Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
The "opinion" part would be quantifying "almost none". Let me put it otherwise:
The very large majority of scientists with relevant degrees in fields related to evolution, do not find there is a scientific controversy surrounding the theory of evolution.
I'll let you google "project steve" if you think that's opinion.
Evolution does not posit origins.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
Fact; there are about 700 active creationists with scientific credentials in the US (not all of which are in relevant fields; many engineers and doctors), whereas there are about a half-million practicing life scientists for whom the theory of evolution informs/contributes to/directs their daily workload. as a percentage of the workforce, WilliamduBois' "almost none" is an accurate assessment of the situation.
1. To question is not a sin.
2. Doubt is not weakness. I doubt every day and I'll wager that so do you.
3. Changing our mind about a point of origins does not necessarily means death to the immortal soul. This is evidenced by the different orthodox views of origins. For example, YEC vs OEC.
4. It is our belief that the devil generates information that separates God from man, therefore, information should be carefully studied.
5. Knowledge does not come straight from the supernatural. God gave us two revelations, special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (nature). We simply don't automatically discount the supernatural like non believers do.
It is hard to know what fundamentalists / creationists believe because there is so much variety; as you noted, yec /oec for example.
So if question isnt a sin to you, i've heard others say it is.
If doubt isnt a weakness to you, to others it is.
"Changing mind" I had in mind something important like, ok,there is no god after all.
The knowledge from supernatural, i condensed a bit. Fundamentaissts think "knowledtge" can be passed straight down from god. An intellectual approach calls for hard work and reason, just like I said.
As for "automatically discounting" the supernatural, I do discount anything for which there is no evidence. Same as i discount any story of an alien base in the hollow moon.
Believing in something that is undetectable and cannot be shown in any way to exist is not being very intellectual. Its just a leap of faith, and anyone can do that, no thought no reason no intelligence needed.
One might think. Fortunately, the evidence is stable across a very, very broad range of different interpretations of that attribute, from scholastic test scores of numerous varieties, participation in various scholastic fields, admission to prominent universities, eminence of a variety of scientists, mentions in catalogs of noted intellectuals, membership in august organizations and, of course, the traditional IQ test.
There have been dozens of tests on this subject, utilizing a wide variety of metrics and all with the same result.
And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?
I don't think any of them explicitly measured creationism. However, I suspect that few atheists are creationists, and many of them did measure atheism. Also, while belief in God is extraordinarily low amongst eminent scientists, I strongly suspect that creationism is utterly absent. Creationism being a particularly despised subset of belief, I don't think one could reasonably conclude that measuring creationism vs. evolution as a component of these tests would result in anything other than a greater chasm between the relative intelligence of non-believers vs. that of creationists, specifically.
Indeed, creationism does not itself qualify as a scientific theory. Relegating creationism to pure hypothesis, there is no alternative theory to evolution, so far as I am aware.
I do not accept both. Again, you are defining intellectualism by whatever floats your boat. After all, is not like there is only one theory of origins in the scientific community.
There isn't any scientific theory of "origins"; abiogenesis is a field of investigation in its infancy, and doesn't rise to the standard of being a scientific theory by any means. , right back at ya...
Again with the broad brush. I am a creationist. I hold to the OEC view.
So, then... do you find that YEC is factually wrong?
I've noticed this trend in many fundie creationists both where I live and on this board. Is the creationist tactic to dumb down our generation with scientific illiteracy?
In my experience of talking with fundamentalists, I have found that their tendency to polarise debate into two extremes, with no middle ground, seriously inhibits any kind of intellectual consideration of alternative options.
In a sense they are digital people (ie on or off); others are either in or out, black or white, saved or damned, and they seem to have no doubt of their own ability to determine which is which. Fundamentalists KNOW. And in knowing, they have no need to find out any more. The digital approach says we know enough, and we can close this investigation and call it complete. Case closed. Debate over. Pack up and go home.
What education provides, imo, is an understanding that the more we find out, the less we actually can claim to know. Every question answered raises another ten questions, and so we go on, ever deeper into the world and all that it contains. Such behaviour is what I would regard as analogue (ie continuous movement). Not I know and then stop, but I don't know, so I find out, then there is more I don't know, so I find out again, and then there is more I don't know; a continuous flow of learning and asking and learning more.
This questioning is mistakenly taken for uncertainty, when actually it isn't. The certainty is in the search, and in never being satisfied that now we know enough, and need not find out more.
Therefore is in the interest of creationists to inhibit the asking of questions and the finding of answers. Every new set of data requires a new layer to the ego defenses surrounding their own existing, but buried, doubts, and that entails a lot of hard work.
__________________
A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench.
Isaiah 42:3
Last edited by Catherineanne; 2nd July 2009 at 02:21 PM.
It is hard to know what fundamentalists / creationists believe because there is so much variety; as you noted, yec /oec for example.
Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.
So if question isnt a sin to you, i've heard others say it is.
So have I.
If doubt isnt a weakness to you, to others it is.
I am yet to fully understand human pride.
"Changing mind" I had in mind something important like, ok,there is no god after all.
Many have.
The knowledge from supernatural, i condensed a bit. Fundamentaissts think "knowledtge" can be passed straight down from god. An intellectual approach calls for hard work and reason, just like I said.
I don't agree with you here since origins is yet to be proven by either camp. Both merely have theories.
As for "automatically discounting" the supernatural, I do discount anything for which there is no evidence. Same as i discount any story of an alien base in the hollow moon.
You can prove that there is not an alien base in the hollow moon.
Believing in something that is undetectable and cannot be shown in any way to exist is not being very intellectual. Its just a leap of faith, and anyone can do that, no thought no reason no intelligence needed.
All theories eventually amount to an interpretation of data which amounts to a leap. Some use the judicial model of reasonable doubt. There is no difference of quantifiable intellect.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?
This is not about "intellectual capacity" if by that you mean intelligence.
This is what "intellectual" means...
Definitions of intellectual on the Web:
of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
a person who uses the mind creatively
cerebral: involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"
An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons.
There is nothing "rational" about faith, or OEC for that matter.
It isnt necessary to be lack intellectual capacity to believe in such things, its just necessary to avoid thinking too hard. The appeal is to the emotions, not to intellect.
I don't think any of them explicitly measured creationism. However, I suspect that few atheists are creationists, and many of them did measure atheism. Also, while belief in God is extraordinarily low amongst eminent scientists, I strongly suspect that creationism is utterly absent. Creationism being a particularly despised subset of belief, I don't think one could reasonably conclude that measuring creationism vs. evolution as a component of these tests would result in anything other than a greater chasm between the relative intelligence of non-believers vs. that of creationists, specifically.
You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....
Indeed, creationism does not itself qualify as a scientific theory. Relegating creationism to pure hypothesis, there is no alternative theory to evolution, so far as I am aware.
Evolution does not posit origins.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
There isn't any scientific theory of "origins"; abiogenesis is a field of investigation in its infancy, and doesn't rise to the standard of being a scientific theory by any means. 
Linear Mode
