lab's job to "recognize" what the sample was. The lab determines how much radiocarbon is inside it. Period.
The task of determining the source and kind of material -- and whether it is in any way appropriate for radiocarbon dating in the first place -- is the job of the *submitter*. You know, those creationist clowns.
Sheesh, long worded arguments often hide an empty purse.
Indeed they do, which is why the creationists were long-winded. Here's the short form: The creationists lied about what the lab did and did not do, and lied about what the results actually indicate.
Short enough for you?
Arn't the problems obvious to all but the most faithful?
Yes, the problem of creationists lying in order to dishonestly "discredit" valid science is indeed obvious to all, except the most faithful followers of the creationist propagandists.
You could have a lot more credibility with a "gee, I don't know" once and a while guy.
If the occasion should arise when I don't know something, I'll gladly admit it. That's not the case here, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.