Are these data showing that creationism is hurting Christianity?

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

Papias wrote:

Can you show a TE here who has said as much?

But to hold a false hermeneutic on scriptures here in order to justify naturalistic assumptions and conclusions can erode the credibility of interpretations and lead to misunderstandings else where in scripture.

In other words, you can't point to a TE here who has said that evolution is a core doctrine.

The most important part of the doctrine of Creation is the acceptance of God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.

Right, which us TE's affirm at least as strongly as the creationists.

This really proves nothing at all and a closer analysis would be needed of all these correlations and would be unlikely to yield much that would be truly helpful.

Well, sure. I was pointing out that you said that creationism led to stronger spirituality, and the direct data seems to say that exact opposite. I'm wondering what you based your statement on.

My view is that the more closely the church models Jesus Christ to the world- the more powerful its witness but so also the more powerful the reactions against it. So good and evil both become more intense. Since this battle extends into the lives of Christian believers I would expect the most interesting and dangerous activity to be going on the fringes of the Christian community e.g. with new converts or people just about to convert or with nominal Christians who suddenly have their faiths tested by some real pain. Since creationism is not an essential doctrine of the Christian faith I doubt if it is a significant factor here. The top reasons for murder would probably include domestic arguments, money, love, drugs, alcohol, food, housing, and revenge.

Oh, now I see what your statement was based on. It was based on your own inner philosphophy. While your own musings are good to think about, they are no substitute for real data when we discuss what is real in the real world.

I wasn't saying that creationism is a main cause for murder, promiscuity, rape, abortion, and all that. I was merely pointing out that your statement that creationism gives stronger spirituality seems to be contradicted by the data from the real world.

Statisticians could never measure this in practice cause they would never agree on what constituted a genuine or mature Christian.

I hope we aren't going to get into Mark's "Christianer than Thou" approach.....

But notice that the survey's didn't ask if someone was Christian. They asked if they were creationist, and I think if someone says they are a creationist, then they are are a genuine creationist, right? Are you saying that there are millions of evilutionists who are saying they are creationist on surveys just so that their higher rates of immoral behavior count towards creationists in the data on country after country?

Again, you stated that creationism gives a stronger spirituality, while the data seems to suggest that creationism is correlated with all kinds of immoral behavior. You can see the data in the links I posted for abortions, teen pregnancy, and on and on. For instance, here, I'll toss in the data for teens with 2 or more sexual partners (sexual promiscuity)


Country .............Murder Rate.......% Creationist......Teen % with 2+ Sex Partners
.....................................................................(Teen Sexual Promiscuity)
US ................ 6.8.........................40....................50%
France ..........1.6............................18...................20
Britain ......... 2................................25...................35
Canada ........1.8..............................22.................. 31
Sweden ........ 2.7...........................18.....................38

Again, the worst behavior is seen in the countries with the most creationists. After seeing this for so many other immoral behaviors, as mentioned above, are you really saying this is just chance? It seems more likely that common causal factors are invovled, which doesn't match with your statement that creationism leads to stronger spiritualities.

Papias

P. S. In more data sugguesting that (going back to the OP) creationism hurts Christianity, is the recent news that the son of the famous creationist Michael Behe just announced that he's an atheist. At this link.

 

[mindlight]

Well, sure. I was pointing out that you said that creationism led to stronger spirituality, and the direct data seems to say that exact opposite. I'm wondering what you based your statement on.

Creationism started to be displaced from the mainstream consciousness of the church at about the same time as a general decline in the Western church is what I would base this on.

Oh, now I see what your statement was based on. It was based on your own inner philosphophy. While your own musings are good to think about, they are no substitute for real data when we discuss what is real in the real world.

I wasn't saying that creationism is a main cause for murder, promiscuity, rape, abortion, and all that. I was merely pointing out that your statement that creationism gives stronger spirituality seems to be contradicted by the data from the real world.

The most regular church attenders are less likely to believe Evolution than those who do not go. So evolution seems to be the product of a lax faith rather than a vigourous one.

The Lead

The rise of evolutionary theory can be related to a drop in church attendance in most countries where it is prevalent.

Again, you stated that creationism gives a stronger spirituality, while the data seems to suggest that creationism is correlated with all kinds of immoral behavior. You can see the data in the links I posted for abortions, teen pregnancy, and on and on. For instance, here, I'll toss in the data for teens with 2 or more sexual partners (sexual promiscuity)


Country .............Murder Rate.......% Creationist......Teen % with 2+ Sex Partners
.....................................................................(Teen Sexual Promiscuity)
US ................ 6.8.........................40....................50%
France ..........1.6............................18...................20
Britain ......... 2................................25...................35
Canada ........1.8..............................22.................. 31
Sweden ........ 2.7...........................18.....................38

Again, the worst behavior is seen in the countries with the most creationists. After seeing this for so many other immoral behaviors, as mentioned above, are you really saying this is just chance? It seems more likely that common causal factors are invovled, which doesn't match with your statement that creationism leads to stronger spiritualities.

Papias

P. S. In more data sugguesting that (going back to the OP) creationism hurts Christianity, is the recent news that the son of the famous creationist Michael Behe just announced that he's an atheist. At this link.

The most significant hurt to Christianity would be that people stopped worshipping the true God. the most significant features of spirituality relate to ones relationship with the divine. There is a relationship between the decline in committment e.g. church attendance and the rise of evolutionary belief. Rape and Murder are trivial compared to that as the story of King David illustrates well and the data is inconclusive anyway.

 

[ServantJohn]

I don't see how percentages show a defection of creationists to atheism. There doesn't need to be any decrease in actual numbers of creationists for a percentage to change like that. Evolution is being marketed much more than creationism. There is no evidence that creationism is pushing people toward atheism. As people are growing up being fed evolution from pre-K, they are tending to embrace that view much more than creationism which many know very little about.

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Well, sure. I was pointing out that you said that creationism led to stronger spirituality, and the direct data seems to say that exact opposite. I'm wondering what you based your statement on.

Creationism started to be displaced from the mainstream consciousness of the church at about the same time as a general decline in the Western church is what I would base this on.

​

Except that again, the data doesn't seem to support that. Here are some dates:


(Note that before 1800, YEC didn't require one to reject evidence, the best evidence we had then didn't argue against YEC)

1830, Christians, using science, disproved flood geology and established an old age of the Earth
....(Western Christianity still strong, even though a young earth is thoroughly rejected)
....
1859 Darwin introduces the idea of evolution by natural selection
....
.... ...
....

1920 Evolution (by NS) accepted among those who have seen the data, & taught in schools (note- scopes trial, 1925).
.....
1950 (Western Christianity still strong, % Christians in US are ~90%)
...
1961 Morris and evidence denying creationism: based on his publication of a book advocating the long rejected idea of flood geology, and denying the evidence for evolution.

1972 Morris founds the Institute for Creation Research, and begins a movement for YEC, by denying evidence.

1975 (% Christian in US is ~90%)

1985 (% Christian in US is 81%)

1989 Intelligent design creationism introduced by creationists

2000 (% Christian in US is 79%)


It seems to me that the data shows that modern, evidence denying creationism causing the fleeing of Christianity fits the data much better. After all, evolution and an old earth were around for generations before Christianity began to decline, but when creationism started, then Christianity declined. You don't have to take my word for it, here's the data:


Tracking U.S. Religious Preferences Over the Decades



​

The most regular church attenders are less likely to believe Evolution than those who do not go. So evolution seems to be the product of a lax faith rather than a vigourous one.The Lead

I checked you link, and it only is based on if people say they went to church. Data that is based on actual church attendence has found that in the US, where creationism is the highest, the church attendance is actually as low as Europe, but that Americans lie, saying they went to church, when in fact they didn't. So your own data is showing that creationism leads not to people who attend church, but rather to people who lie about about going to church. Here's a link about the study, you don't have to take my word for it. Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are? - By Shankar Vedantam - Slate Magazine

So the data (including your data) shows that creationism is correlated with lying, murder, rape, promiscuity, and not with higher church attendance.

The rise of evolutionary theory can be related to a drop in church attendance in most countries where it is prevalent.

As we saw above, the countries with more creationists appear to have more people lying about going to church, but not more people actually going to church, at least using US data. Plus, as we saw above, the % of Christians did not drop when Evolution arrived, but rather dropped when evidence denying creationism arose. That's all based on the data.

Country .............Murder Rate.......% Creationist......Teen % with 2+ Sex Partners
.....................................................................(Teen Sexual Promiscuity)
US ................ 6.8.........................40....................50%
France ..........1.6............................18...................20
Britain ......... 2................................25...................35
Canada ........1.8..............................22.................. 31
Sweden ........ 2.7...........................18.....................38

Again, the worst behavior is seen in the countries with the most creationists. ....
Papias

The most significant hurt to Christianity would be that people stopped worshipping the true God. the most significant features of spirituality relate to ones relationship with the divine.

And I would take it that worshipping the true God would involve actually going to church, not just lying about doing so, right?

There is a relationship between the decline in committment e.g. church attendance and the rise of evolutionary belief.

As we saw from the timeline, the drop in committment to Christianity didn't happen right after evolution became accepted, but rather happened right after evidence denying creationism appeared.

Rape and Murder are trivial compared to that as the story of King David illustrates well and the data is inconclusive anyway.

Agreed.

Papias
​

 

[Papias]

John wrote:

I don't see how percentages show a defection of creationists to atheism. There doesn't need to be any decrease in actual numbers of creationists for a percentage to change like that.

So you are saying that the 44 to 40% is just noise. OK, that may well be true (after all that's the very question I'm unsure about in the OP). So we'll just have to wait for the next year of data to see.

I will go out on a limb and predict that it will continue to drop, causing the % atheists to rise, simply because I've seen so many Creationists abandon Christianity because they were told one had to be creationist to be Christian.

Evolution is being marketed much more than creationism. ... and...As people are growing up being fed evolution from pre-K, they are tending to embrace that view much more than creationism which many know very little about.

It seems to me that creationism is being marketed much more. After all, there is creation moments, a nationwide, daily radio show that pushes creationism (and there is no radio show that pushes evolution), there is the whole homeschooling movement, which is all creationist, many churches and ministries are heavily into promoting creationism (see answers in genesis and many more), and remember that there are literally hundreds of thousands of churches in the United states, many preaching creationism (including in sunday school for the kids).

Selling creationism materials is multi-billion dollar industry.

What is marketing evolution? It's true that evolution is taught in college biology departments (and used extensively by medical and other scientists), but the fraction of kids who go there is tiny, and the evolution stuff is mostly using it in research, as opposed to selling (often scientifically false) literature.

There is no evidence that creationism is pushing people toward atheism.

Well, maybe, maybe not. All I have is seeing it happen time and again where a Christian is told they have to be creationist to be christian, find that creationism is false, and think they have to leave Christianity as a result, plus the unclear data in the OP. I guess we'll see what the next set of data says.

Blessings-

-Papias

 

[ServantJohn]

So you are saying that the 44 to 40% is just noise. OK, that may well be true (after all that's the very question I'm unsure about in the OP). So we'll just have to wait for the next year of data to see.

Not even close. Say you have 100 people and all of them believe in creationism. The amount of people believing in creationism is 100%. The next year you have 110 people with 105 believing in creationism and 5 believing in evolution. Now you have about 4.5% evolutionists and 95.5% creationists. Did people defect?

I will go out on a limb and predict that it will continue to drop, causing the % atheists to rise, simply because I've seen so many Creationists abandon Christianity because they were told one had to be creationist to be Christian.

I have never seen a single person told that they had to be creationist to be a Christian.

It seems to me that creationism is being marketed much more. After all, there is creation moments, a nationwide, daily radio show that pushes creationism (and there is no radio show that pushes evolution), there is the whole homeschooling movement, which is all creationist, many churches and ministries are heavily into promoting creationism (see answers in genesis and many more), and remember that there are literally hundreds of thousands of churches in the United states, many preaching creationism (including in sunday school for the kids).

Seriously? Creation Moments is a tiny little drop in the bucket compared to all of the shows on Animal Planet alone. Add to that the fact that only 2.9% of school aged children were home schooled in 2007. Not all were taught creation but I will conceed most probably were. That's 97.1% being taught evolution regularly in public and private schools (some private schools may teach creation) and only 2.9% learning about creationism to any significant degree.

Selling creationism materials is multi-billion dollar industry.

Selling evolution materials is a trillion dollar industry. Walk down the toy isle at Wal-Mart and compare the creation material with the evolution material. Oh wait, you won't find any creation material.

What is marketing evolution? It's true that evolution is taught in college biology departments (and used extensively by medical and other scientists), but the fraction of kids who go there is tiny, and the evolution stuff is mostly using it in research, as opposed to selling (often scientifically false) literature.

Come on. You are much smarter than that. Your post made you look extremely biased. You threw out all of the evidence and said what you felt would make your case. Isn't that was evolutionists keep claiming about creationists?

Well, maybe, maybe not. All I have is seeing it happen time and again where a Christian is told they have to be creationist to be christian, find that creationism is false, and think they have to leave Christianity as a result, plus the unclear data in the OP. I guess we'll see what the next set of data says.

Blessings-

-Papias

Again, I have never met a single person who was told that they had to be creationist to be a Christian. I'm not sure where that is being taught but would like a single piece of evidence to substantiate - youtube video or something?

Papias, I don't think that you are intentionally misleading, but you need to check your post again. Your arguments are not even close to reality which leads me to believe you may have a root of bitterness tainting your perception. I don't say that condemningly but out of love.

May His will be done,
John

 

[mindlight]

Except that again, the data doesn't seem to support that. Here are some dates

(Note that before 1800, YEC didn't require one to reject evidence, the best evidence we had then didn't argue against YEC)

1830, Christians, using science, disproved flood geology and established an old age of the Earth
....(Western Christianity still strong, even though a young earth is thoroughly rejected)
....
1859 Darwin introduces the idea of evolution by natural selection
....
.... ...
....

1920 Evolution (by NS) accepted among those who have seen the data, & taught in schools (note- scopes trial, 1925).
.....
1950 (Western Christianity still strong, % Christians in US are ~90%)
...
1961 Morris and evidence denying creationism: based on his publication of a book advocating the long rejected idea of flood geology, and denying the evidence for evolution.

1972 Morris founds the Institute for Creation Research, and begins a movement for YEC, by denying evidence.

1975 (% Christian in US is ~90%)

1985 (% Christian in US is 81%)

1989 Intelligent design creationism introduced by creationists

2000 (% Christian in US is 79%)​

The numbers get contradicted by the link below which shows the % of Christians declining from 93% in 1948 when evolution was a peripheral idea for most Christians to 74% in 2004 when a great many of them had bought into it.

It seems to me that the data shows that modern, evidence denying creationism causing the fleeing of Christianity fits the data much better. After all, evolution and an old earth were around for generations before Christianity began to decline, but when creationism started, then Christianity declined. You don't have to take my word for it, here's the data:


Tracking U.S. Religious Preferences Over the Decades

Also you seem to forget that Creationism has been the default position of the church for most of its history and of Judaism before it. Even the Alexandrian allegorists believed in a young earth and mankind specially created by God but held to an instantaneous view of this. It is the idea of an old earth and evolution that is new here. Also until about the 40s it was not significant for most Christians hence the easy victory in the Scopes trial 1925 for instance. It was an intellectual elite that had bought into the theory before then not the Christian masses.

I checked you link, and it only is based on if people say they went to church. Data that is based on actual church attendence has found that in the US, where creationism is the highest, the church attendance is actually as low as Europe, but that Americans lie, saying they went to church, when in fact they didn't. So your own data is showing that creationism leads not to people who attend church, but rather to people who lie about about going to church. Here's a link about the study, you don't have to take my word for it. Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are? - By Shankar Vedantam - Slate Magazine

So the data (including your data) shows that creationism is correlated with lying, murder, rape, promiscuity, and not with higher church attendance.



As we saw above, the countries with more creationists appear to have more people lying about going to church, but not more people actually going to church, at least using US data. Plus, as we saw above, the % of Christians did not drop when Evolution arrived, but rather dropped when evidence denying creationism arose. That's all based on the data.

And I would take it that worshipping the true God would involve actually going to church, not just lying about doing so, right?



As we saw from the timeline, the drop in committment to Christianity didn't happen right after evolution became accepted, but rather happened right after evidence denying creationism appeared.
​

No again the theory of evolution was not widely accepted in 1948. I used to be a religious education teacher and once compared the 1948 curriculum in the UK to a more recent one. It showed a shocking decline in quality when it came to Christian content. In 48 it was totally supportive of the notion of a Christian country and taught Genesis as in the Bible by the late 80s religious pluralism and less historically mainstream Christian viewpoints were being taught on an equal level breeding a culture of relativism in Britains school kids .

Creationism is the old established view of the church. YEC as you understand it appears to be the attempt to justify this position scientifically which was hardly necessary before the 1940s for the vast mass of Christians. The battles since then have occurred because of the growing numbers of TEs in mature Christian communities. You and the surveys you quote are misreading the phenomena because of these mistakes in definition, historical understanding and the ways in which you read this evidence.

 

[Papias]

John wrote:

Not even close. Say you have 100 people and all of them believe in creationism. The amount of people believing in creationism is 100%. The next year you have 110 people with 105 believing in creationism and 5 believing in evolution. Now you have about 4.5% evolutionists and 95.5% creationists. Did people defect?

Being that the sample pool is the United States (and assuming the statistical sampling is a representative as Gallup claims it to be), new people are a small percentage year to year. Thus people changing their minds is significant, though deaths and those reaching age 18 is also. I agree that both are significant, mainly due to the age demographics angle.

I have never seen a single person told that they had to be creationist to be a Christian.

Fair enough. Our experiences differ. That's why anecdotal evidence is worthless I guess.

Seriously? Creation Moments is a tiny little drop in the bucket compared to all of the shows on Animal Planet alone.

I haven't seen the shows on animal planet ever describing and rarely even mentioning evolution. Have you? Remember that seeing animals doesn't argue for either.

And why is creation moments insignificant? It is nationwide, available to all creationist parents (about half of all parents), and put on specifically just before kids are going to school, so the parents can play it to their kids every day.

Add to that the fact that only 2.9% of school aged children were home schooled in 2007. Not all were taught creation but I will conceed most probably were.

OK, a small percentage. We can ignore it.

That's 97.1% being taught evolution regularly in public and private schools (some private schools may teach creation)

Except they aren't. Here in America we rarely teach kids evolution in schools. Heck, most states not only don't require it, but their education standards don't even mention it (see map below). The public school teachers I've talked with say that it's generally avoided to avoid trouble even here in michigan, where it is supposed to be required.

and only 2.9% learning about creationism to any significant degree.

I would think that with about half of all parents being creationists, that a lot of kids are taught it to a significant degree by their parents - after all, that's who we learn the most from, right?

That's not even to mention churches, where some pastors preach creationism, and sunday schools, which often teach creationism (what percentage of kids go to church or sunday school?), and independent creation based ministries, like Answers in Gensis, who have curricula, activities, monthly creationist kids magazines, and so on.

Originally Posted by Papias

Selling creationism materials is multi-billion dollar industry.

​

Selling evolution materials is a trillion dollar industry. Walk down the toy isle at Wal-Mart and compare the creation material with the evolution material. Oh wait, you won't find any creation material.

I have kids and do walk down those aisles all the time. They have plenty of stuff about animals, but practically none of it supports either evolution or creation, with the rare exception of a Noah's ark item. What kinds of items were you specifically thinking of? I probably saw them. Help jog my memory.....

Originally Posted by Papias What is marketing evolution? It's true that evolution is taught in college biology departments (and used extensively by medical and other scientists), but the fraction of kids who go there is tiny, and the evolution stuff is mostly using it in research, as opposed to selling (often scientifically false) literature.

Come on. You are much smarter than that. Your post made you look extremely biased. You threw out all of the evidence and said what you felt would make your case. Isn't that was evolutionists keep claiming about creationists?


​

Whoa, sorry. I didn't mean to sound biased. Could you help me by pointing out what evidence I'm throwing out? I tried to give specific examples of points I raised, like creation moments and answers in Genesis. I don't mean to offend.

Originally Posted by Papias

Well, maybe, maybe not. All I have is seeing it happen time and again where a Christian is told they have to be creationist to be christian, find that creationism is false, and think they have to leave Christianity as a result, plus the unclear data in the OP. I guess we'll see what the next set of data says.

Blessings-

-Papias

Again, I have never met a single person who was told that they had to be creationist to be a Christian. I'm not sure where that is being taught but would like a single piece of evidence to substantiate - youtube video or something?
​

As before, it looks like our experiences differ. You may find some creationists here on this board claiming you have to be creationist to be Christian. Either way, I don't doubt your experience,and chaulk up our different experiences to the uselessness of ancedotal evidence.

Papias, I don't think that you are intentionally misleading, but you need to check your post again. Your arguments are not even close to reality which leads me to believe you may have a root of bitterness tainting your perception. I don't say that condemningly but out of love.

May His will be done,
John

I'm sorry you sensed bitterness, as that was not my intent. Could you help point out areas where my arguments are not even close to reality? That would be especially useful in cases where you can point to data to show they are false. I'm happy to correct errors I've made - that's how I learn. Thanks-

Papias

 

[Papias]

Mindlight wrote:

The numbers get contradicted by the link below which shows the % of Christians declining from 93% in 1948 when evolution was a peripheral idea for most Christians to 74% in 2004 when a great many of them had bought into it.

The numbers are actual poll data, while your idea that Christians didn't care about origins in '48, but did in 2004 is worth checking out. Do you have actual data on that? The huge uproar in 1860 over Darwin's book, and quotes like this:

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Suggest that Christians indeed did care about origins through the last 200 years, so I don't see a basis for your assertion that they didn't care about evolution until recently.

It seems to me that the data shows that modern, evidence denying creationism causing the fleeing of Christianity fits the data much better. After all, evolution and an old earth were around for generations before Christianity began to decline, but when creationism started, then Christianity declined. You don't have to take my word for it, here's the data:


Tracking U.S. Religious Preferences Over the Decades

Also you seem to forget that Creationism has been the default position of the church for most of its history and of Judaism before it. Even the Alexandrian allegorists believed in a young earth and mankind specially created by God but held to an instantaneous view of this. It is the idea of an old earth and evolution that is new here.

No, I didn't forget that. I explicitly stated that view at the start of the timeline, as you can see by looking there. My point was that this old creationist view wasn't damaging because it wasn't evidence denying, while the bringing back of the old creationist idea in the 60's required the denial of evidence, and so that is what did, and still is, hurting Christianity.

Also until about the 40s it was not significant for most Christians hence the easy victory in the Scopes trial 1925 for instance. It was an intellectual elite that had bought into the theory before then not the Christian masses.

Again, waiting for evidence for that......
​

No again the theory of evolution was not widely accepted in 1948.

OK, do you have evidence for that claim? As we've seen, evolution has been widely discussed and culturally prominent from the 1860's on.

I used to be a religious education teacher ......

As I mentioned in the discussion with John on this thread, we just showed that anecdotal evidence (I remember.... or the people I know are...) is not reliable.

Creationism is the old established view of the church.

Sure, as I mentioned before, that isn't caustic to Christianity back when there isn't evidence to show it to be wrong.

YEC as you understand it appears to be the attempt to justify this position scientifically which was hardly necessary before the 1940s for the vast mass of Christians.
The battles since then have occurred because of the growing numbers of TEs in mature Christian communities. You and the surveys you quote are misreading the phenomena because of these mistakes in definition, historical understanding and the ways in which you read this evidence.

Again, since the 1860's there has been a lot of cultural discussion of evolution, so I'm still interested in any data you have suggesting that it wasn't relevant to Christians in the '40s or before. If you don't have any evidence, and are instead just saying what you feel like saying, then that's OK, but just please do let us know that fact.

Papias
​

 

[ServantJohn]

Being that the sample pool is the United States (and assuming the statistical sampling is a representative as Gallup claims it to be), new people are a small percentage year to year. Thus people changing their minds is significant, though deaths and those reaching age 18 is also. I agree that both are significant, mainly due to the age demographics angle.

This has the potential to be a very valid point for your argument. As you know from my another post I made in another thread, I am not feeling to well today so not going to go deeper into it. It won't be to hard to do the math to see how much this will affect it.

I haven't seen the shows on animal planet ever describing and rarely even mentioning evolution. Have you? Remember that seeing animals doesn't argue for either.

Now granted that simply stating that the earth is billions of years old or that an animal species has lived for millions of years does not in any way prove or disprove evolution. It only goes into marketing an old earth view, which is one of the pillars of evolution.

With that said, almost every single animal planet show talks about animals being around for so many millions of years and from time to time mentions billions of years for the age of the earth. They do also talk about how one species evolved from another but that is not as often as the age of the species.

And why is creation moments insignificant? It is nationwide, available to all creationist parents (about half of all parents), and put on specifically just before kids are going to school, so the parents can play it to their kids every day.

It goes right along the lines with the home schooled kids above. Though I do not have any numbers, I suspect the number of kids that actually hear Creation Moments messages is very small in comparison.

Except they aren't. Here in America we rarely teach kids evolution in schools. Heck, most states not only don't require it, but their education standards don't even mention it (see map below). The public school teachers I've talked with say that it's generally avoided to avoid trouble even here in michigan, where it is supposed to be required.

Here, I might be able to shine some light on the subject. I am actually working pretty much as a full time substitute teacher and substitute all grade levels (pre-K to 12). I mainly substitute for science and math teachers and can tell you that every single grade level is being taught evolution in the city where I work in Texas. I even substituted the other day at a daycare run by the school district and evolution was even taught to these 3 year olds.

I would think that with about half of all parents being creationists, that a lot of kids are taught it to a significant degree by their parents - after all, that's who we learn the most from, right?

That a lot of kids are taught it, I completely agree with you. To a significant degree, I don't. I would be surprised if a large number of these "creationist" parents have even read Genesis.

That's not even to mention churches, where some pastors preach creationism, and sunday schools, which often teach creationism (what percentage of kids go to church or sunday school?), and independent creation based ministries, like Answers in Gensis, who have curricula, activities, monthly creationist kids magazines, and so on.

OH, I have a funny story to tell here. I was going to a church a while back and the pastor made a statement about creation and evolution. In the heat of his sermon he exclaimed,"I didn't come from no little [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!" I about fell out of my pew with laughter. I'm not sure if his freudian slip was ever brought to his attention.

I have kids and do walk down those aisles all the time. They have plenty of stuff about animals, but practically none of it supports either evolution or creation, with the rare exception of a Noah's ark item. What kinds of items were you specifically thinking of? I probably saw them. Help jog my memory.....

Mainly it's the dinosaurs and everything to do with them. It's all of the animal books that constantly talk about species being around for millions of years and evolving from such and such. All of the astromony stuff talking about the billions of years etc. Now I do not deny there were dinosaurs nor that some claim the Bible mentions them as well. Technically, a dinasaur could support the Bible or old earth evolution as a result. When displayed in stores, most dinosaurs are associated with an old earth view if any.

Whoa, sorry. I didn't mean to sound biased. Could you help me by pointing out what evidence I'm throwing out? I tried to give specific examples of points I raised, like creation moments and answers in Genesis. I don't mean to offend.
...
I'm sorry you sensed bitterness, as that was not my intent. Could you help point out areas where my arguments are not even close to reality? That would be especially useful in cases where you can point to data to show they are false. I'm happy to correct errors I've made - that's how I learn. Thanks-

Papias

Oh it's ok. I didn't sense bitterness. I only know that bitterness can lead to a clouded perception. Specifically, when you debated the marketing point that I had made. From my own experience, the information kids are taught at school about evolution, although sometimes only in part, and from media outlets such as secular television far outweighs that which they receive on sunday morning and sometimes over the radio or even the occasional mention of creation made by their parents. There may be some Christian youth strongly indoctrinated with creationism but I suspect that it is actually a very small percentage. I could still be wrong but that was the only point off the top of my mind that I was considering when I wrote that.

Your other posts all seemed very logical and I have enjoyed most of them. That one threw up a flag to me (maybe incorrectly though) so figured I would mention it.

His will be done,
John

 

[Jase]

Mainly it's the dinosaurs and everything to do with them. It's all of the animal books that constantly talk about species being around for millions of years and evolving from such and such. All of the astromony stuff talking about the billions of years etc. Now I do not deny there were dinosaurs nor that some claim the Bible mentions them as well. Technically, a dinasaur could support the Bible or old earth evolution as a result. When displayed in stores, most dinosaurs are associated with an old earth view if any.

Well species kind of had to have been around for that long. It's the only way to explain Earth's history. Just as a simple example, there have 5 major Extinction level events in Earth's history. These events basically wiped out everything on the planet. The worst one, destroyed 90%+ of every living thing on Earth. Your literal view, allows for only 1 extinction event. How do you account for 4 other major ones, and numerous smaller ones? It takes far longer than 10,000 years to repopulate the entire planet. How did Noah and his family survive multiple asteroid impacts disintegrating the Earth?

As for astronomy. I would think this one would be hard for a creationist to deny. Stars are very very very far away. We measure space distance in light years, based on the speed of light. That means, a star that is 20,000 light years away, takes 20,000 years for us to see the light it emitted. How do you account for this phenomenon, without making God a deceiver by showing us stars that don't really exist? A star that is 1 million light years away can't exist if the Earth is only 10,000 years old, because it would take another 990,000 years until we ever see the first source of light from that star.

 

[ServantJohn]

As for astronomy. I would think this one would be hard for a creationist to deny. Stars are very very very far away. We measure space distance in light years, based on the speed of light. That means, a star that is 20,000 light years away, takes 20,000 years for us to see the light it emitted.

Creationists find it actually very easy to explain this. If God created all of the stars for us, don't you think He would want us to be able to see them? Hence, He caused the light to reach the earth sooner than it naturally would. If Jesus can cause the storms to cease, then He can easily cause light to speed up a bit.

How do you account for this phenomenon, without making God a deceiver by showing us stars that don't really exist?A star that is 1 million light years away can't exist if the Earth is only 10,000 years old, because it would take another 990,000 years until we ever see the first source of light from that star.

I'm not sure what you are talking about "stars that don't really exist". These types of arguments really need to stop though. We must be able to look at the evidence honestly without having to presuppose some nefarious conclusion about God if something is proven to be a certain way.

Your statement concludes that God is a "deceiver" if the earth is young and yet we can see stars millions of light years away. Can we not simply decide whether the earth is young or not based on the evidence and then tackle the issue of whether or not God deceived us?

If the earth is young and we can see stars millions of light years away, then God may simply have caused the light to speed up so that we would be able to enjoy the creation He made for us. That does not mean He lied to us in any way. If you accept the miraculous abilities of God and loving nature of God, then the answer to that question is simple, and we don't have to conclude Him to be a liar.

 

[Mallon]

We must be able to look at the evidence honestly without having to presuppose some nefarious conclusion about God if something is proven to be a certain way.

Proposing ad hoc scenarios to explain away evidence (e.g., distant starlight) isn't honestly dealing with the evidence.

 

[ServantJohn]

Woohoo!!! This is my 100th post!!! LOL!!!

Proposing ad hoc scenarios to explain away evidence (e.g., distant starlight) isn't honestly dealing with the evidence.

From a secular science point of view, I would agree with you. From a Christian point of view that accepts the nature and character of God as fact, I have to disagree. I can try to explain everything without God but am I being honest to do so when I know there to be a God? I must take into consideration His nature and character or any conclusions I come up with are dishonest because they do no take into account all of what I know to be true.

I think I am starting to understand why this is such a difficult issue for all involved.

 

[gluadys]

Woohoo!!! This is my 100th post!!! LOL!!!


From a secular science point of view, I would agree with you. From a Christian point of view that accepts the nature and character of God as fact, I have to disagree. I can try to explain everything without God but am I being honest to do so when I know there to be a God? I must take into consideration His nature and character or any conclusions I come up with are dishonest because they do no take into account all of what I know to be true.

I think I am starting to understand why this is such a difficult issue for all involved.

From a Christian point of view that accepts the nature and character of God as fact, I have to agree with Mallon.

One may speculate that God did something or other miraculous, but no more. Speculating that miracles of which there is no testimony occurred is not dealing honestly with the evidence. It is grasping after straws in order to avoid dealing honestly with the evidence. It is ad hoc reasoning (if one can call it reasoning) invented solely for the purpose of evading the implications of the evidence.

The nature and character of God is that he is the creator of what is, of the reality we call the universe, and that it is a truthful revelation of his works. Our task, when we explore nature, is to assume that the evidence faithfully tells us what God did and not speculate about what God might have done.

 

[ServantJohn]

From a Christian point of view that accepts the nature and character of God as fact, I have to agree with Mallon.

One may speculate that God did something or other miraculous, but no more. Speculating that miracles of which there is no testimony occurred is not dealing honestly with the evidence. It is grasping after straws in order to avoid dealing honestly with the evidence. It is ad hoc reasoning (if one can call it reasoning) invented solely for the purpose of evading the implications of the evidence.

There is no need to be rude when discussing these issues. Are you God or do you claim to have a gift of discernment of some sorts? You have just made a lot of conclusions about my motives which are either hypocritically speculative or originating from a spiritual gift. Why is it so difficult for people to discuss things without becoming condescending and rude?

You have fallen into the same type of fallacy I once fell into. I used to think that every evolutionist only clung to that view because they did not want to accept God's lordship over their life. I have since come to accept that people can have completely honest motives and think very logically and come to different conclusions on this issue.

 

[Mallon]

Woohoo!!! This is my 100th post!!! LOL!!!

Congrats.

From a secular science point of view, I would agree with you. From a Christian point of view that accepts the nature and character of God as fact, I have to disagree. I can try to explain everything without God but am I being honest to do so when I know there to be a God? I must take into consideration His nature and character or any conclusions I come up with are dishonest because they do no take into account all of what I know to be true.

No one is suggesting that you explain anything "without God". Empirical ("secular") science may not invoke God, but it does not reject God, either (it is agnostic). Moreover, God is not restricted to acting only via miracles; the Bible tells us that God upholds the laws of nature, as well. Therefore, simply positing a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon is by no means anti-theistic or anti-Christian, as you appear to believe.
Regardless, ignoring the evidence, or constraining it to fit a presupposed view you have about God's creative acts in history, is not dealing honestly with the evidence, as gluadys and I have pointed out already.

Why is it so difficult for people to discuss things without becoming condescending and rude?

Gluadys may have been poignant, but she certainly wasn't rude to you.

 

[Papias]

John wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Being that the sample pool is the United States (and assuming the statistical sampling is a representative as Gallup claims it to be), new people are a small percentage year to year. Thus people changing their minds is significant, though deaths and those reaching age 18 is also. I agree that both are significant, mainly due to the age demographics angle.

This has the potential to be a very valid point for your argument. As you know from my another post I made in another thread, I am not feeling to well today so not going to go deeper into it. It won't be to hard to do the math to see how much this will affect it.
​

OK, how about this. The life expectancy is around 70. So each year, around 1/70 people die and are replaced. Are the young less likely to be creationist? I think so. So guessing that the old are 75% creationist, and the young are 25% creationist, then each year 1.4% of the population goes from 0.75 to 0.25 (a change of 0.5), then the shift we should see if all this is an OK estimate is a shift of 0.75%/yr. Not sure what the actual numbers are, but the shift, if it isn't noise, seems to be bigger than 0.75%

Now granted that simply stating that the earth is billions of years old or that an animal species has lived for millions of years does not in any way prove or disprove evolution. It only goes into marketing an old earth view, which is one of the pillars of evolution.
With that said, almost every single animal planet show talks about animals being around for so many millions of years and from time to time mentions billions of years for the age of the earth.

It's also one of the pillars of old earth creationism, of which we have some posters here. You've seen www.answersincreation.org, right?

Originally Posted by Papias

And why is creation moments insignificant? It is nationwide, available to all creationist parents (about half of all parents), and put on specifically just before kids are going to school, so the parents can play it to their kids every day.

It goes right along the lines with the home schooled kids above. Though I do not have any numbers, I suspect the number of kids that actually hear Creation Moments messages is very small in comparison.
​

Why do you suspect that? Creation moments is one of the top five short programs in the country, and is carried internationally too. They also sell curricula for use at home or in Sunday Schools, along with videos and other media to teach creationism.

Originally Posted by Papias

Except they aren't. Here in America we rarely teach kids evolution in schools. Heck, most states not only don't require it, but their education standards don't even mention it (see map below). The public school teachers I've talked with say that it's generally avoided to avoid trouble even here in michigan, where it is supposed to be required.

Here, I might be able to shine some light on the subject. I am actually working pretty much as a full time substitute teacher and substitute all grade levels (pre-K to 12). I mainly substitute for science and math teachers and can tell you that every single grade level is being taught evolution in the city where I work in Texas. I even substituted the other day at a daycare run by the school district and evolution was even taught to these 3 year olds.

Sounds like we have very different experiences. Perhaps this again shows why anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper its (not) printed on.

That a lot of kids are taught it, I completely agree with you. To a significant degree, I don't. I would be surprised if a large number of these "creationist" parents have even read Genesis.

I guess that would say something about creationists, if true.

OH, I have a funny story to tell here. I was going to a church a while back and the pastor made a statement about creation and evolution. In the heat of his sermon he exclaimed,"I didn't come from no little [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!" I about fell out of my pew with laughter. I'm not sure if his freudian slip was ever brought to his attention.

THAT'S HILARIOUS!!

Mainly it's the dinosaurs and everything to do with them.

Dinosaurs per se don't teach evolution - after all, the creationist museums are filled with dinosaurs, often moving dinos.

It's all of the animal books that constantly talk about species being around for millions of years and evolving from such and such. All of the astromony stuff talking about the billions of years etc. Now I do not deny there were dinosaurs nor that some claim the Bible mentions them as well.


Technically, a dinasaur could support the Bible or old earth evolution as a result. When displayed in stores, most dinosaurs are associated with an old earth view if any.

I've found the age in millions of years is often, but certainly not always, displayed. More to the point, that may distinguish between old earth creationism and young earth creationism, but not evolution.

From my own experience, the information kids are taught at school about evolution, although sometimes only in part, and from media outlets such as secular television far outweighs that which they receive on sunday morning and sometimes over the radio or even the occasional mention of creation made by their parents. There may be some Christian youth strongly indoctrinated with creationism but I suspect that it is actually a very small percentage.

Sounds like we have different estimates and experiences. I'd estimate that since (to me) it appears that evolution is largely avoided in school, and creationism often taught by parents, churches, and Christian radio, that I'd estimate the opposite of you. Who knows? Chaulk it up to anecdotal evidence, I guess.

Your other posts all seemed very logical and I have enjoyed most of them. That one threw up a flag to me (maybe incorrectly though) so figured I would mention it.

His will be done,
John

Thanks!

in Christ-

Papias

 

[ServantJohn]

Congrats.

Thanks!!!

No one is suggesting that you explain anything "without God". Empirical ("secular") science may not invoke God, but it does not reject God, either (it is agnostic). Moreover, God is not restricted to acting only via miracles; the Bible tells us that God upholds the laws of nature, as well. Therefore, simply positing a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon is by no means anti-theistic or anti-Christian, as you appear to believe.

I can see how you suppose that I believe that but it isn't true. For me to propose a completely natural explanation when a supernatural explanation seems to fit the evidence just as nicely or better seems to me to be dishonest. Now please understand. I am coming from a strong creationist viewpoint and attempting to ascertain the truth. I am sure you have dealt with a lot of people who simply wanted to convert evolutionists to creationism. I am NOT one of those.

Regardless, ignoring the evidence, or constraining it to fit a presupposed view you have about God's creative acts in history, is not dealing honestly with the evidence, as gluadys and I have pointed out already.

Therein is the problem. I am not ignoring evidence. I do see the logical conclusion of my taking the path of allowing for miraculous intervention to explain the evidence. If it is allowed in every case then everything that might lead me to accept evolution can simply be explained by miraculous works of God.

I do come to the table with a presupposed view, but an honest heart willing to alter that view. That is where I take offense and yes, she was being rude, not just "poignant". It is very rude to assume someone has nefarious motives because they have a certain view when you have a discussion with them. Today, you may teach me about evolution, and in return, I will teach you about manners.

 

[Mallon]

I can see how you suppose that I believe that but it isn't true. For me to propose a completely natural explanation when a supernatural explanation seems to fit the evidence just as nicely or better seems to me to be dishonest.

I guess the point that needs to be made is that supernatural explanations can be made to explain any type of evidence, though. And if that's the case, are supernatural explanations really useful? Are they testable? Are they honest?
For example, a scientist might posit that the sky is blue because of differential light absorption (a testable assumption), whereas someone else might posit that the sky is blue because God miraculously made it it that way (an untestable assumption). One assumption can be disqualified on the basis of evidence, whereas the other cannot. One person has left themselves open to correction; the other has not. Which is the more honest approach?

Therein is the problem. I am not ignoring evidence.

Effectively, you are when you do not allow the evidence from distant starlight to influence your position about the age of the universe. You simply explain away the evidence by saying that it is only an illusion, which is effectively ignoring it.