CBS Survey

[nephilimiyr]

I thought the people in this forum would be interested in this.

A new poll by CBS News indicates when it comes to the origin of men and women, most Americans reject the theory of evolution and believe they were created by God.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

 

[random_guy]

I thought the people in this forum would be interested in this.

A new poll by CBS News indicates when it comes to the origin of men and women, most Americans reject the theory of evolution and believe they were created by God.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

It's depressing, but not surprising. Most Americans believe we attacked Iraq for 9-11 and that WMD have been found.

 

[Critias]

It's depressing, but not surprising. Most Americans believe we attacked Iraq for 9-11 and that WMD have been found.

Does it depress you that people don't believe what you believe about science?

 

[random_guy]

Does it depress you that people don't believe what you believe about science?

You mean what I believe, what the National Academy of Science believes, what every single University believes, and 99% of all biologists believe is science, then yes.

 

[billwald]

Confirms my faith in P. T. Barnum, "Sucker born every minute," and Whatshisname, "No one ever lost money under estimating the intelligence of the American public."

 

[shernren]

I feel like pulling a Pharisee prayer: "Lord, thank You that I was born neither an American or a European." (all in the name of humor, mind you.)

 

[Critias]

You mean what I believe, what the National Academy of Science believes, what every single University believes, and 99% of all biologists believe is science, then yes.

Then my apologies to you. I don't see any reason to jump on bandwagon to support that ad populum argument.

You have faith in their arguments and interpretation of evidence, I have faith in the guidance God has given to me that has lead me to the interpretation I hold.

 

[shernren]

Hey remember that thread about black Christians and evolution, or something such? I wonder how this should be interpreted.

Most demographic groups say it is possible to believe in both God and evolution, but just over half of white evangelical Christians say it is not possible.

of course, what they mean by "most demographic groups say" (like, how many %?) is up for grabs.

 

[random_guy]

Then my apologies to you. I don't see any reason to jump on bandwagon to support that ad populum argument.

You have faith in their arguments and interpretation of evidence, I have faith in the guidance God has given to me that has lead me to the interpretation I hold.

I'm sorry that I use an ad populum argument for defining the idea of science. Doctors agree that cancer is a disease, but that's an ad populum logical flaw because the majority of the experts in their field that define the scientifical terms. Wow, I guess I should take the uneducated lay person's definition into account, also.

Tell me, is it an ad populum argument because I trust the scientific field to define scientific terms instead of the average Joe?

 

[Critias]

I'm sorry that I use an ad populum argument for defining the idea of science. Doctors agree that cancer is a disease, but that's an ad populum logical flaw because the majority of the experts in their field that define the scientifical terms. Wow, I guess I should take the uneducated lay person's definition into account, also.

Tell me, is it an ad populum argument because I trust the scientific field to define scientific terms instead of the average Joe?

No, it is an ad populum arguement when you use a majority or many as a reason to believe or uphold your claim of proof. You were using the argument of how many people accept the evolutionary theory as a good reason to accept it as well. Atleast that is what I got from your statement.

Your trust in the science field leading you to understand and accept the evolutionary theory is no different than my trust in the Holy Spirit leading me to the interpretation I hold to. They are both about faith.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I think the most interesting thing I got from this survey was that in one year the people who believe in God creating without evolution fell by 3 percentage points while TE rose by 3 percentage points and those who believe in evolution without God rose by 2 percentage points.

 

[random_guy]

No, it is an ad populum arguement when you use a majority or many as a reason to believe or uphold your claim of proof. You were using the argument of how many people accept the evolutionary theory as a good reason to accept it as well. Atleast that is what I got from your statement.

Your trust in the science field leading you to understand and accept the evolutionary theory is no different than my trust in the Holy Spirit leading me to the interpretation I hold to. They are both about faith.

Well, I was claiming that evolution was a science under the definition of science by the NAS, every university, etc. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

Now let's throw the ball back in your court. It's obvious that I'm not the only one that accepts evolution as a science, but the ruling scientific body also accepts it's a science.

 

[shernren]

Well, I was claiming that evolution was a science under the definition of science by the NAS, every university, etc. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

Now let's throw the ball back in your court. It's obvious that I'm not the only one that accepts evolution as a science, but the ruling scientific body also accepts it's a science.

Actually, now that's argument to authority. It's the same argumentative style that creationists use when quote-mining. So if they shouldn't do it, I don't see how we should do it either. Science stands as science whether or not it's acknowledged. (Of course, it's easier to prove it's science when a lot of people acknowledge it as such and provide proof that it is through cohesive research.)

 

[random_guy]

Actually, now that's argument to authority. It's the same argumentative style that creationists use when quote-mining. So if they shouldn't do it, I don't see how we should do it either. Science stands as science whether or not it's acknowledged. (Of course, it's easier to prove it's science when a lot of people acknowledge it as such and provide proof that it is through cohesive research.)

I really don't see how else to find the definition of a word other than go to the people that administer it. Suppose space aliens came to Earth and told us that the definition of our word, "life" means a large cat. Is it wrong to say, well, according to people of Earth, life actually means something else?

 

[shernren]

So science is defined by scientists? Well you can take that approach if you want. Personally I would define science as studying the natural, physical cause-and-effect relationships that cause predictable results from given circumstances. It's easy to see how evolution, even given all the unknowns, falls roughly into that, while creation "science" most certainly doesn't.

 

[Jig]

I dont reject science. I just reject it could ever understand God and His ways.


I've seen alot of evidence supporting TE's claim and it is very well written and convincable. The problem is I've also seen alot of the scientific evidence the YEC's use to 'disprove' the TE's evidence.

The TE's and the YEC's have the same evidence, just different theories. They BOTH use science to 'disprove' or 'prove' these theories.

I had a choice to make based on how I felt and what the evidence showed ME.

Today, I'm a proud YEC!!

 

[random_guy]

So science is defined by scientists? Well you can take that approach if you want. Personally I would define science as studying the natural, physical cause-and-effect relationships that cause predictable results from given circumstances. It's easy to see how evolution, even given all the unknowns, falls roughly into that, while creation "science" most certainly doesn't.

This falls more into a philosophical argument, but is the Earth term life define by the people who defines the word? Science is defined as the study of the natural world, and this word is defined by the scientists. Suppose some nutjob wants to define science as something different. How can one possible argue against that unless they bring things such as scientific standards (which is defined by scientists) into play?

 

[dunkel]

It's depressing, but not surprising. Most Americans believe we attacked Iraq for 9-11 and that WMD have been found.

Well, we have as much evidence for WMDs in Iraq as we do for Creation, so why shouldn't people believe it? Actually, I'd say we have more evidence because 1) we know he used these weapons in the past and 2) we found some of the tools needed to make the weapons. So, yeah, I'd say there's just as strong an argument for WMDs as there is for Creation, the evidence for which is limited to a story written 3000 years ago by a scientifically primitive, nomadic goat-herder.

Oh yeah, and no one ever said anything about going to war in Iraq over 9/11. People have noted a possible link, but I challenge you to show me a quote where Bush said "And since Saddam is resonsible for 9/11, we have to invade". This doesn't mean people don't believe it, people believe all sorts of crazy things, don't they?

 

[PaladinValer]

Ad populum is only a valid fallacy when it is used generally or towards non-experts.

99.85% of biologists accept evolution. Evolution is specifically their field. Therefore, it isn't ad populum, but rather expertise knowledge.

Now if you were going to say "many scientists accept ID," then that's ad populum. Only biologists are worthy to give expert opinion, the only opinion that truly matters in the end. Other scientists' ideas on it have absolutely no regard and are not expert.

Therefore, Critias' objection is illogical and void.

 

[shernren]

I've seen alot of evidence supporting TE's claim and it is very well written and convincable. The problem is I've also seen alot of the scientific evidence the YEC's use to 'disprove' the TE's evidence.

Examples? I've seen more TE disproofs of YECist evidence than the other way around.