I had a feeling there would be snide comments about the 'source'.
It's a Gallup Poll.
I think the methodology is sound enough:
Not snide but relevant. To be fair it does not appear to be a tabloid but rather a liberal blog. Does not itself invalidate the source but makes one ask if they won't overemphasize what supports their view. I draw attention to this:
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
What should be asked is what people choose to identify as creationism. Could be young earth for some, evolution of animals but not of humans for others, and even evolution of everything but with God pre-planning and starting it. Why I said it's probably a divided combination of these which makes "literal biblical creationism" something that's hard to define.
One of the great things about Wikipedia, is that most of the claims made are referenced, so you can verify these claims for yourself, if you doubt them (or in your case, simply assert that Wikipedia 'is not proof').
This:
Is an excerpt from the Discovery Institute's
Wedge Document.
An enlightening read, it is, as is
this.
As has probably been said a million times if wikipedia is so well referenced then it would make more sense to use those references or better yet the original references.
I accept your points but have you considered what it means. Modern science has taken on convictions contrary to its goal where it's trying to prove (and failing) a materialistic reality with preconceived notions of what conclusions may be drawn rather than following the evidence. The piece you seem to have an issue with could indicate a return to the previous theistic convictions of some Christian scientists that brought us some of the best advances in science, because unlike some of todays scientists they did NOT have any preconceived ideas except finding the truth.
That's however not the issue. Discovery Institute grabs all the media attention but Intelligent Design ≠ Discovery Institute.
I don't really know how to respond the your claim that evolution advocacy has an anti-religious motivation, to be honest, so what I'll do is ask for proof of this outrageous claim. It is true that it seems that among the science educated population, there is less religion although their lack of religion is generally not a motivation for their opinions, it is a result of their education and investigations. You will also see many religious scientists, who take no issue with evolution at all, as there is no inherent conflict between evolution and (non YEC) religion.
On the other hand, I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of examples of non-religious scientists who deny evolution, which is why the article in the OP made such a fuss about Raoult's alleged (and incorrect)
'denial' of evolution.
Similarly I can ask where is the proof that ID has a religious motivation. I said anti-religious motivation. Though it's anti- some religions I should have actually said religious motivation. I'm not arguing ID here as one extreme can never counter another. It's bad science because its premiss is to prove design and evolution's bad science because its premiss is to prove a materialistic origins. BOTH pre-exclude the evidence that contradicts the premiss.
There is certainly a controversy (although limited in scope and consistent in its religious underpinnings). The thing is, it's a manufactured one, as the
Wedge Document makes rather shockingly clear.
Unless you cherry pick your scientists it's very much a real controversy. This ties in with my question. His own colleague thinks it gives ammunition to creationists because the contradicting evidence is real. It also stems from the fact as many have admitted that there's a prerequisite to ignore evidence that does not fit with the premiss as above.
I must just point out that the statement I was replying to implied that evolution is 'largely' advocated due to anti-religious motivations, which is simply not true.
I would agree that a scientist who insists on evolution precluding god is incorrect, but it's not that cut and dried in practice, as religious people, and religious organizations are constantly attempting to shoehorn their belief systems into the framework of their science and often these discussions take place reactively in the context of this inappropriate merging of ideas.
See
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller's_error_summary.pdf
Judge Jones erred by using an exclusive rather than an inclusive definition of religion. He used the popular definition instead of the legal one. The question should not have been what's science but what's religion. To satisfy non-discrimination the legal definition includes both theistic religions and non-theistic ones like Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and Atheism. It defines religion as beliefs about God and "matters of ultimate concern." This definition includes the cause of life and how it's related to our world.
Contrary to the claim you don't have freedom from religion but freedom
of religion. There's no guarantee religion won't be taught but if it is it will be for a secular reason and balanced without favouring one religion over another. If it was simply teaching that life evolves there won't be an issue but it teaches origin without a purpose and even a materialist origin in some textbooks. If Jones had used the legal definition he would have not just found that it was correct to teach religion but legally required to balance out the religion it had already taught religion.
Luckily this won't be an issue any more with academic freedom bills gaining momentum.
Sign up with Google