Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support

topic posted Thu, January 29, 2009 - 1:53 PM by  Dan
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
There is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support in the United States.[103] The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.[103] In January 2006, the BBC reported the following in respect to Britain:

“ Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.[104]

www.conservapedia.com/Atheism..._Support
posted by:
Dan
offline Dan
Indiana
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • We see similar numbers for belief in things like Bigfoot, Nessie and UFOs.

    Do they become true because enough people believe in them. If 40% believe are they 40% true? How about 80%?

    All this shows is the poor quality of science education in this country.
    • Dan
      Dan
      offline 8
      "All this shows is the poor quality of science education in this country."

      If there is one area in public education where the secularists have done a pretty good job it is in the area of evolutionary indoctrination. It is literally force feed to kids from tv, movies, music, school and even in some churches. Americans by and large still reject it for the same reasons the Russians rejected atheism, it makes no sense.
  • Which is why public support is not a factor in the scientific process.

    If public support is any indicator, the writers of "friends" are better than Shakespeare...
    • Dan
      Dan
      offline 8
      again, I did not offer this information as proof for Creation. Both sides of this issue are concerned about public support and have reason to be concerned when that support is seen to be eroding. Neither side will likely abandon their position regardless of popular opinion. Yet it is still interesting to note the erosion of support for evolution inspite of persistant indoctrination from youth to adulthood in evolutionary faith. It is unreasonable to assume that this erosion is due to:

      1). lack of education. As I have pointed out, there is no lack of education in evolutionary dogma. Evolution fills our culture. Furthermore, everyone agrees that the UK is far more secular than is the U.S. and the church there is very weak with very few in attendance. Yet even there molecules to man evolution is not all that popular.

      2) the Existance of a few Creationist organizations. Very few churched people even know of these organizations. AIG is better known and its creation museum is in the media, but reletively few have been affected by their publications, museum etc.

      It appears that the evidence FOR evolution is the reason for rejecting its assumptions. The evidence is unconvincing and patently unreasonable to most people. Understanding the arguments better doesn't help. You need to be a true believer to "see it". One can understand why a hard core anti-theist like yourself Grim might "see it", but my conversations with you make it clear to me that you have only a rudimentary understanding of the theory yourself. You are less of an "expert" than I am. Joe isn't even on the charts, he just a "believer". Rene is the only person here who has some background on the subject, and I have been holding my own with him for years now. The issue is that no matter what evidences are advanced or how much you look into this theory, you cannot help but see it is a house of cards. An elaborate fairy tale built on a straw foundation. Real evolution scientists are well aware of this fact and always have been. Novices are unaware that the "mountains of overwhelming evidence" for evolution, doesn't exist at all.
      • >>"As I have pointed out, there is no lack of education in evolutionary dogma. Evolution fills our culture."<<

        The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to teach evolutionary theory in U.S. public schools. This is because a sizable and vocal minority with strong religious views on the matter cause problems for teachers when they do. To avoid conflict, biology teachers steer away from really discussing evolution and stick to more basic biology. My wife is a teacher. She has taught biology in high school and now is teaching science in an elementary school. I believe she can attest to the fact that students in grades 1-12 for the most part receive almost no real grounding in evolutionary theory and are essentially ignorant of this very important aspect of biology. The universities, of course, do a much better job, but this affects only a small number of students; those that end up majoring in biology.

        I agree that in the culture at large what science has learned filters out, but this filtering out does not supply anyone with the available data that supports evolution, nor does it teach them how to properly interpret this data, as a result they really don't grasp the full range of observational data that make the theory of evolution incontrovertible to scientists. Also, they are exposed to the various lies that creationists taut such as "there are no transitional fossils", when there are in fact thousands along with all the other perverse arguments of creationists which real scientists have refuted over and over to no apparent effect. The net result of this could be the decline in knowledge about evolution seems to make you so happy, Dan. It is in fact, however quite sad that religion should ever conflict with science and that religion seems to be causing a decline in our country's ability to do good science. You seem to be one of those at the forefront of this decline and you ought to be ashamed, Dan particularly since you apparently once aspired to be a scientist or a teacher of science.
        • Dan
          Dan
          offline 8
          In my own experience growing up I would agree that evolution was not taught well. It was in my college years that I came to understand it fully and heard the arguments for it (all of which have been discredited such as peppared moths, recapitulation, ape men etc....). But If you had asked me if I believe in evolution in high school or even at the beginning of my college years you would have heard me say "yes, of course because it is a fact of science". Of course I was not so foolish as to think that this somehow invalidated biblical theism.

          In todays world, teachers must teach from carefully crafted curriculums. And I can tell you that they adequately cover evolution theory, at least in the school in which I taught. I am in favor of teaching evolution and teaching it well. Evolution does not become more convincing with greater scrutiny Rene, it becomes more downright foolish.

          By the time the average person goes through the public school system, he is far more exposed to evolution than to Genesis. Even if he doesn't go on to college. I have spoken to many college freshman who somehow feel that evolution has disproved the bible. But if you get down to the details you will find that what they have learned are the discredited "facts" of evolution which everyone knows are discredited but somehow forgot to take out of the textbooks.

          In my experience, few knew any of the arguments of the creationists. I only discovered them quite by accident while browsing a campus bookstore. Dr. John Moore was a science professor and creationist who taught an origins class with an evolutionist. I never took the class, but did read two of the texts for the class. These two textbooks changed my life. One of "The Creation/Evolution Controversy" by R.L Wysong. This is still an excellent book but somewhat out of date. Evolutionist Dr. Patterson also found the book to be very informative which may explain why he became a little more honest when talking about the evidences for evolution in the fossil record. He knew the case was very weak, and unlike you, was honest enough to admit it, in print.

          I am at the forefront of no decline in science interest. I love science and what science has brought to the world through operational science. I respect the great scientists of the past and present. I never aspired to be a scientist however, I aspired to teach science to high schoolers. My aspiration was to be a wildlife biologist at one time, but that vision faded as I came to graduation and readlized that there were no jobs.

          I am happy to know that many people still reject evolution inspite decades of attempts to re-educated and brainwash students at all levels and by all means possible. This gives me hope. I certainly hope we don't reach a day when the vast majority of people embrace the naturalism and corresponding godlessness and faithlessness such as you espouse. This would sadden me greatly as I know the result is the destruction of the human soul.
          • >>"I am in favor of teaching evolution and teaching it well."<<

            That is good, Dan, we agree on one thing. I suggest that you begin by teaching yourself. Your ignoring most of the facts is not a good beginning though. I suggest that you begin by going down to the creek and studying the fossils there. Ask yourself every question you can about them and try to fit them into a valid model. The model you have fails to explain any of it to any degree whatsoever.

            >>"I love science"<<

            This is a transparent lie, Dan. You hate science, scientists and everything that science has learned in last 300 years. This is the only way you can buy into your YEC BS.
            • Dan
              Dan
              offline 8
              I have been to the creek many times Rene. And I puzzle over why some many bivalves died with their mouths shut under the uniformitarian assumptions you hold to. I puzzle why the fossils I do find are marine, when I live in the middle of the continent. And i puzzle as to why there are so many of these critters, all piled in one place. Of course all of these facts are answered in Genesis 6.

              Actually Rene, I do love science and what science has brought to the world. You only love science as long as it confirms your absurd world view, then you throw out the rest, ignoring the laws of science whenever necessary. My YEC beliefs are not strictly speaking, science. Neither are your molecules to man beliefs. These are models of science, world views to hang information on. I am very satisfied with its explanatory power. In the last century, science learned how to make tons of metal fly with hundreds of people in it. I don't hate this, i think it is very cool. Two Centuries ago science learned how to take the energy stored in steam, coal and oil to make machines move and do work, also cool. I don't hate this or any other scientific discovery. You are just upset because I reject your unsupported world view of the unobservable past. This is not science Rene.
              • >>"the unobservable past"<<

                The past is right under feet, Dan. It is the most easily observable thing in our world. This is what the science of Geology is all about. It is funny that you think Geology is not science. Making airplanes is not science; It is engineering, so you have pretty much proved by this last post that my earlier statements are essentially correct.
              • >>"My YEC beliefs are not strictly speaking, science. Neither are your molecules to man beliefs."< <

                Your YEC beliefs are plain and simple a religious faith without any basis. They are shown by scientific facts to be completely in error. I have no "beliefs" about molecules to man. Science does clearly demonstrate the evolution of life from simple to more complex forms over time, showing us the processes that have led to this. The origin of life is a problem yet to be addressed by any fully valid theory, but of course it makes the most sense to stick with known materials and processes in trying to explain this origin, rather than conjecture they are the result of unknown and perhaps unknowable processes. Trying to work within a reasonable framework, is not a "belief", rather it is simply my preferred methodology.
      • Dan: One can understand why a hard core anti-theist like yourself Grim might "see it", but my conversations with you make it clear to me that you have only a rudimentary understanding of the theory yourself. You are less of an "expert" than I am.


        Now that is funny. You are arguably far more versed in the parts of evolutionary theory that come most under attack from creationists. I am only passingly interested in a portion of these specific subjects. I try to rebut what seems obvious to me, but my heart isn't in it. It is interesting, but I have limited time and tend to focus elsewhere when the subject seems comfortably resolved to me.

        There are, however, specific evolutionary subjects that I study in depth. In these limited areas I debate more aggressively. If I thought you would benefit from it, and not waste my time, I would put effort into responses concerning these subjects.

Recent topics in "Evolution/Creation Debate"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Science’s Breakthrough of the Year: Uncovering “Ardi” offlineJoe 3 Yesterday, 11:44 AM
RDF TV - Baloney Detection Kit - Michael Shermer offlineJoe 12 December 18, 2009
Moderator? offlineJoe 6 December 18, 2009
Is Evolution counter Intuitive? Dan 4 December 18, 2009