|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 22:16:20 [Permalink]
|
It varies from country to country but it's certainly growing where I am, in the UK, also Europe and the Islamic world. There's a few articles you can read on this, here's one
http://www.aibs.org/public-policy-reports/2009_11_09.html#026641
While the percentages of people claiming to be religious tend to drop steadily, the opposition to evolution seems to be rising. Maybe not in numbers but definitely in volume. Which is evident in the number of school controversies recently |
 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2010 : 22:39:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
...
While the percentages of people claiming to be religious tend to drop steadily, the opposition to evolution seems to be rising. Maybe not in numbers but definitely in volume. Which is evident in the number of school controversies recently |
[My bolding.]
Nobody ever accused the loud-mouthed fundies of keeping the volume down. Indeed, that's about all they have. Democracy means nothing in terms of truth, and noise even less. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 22:48:05 [Permalink]
|
| I never said it did. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 22:52:07 [Permalink]
|
Wow, what incredibly poor reporting. A set of single numbers from a single poll is somehow transformed into a trend. Whoever is doing the reporting for AIBS certainly isn't a statistician or pollster, since what they've written is utter nonsense.| While the percentages of people claiming to be religious tend to drop steadily, the opposition to evolution seems to be rising. Maybe not in numbers but definitely in volume. Which is evident in the number of school controversies recently |
The volume of the fundamentalists is nothing new. They've been loudly proclaiming the death of evolutionary theory for over 125 years, now, without apparently noticing that it's not going away.
The increased number of "school controversies" in the last 10 years can be directly linked to the political and legal activities of the Discovery Institute, which (one might note) have failed everywhere except for Louisiana. One might also note that a creationist case hasn't reached the Supreme Court since 1987. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 23:20:59 [Permalink]
|
so basically your first paragraph can be summarised to "This article sucks!" Fair enough. Have you got any evidence that creationism is on the decline?
Here's another article for my case:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-why-is-creationism-on-the-rise-and-does-it-have-a-place-in-education-927035.html
And I'm not going to argue with your second point, since it's factual, but I would differ with the way you are interpreting those facts. Your interpretation is that if the cases aren't successful then creationism isn't on the rise. Maybe from a purely educational or legal standpoint this is true.
But I don't think the fact that no case has reached the American Supreme Court for 20 years, or the fact that the same organisation are behind them is really common knowledge or even relevant to a lot of people. Public perception is more important IMO. I think that the increased opposition legitimises the beliefs of people who were previously ridiculed for creationism.
Evolution at the moment is on the defensive, and I think they are doing a pretty bad job . |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 01/02/2010 23:21:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 00:04:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
so basically your first paragraph can be summarised to "This article sucks!" Fair enough. |
What I said was that the article fails to provide any evidence that creationism is "growing," yet that's what the article states. It's disappointing to see such dreck come from what appears to be a scientific organization.| Have you got any evidence that creationism is on the decline? |
I never made any such claim, so why should I provide evidence for it?Another article which basically states a single number and says that creationism is one the rise. How can one detect a trend from a single measurement? It's like saying, "I am 5'10", therefore I am getting taller." Without reference to any previous numbers, it is impossible to tell whether creationism is increasing, decreasing or what.| And I'm not going to argue with your second point, since it's factual, but I would differ with the way you are interpreting those facts. Your interpretation is that if the cases aren't successful then creationism isn't on the rise. Maybe from a purely educational or legal standpoint this is true. |
No, it means that in the vast majority of cases, when creationists try to flex their muscles, they fail. It doesn't really matter if creationism is "growing" if they can't do anything constructive (or destructive) with their popularity.| But I don't think the fact that no case has reached the American Supreme Court for 20 years, or the fact that the same organisation are behind them is really common knowledge or even relevant to a lot of people. Public perception is more important IMO. I think that the increased opposition legitimises the beliefs of people who were previously ridiculed for creationism. |
Yes, that's the standard creationist propaganda.| Evolution at the moment is on the defensive, and I think they are doing a pretty bad job . |
Why? What is it that you think is at stake, here? What does "doing a pretty bad job" mean, in terms of political, legal and/or educational outcomes? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 06:46:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I think that the increased opposition legitimises the beliefs of people who were previously ridiculed for creationism.
|
Logical fallacy agumentum ad populum:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false. |
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 11:14:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave I think we can agree the trend is going up, down or staying the same. So far I've given evidence it's increasing and you've given nothing. If you disagree, at least come out and show me why, it's not like were playing poker here.
R. Wreck, I thought it was pretty clear but I meant it legitimises the beliefs in their own minds. Which enables them to become more vocal. |
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 12:35:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
R. Wreck, I thought it was pretty clear but I meant it legitimises the beliefs in their own minds. Which enables them to become more vocal.
|
Thanks for the clarification. But either way it has no bearing on the truth value of creationist claims. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 12:40:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Dave I think we can agree the trend is going up, down or staying the same. So far I've given evidence it's increasing and you've given nothing. If you disagree, at least come out and show me why, it's not like were playing poker here. |
How can I explain it any better? Nothing you have presented says, "years ago, the percentage of creationists in this country was X%, and now it's larger." That would be evidence of a trend.
But what you've presented just says, "the percentage of creationists is X%." That tells us nothing about any trend, even though the authors somehow magically conclude that there is an upwards trend.
I've been nothing but explicit about this point, that the evidence you've presented isn't evidence of your claim, it is only evidence that the authors don't understand that a trend cannot be defined by a single data point.
And why won't you answer my questions? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 12:52:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
So far I've given evidence it's increasing and you've given nothing.
If you disagree, at least come out and show me why, it's not like were playing poker here. |
The AIBS-link you provided refers to an un-cited survey by an unidentified market research company. There is no way to verify that the numbers presented are right. There's no way to judge the veracity or the statistical significance of the result. We don't know what selection criteria was used for the people participating in the survey.
All we have is the unknown author's say-so that creationism is on the rise. Since the source cannot be verified, we need to treat it as anecdotal evidence, in other words: hear-say.
R. Wreck, I thought it was pretty clear but I meant it legitimises the beliefs in their own minds. Which enables them to become more vocal.
|
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, unfortunately you have a point there. Religious people to some degree, and fanatics in particular, seem to be un-encumbered by logic and reason. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 15:54:57 [Permalink]
|
On fire for Christ.....
I have read and re-read all three of the links that you provided, and I cannot find a single sentence or paragraph in any of them that demonstrates a "rise" in the belief in creationism. Several times the statement is made that "creationism is on the rise", but there are absolutely no comparative statistics or poll figures to justify these statements.
Why do you believe that your links demonstrate any increase in the belief in or popularity of creationism at this point in history, as compared to any time in the recent or distant past? Please cut and paste the quote, highlining the comparative sentence or paragraph.
I cannot find a comparative statement or figures anywhere in the links that you posted.
| Dave I think we can agree the trend is going up, down or staying the same. So far I've given evidence it's increasing; and you've given nothing. |
Please cut and paste the "evidence" that you refer to above. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 01/03/2010 15:59:04 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2010 : 09:10:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Filthy, that picture you displayed is very offensive to me, (Im not a subscriber to PC so display as you will, just letting you know that i dont like it)even if it is a modified catholic version. ( im www.hillsong.com ) What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation.
|
Excellent!
In these long and tedious threads, I always try to offend at least one of the participants. You have kept my track record intact -- thank you and well done!
Dave, I'm gonna give him the four-legged grasshopper. After all, the posterior pair are altogether different organs than the anterior four and are used for different primary purposes -- hopping and defense -- and the composers of the Bible were scarcely experts in Natural History.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 01/04/2010 09:11:48 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2010 : 09:49:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
...and the composers of the Bible were scarcely experts in Natural History. |
Except Matt believes the bible is the infallible word of god. The "author of all living things" should be the natural history expert. It is important to highlight such errors because they cast doubt upon the assertion of divine authorship.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2010 : 11:09:00 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
Due to my somewhat spotty attendance record here, I must have missed the thread referencing the "four-legged grasshopper" and it's relevance to evolutionary theory.
Would you mind giving me the reference to the original thread; or better, briefly restating the essence of the discussion that involved the lubber grasshopper, it's legs, and their significance to evolutionary biology? |
|
|
 |
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
