Posted on 12/05/2004 1:16:27 AM PST by OnlyinAmerica
Poll shows Americans divided over question of evolution vs. creation By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON (RNS)--A Gallup Poll suggests Americans are divided over how the world was created--either through evolution or at the hand of God--but either way, they appear skeptical that it happened exactly as described in the book of Genesis.
The poll found Charles Darwin's theory of evolution remains controversial among Americans. About one-third say it is supported by evidence, one-third see it as bunk and one-third don't know enough to judge.
A plurality of Americans--45 percent--say man was created by God in his present form, while 38 percent say man developed over time as God guided the process. Just 13 percent said God had no role in the process.
Yet a smaller percentage, 34 percent, said the Bible is the actual word of God and should be read literally.
Pollsters said that discrepancy suggests Americans believe man was created as-is, but not because the Bible says so.
Breaking down the numbers, Gallup officials said about one-quarter of Americans are "biblical literalists" who believe man was created 10,000 years ago in his present form. They tend to be women, conservatives, Republicans and attend a Protestant church at least once a week.
A slightly smaller number--one in five Americans--believe man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago, but not because they read the Bible literally. Just 9 percent of the country read the Bible literally but are open to the theory of evolution.
The largest group--46 percent--do not read the Bible literally and believe humans may have evolved over time. This group tends to be male, urban, more educated, Catholic and seldom or never attend church.
"It is not surprising to find that the biblical literalists who believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago tend to be more religious and Protestant," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief.
The survey of 1,016 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
I doubt you know a single one of them, so what's myour basis for this statement?
(BTW, I suggested two of them sign up for the list. Both were delighted)
. The bottom line is, hundreds if not thousands of scientists think it's bunk!
If you think fifteen billion years is six thousand years, than I guess 'hundreds if not thousands' is pretty much the same as 'three or four'.
There are plenty of people who believe in God (like, for example, Einstein) who don't believe in a God who intervenes in the material world: deists. Those people aren't atheists.
Which more and more people with thinking brains are ruling out as out as totally impossible and idiotic! Here'a another thinking person who chose rational thought over a blind faith in an utterly bankrupt theory.
NEW YORK -- A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"
Red State = "I am a marionette fashioned for my maker's amusement"
Maybe that's the way someone who thinks they came from a monkey looks at it.
BTW, what does "fearfully made" mean, exactly?
It's a King James English phrase which basically means "awe", not "fear" as in afraid. Most medical doctors and scientists are stunned and amazed at just how incredible the creation of a human is.
Who's supposed to be fearful? And what does that have to do with being made?
See the definition above.
What a display of ignorance. The facts are that most of the giants in science believed in creation.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm
BIBLE-BELIEVING SCIENTISTS OF THE PAST
- IMPACT No. 103 January 1982
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.
One of the self-serving arguments of modern evolutionists is their rather arrogant claim that creationist scientists are not real scientists. No matter that a large number of creationists have earned authentic Ph.D. degrees in science, hold responsible scientific positions and have published numerous scientific articles and books—if they are creationists, they are not true scientists! In a Letter-to-the-Editor, Steven Schafersman, of Rice University's Department of Geology, says, for example: "I dispute Henry Morris's claim that thousands of scientists are creationists. No scientist today questions the past and present occurrence of evolution in the organic world. Those ‘thousands of creationists' with legitimate post-graduate degrees and other appropriate credentials are not scientists, precisely because they have abandoned the scientific method and the scientific attitude, criteria far more crucial to the definition of scientist than the location or duration of one's training or the identity of one's employer" (Geotimes, August 1981, P. 11).
Thus modern creationists are conveniently excluded as scientists merely by definition! Science does not mean "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts," as we used to think, but "naturalism" or "materialism," according to this new definition. The very possibility of a Creator is prohibited by majority vote of the scientific fraternity, and one who still wishes to believe in God must forfeit his membership.
Well, no matter. At least we creationist scientists can take comfort in the fact that many of the greatest scientists of the past were creationists and for that matter, were also Bible-believing Christians, men who believed in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as in the deity and saving work of Jesus Christ. They believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for God's glory and man's good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that modern creationist scientists do.
And somehow this attitude did not hinder them in their commitment to the "scientific method." In fact one of them, Sir Francis Bacon, is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method! They seem also to have been able to maintain a proper "scientific attitude," for it was these men (Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, etc.) whose researches and analyses led to the very laws and concepts of science which brought about our modern scientific age. The mechanistic scientists of the present are dwarfed in comparison to these intellectual giants of the past. Even the achievements of an Einstein (not to mention Darwin!) are trivial in comparison. The real breakthroughs, the new fields, the most beneficial discoveries of science were certainly not delayed (in fact probably were hastened) by the creationist motivations of these great founders of modern science.
| TABLE I SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED |
|
|---|---|
| DISCIPLINE | SCIENTIST |
| ANTISEPTIC SURGERY | JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) |
| BACTERIOLOGY | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| CALCULUS | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| CELESTIAL MECHANICS | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| CHEMISTRY | ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) |
| COMPARATIVE ANATOMY | GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) |
| COMPUTER SCIENCE | CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) |
| DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS | LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) |
| DYNAMICS | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| ELECTRONICS | JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) |
| ELECTRODYNAMICS | JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) |
| ELECTRO-MAGNETICS | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| ENERGETICS | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS | HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) |
| FIELD THEORY | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| FLUID MECHANICS | GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) |
| GALACTIC ASTRONOMY | WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) |
| GAS DYNAMICS | ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) |
| GENETICS | GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) |
| GLACIAL GEOLOGY | LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) |
| GYNECOLOGY | JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) |
| HYDRAULICS | LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) |
| HYDROGRAPHY | MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) |
| HYDROSTATICS | BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) |
| ICHTHYOLOGY | LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) |
| ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY | WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) |
| MODEL ANALYSIS | LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) |
| NATURAL HISTORY | JOHN RAY (1627-1705) |
| NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY | BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) |
| OCEANOGRAPHY | MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) |
| OPTICAL MINERALOGY | DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) |
| PALEONTOLOGY | JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) |
| PATHOLOGY | RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) |
| PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS | JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) |
| STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS | JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) |
| STRATIGRAPHY | NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) |
| SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY | CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) |
| THERMODYNAMICS | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| THERMOKINETICS | HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) |
| VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY | GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) |
| TABLE II NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES |
|
|---|---|
| CONTRIBUTION | SCIENTIST |
| ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| ACTUARIAL TABLES | CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) |
| BAROMETER | BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) |
| BIOGENESIS LAW | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| CALCULATING MACHINE | CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) |
| CHLOROFORM | JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) |
| CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM | CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) |
| DOUBLE STARS | WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) |
| ELECTRIC GENERATOR | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| ELECTRIC MOTOR | JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) |
| EPHEMERIS TABLES | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| FERMENTATION CONTROL | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| GALVANOMETER | JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) |
| GLOBAL STAR CATALOG | JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871) |
| INERT GASES | WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) |
| KALEIDOSCOPE | DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) |
| LAW OF GRAVITY | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| MINE SAFETY LAMP | HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) |
| PASTEURIZATION | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| REFLECTING TELESCOPE | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| SCIENTIFIC METHOD | FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626) |
| SELF-INDUCTION | JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878) |
| TELEGRAPH | SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872) |
| THERMIONIC VALVE | AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) |
| TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
Nor should anyone suppose that their commitment to theism and creationism was only because they were not yet acquainted with modern philosophies. Many were strong opponents of Darwinism (Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming, etc.). Even those who lived before Darwin were strong opponents of earlier evolutionary systems, not to mention pantheism, atheism, and other such anti-supernaturalist philosophies, which were every bit as prevalent then as now.
To illustrate the caliber and significance of these great scientists of the past, Tables I and II have been prepared. These tabulations are not complete lists, of course, but at least are representative and they do point up the absurdity of modern assertions that no true scientist can be a creationist and Bible-believing Christian.
Table I lists the creationist "fathers" of many significant branches of modern science. Table II lists the creationist scientists responsible for various vital inventions, discoveries, and other contributions to mankind. These identifications are to some degree oversimplified, of course, for even in the early days of science every new development involved a number of other scientists, before and after. Nevertheless, in each instance, a strong case can be made for attributing the chief responsibility to the creationist scientist indicated. At the very least, his contribution was critically important and thus supports our contention that belief in creation and the Bible helps, rather than hinders, scientific discovery.
In each case, the scientists listed were strict creationists, unreservedly believing in the Bible and the God of the Bible. Some were "progressive creationists," but none were theistic evolutionists, so far as can be determined. They came from a variety of denominational backgrounds and doctrinal persuasions, but all were at least professing Christians, committed to the basic doctrines of Christianity. Additional biographical data concerning both their Christian convictions and their scientific contributions have been compiled recently by the writer for a chapter in a future book and it has been a great personal blessing to share in their lives and studies in this way. The mere listing of their names in these summary Tables may seem impersonal, but even this bare compilation is impressive.
The scientific achievements of modern creationist scientists do not yet measure up to those of these earlier creationists (neither do the attainments of modern evolutionists for that matter), but we at least have the same beliefs, the same motivations and the same spiritual resources. There is a much greater weight of establishment prejudice to overcome today, but the God of Robert Boyle and the God of Clerk Maxwell is still the same "Creator, who is blessed for ever" (Romans 1:25), "Lord, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, 0 Lord our God: for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. 0 Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee." (II Chronicles 14:11).
*Dr. Henry M. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research.
Do you think it's possible that these scientists were creationists because most of them lived before the theory of evolution was proposed or became established? Duh? Funny there are none born after 1900 there, eh?
No one on this list accepted Einstein's theory of relativity either.
Whoever made up the lists was pretty sloppy too. Pasteur invented immunization? Kelvin founded thermodynamics? Pascal invented the barometer?
1) I'm not a biblical literalist.
2) There are more than "three or four" -- Discovery.org maintains a list that has grown to 330 names of scientists who think the ToE has major holes in it. Most of them have very impressive credentials. Are they ignorant?
Good job in getting those Steve's signed up! We should all support causes that we believe in. Why, just yesterday I 'upped' my contribution to the Discovery Institute. Speaking of the institute, Dembski will be giving a presentation in Seattle called Darwinism's Berlin Wall on January 17, 2005. You should swing by.
The number of scientists that are coming out of the anti-evolutionary closet are growing every day. You criticize their list while the numbers of new credentialed scientists grow under your nose.
The momentum has shifted while we have discussed this issue over the last three years. I know you keep saying we keep saying that, but the evidence for the paradigm shift is so overwhelming even you have to acknowledge it. Not to say you will ever believe it has validity, but the shift has happened all the same.
Well, you've made that point excellently; if you believe in creationism, you aren't a dolt, you're merely intellectually stuck in the mid-19th century. :-)
Dembski is on fire! Wish I lived in Seattle.
A handful of them have very impressive credentials.
Dembski will be giving a presentation in Seattle called Darwinism's Berlin Wall on January 17, 2005
Imminent demise of evolution, yawn! I notice it isn't likely to be a scientific seminar - i.e., one where he will present actual research results. Evidently, Dembski has given up on trying to produce any; it appears he's hoping the 'wall' will come by some sort of Joshua-like mechanism, or maybe that he can talk it down.
Me, I buy Powerball tickets when the jackpot gets high. My odds are better.
A BIG DITTO! You're stuck in the 20's, 30's, and 40's.
Smell the coffee! More and more people with critical thinking are rejecting the absolutely ridiculous theory of evolution. You have to take the most absurd leaps of faith to in it.
You mean, 'credentialed', like Dr. Dino?
I know you keep saying we keep saying that, but the evidence for the paradigm shift is so overwhelming even you have to acknowledge it
Bondserv, you're a good guy, but you're dreaming. The paradigm shift would have to occur in biology departments. A couple of crank articles in conservative magazines do not a paradigm shift make. While y'all fantasize about the imminent demise of evolution, the genomic evidence for evolution doubles every couple of years.
Now, I'm off to numb my brain. It's been a hard week. Have a good weekend.
You mean, 'credentialed', like Dr. Dino?
What am I to think.
You have a good weekend too. If I hit the lottery, maybe I'll enroll in your NU Chem class, for laughs (most likely you and your other chem students laughing at me). I'd have to convince my wife and kids to temporarily move to Nebraska.
Careful. This is a trap, trying to make evolution supporters "admit" (though dishonest twisting of their statements after the fact) that they're Democrat supporters.
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.