Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

[jb-creation]

GarfieldGundam:

Funny, there was an IQ test at my school last year (or was it two years ago? Well, the year prior to the school year that preceded this particular summer), and the most outspoken creationists had rather high IQs. In fact, the advanced classes are pretty much exclusively made up of Christian creationists, and this was reportedly the most intelligent class to have come through the school since its founding. With the way some of these people (the ones who are more outspokenly in favor of creation) have been scoring in about the 98th or 99th percentile in every category on every standardized test, America must just be simply overrun with people who have really low IQs! Plus, with these "low-IQ" creationists around my area scoring 100% or higher in so many classes and on so many various tests (including a biology class using a textbook from the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which emphasizes evolution--at least one creationist got perfect scores on all the tests relating to evolution, so it seems like they'd know evolution pretty well), the educational system must be far below adequacy!

 

[Tomk80]

Creationists and evolutionists gang up to bash the militant atheist. Nothing like an outside enemy to join the ranks once in a while.

Come on jb-creation. Give me a hug We'll bash each other later on again

 

[jb-creation]

I checked out the survey, and I found it disappointing that it only went up to an IQ of 132. The lowest IQ in the truly outspoken creationist group at my school registered a 135! We also had some in the 140s, one in the 150s (a 152 or 158, I think), and one 171. In fact, the lowest IQ in the entire class was, I believe, a 101. (Do I even know anyone with an IQ lower than 100? I don't know of any...) I sort of anticipated that the survey would register a IQs a good amount higher for that Ph.D. level area.

Perhaps the reason that the more educated have less belief in God, the Bible, creation, etc., is because many college professors discredit those beliefs so often.

In the page's conclusion, it mentioned that these "low-IQ" creationists have a higher rate of divorce and incarceration than the athiests who believe in evolution. First, where's the support for that notion? Also, I recall Jeffrey Dahmer (you know who he was, right?) citing evolution as his justification for what he did (he later became a Christian and a creationist before he died).

I'd have to say that the assertion that belief in God, the Bible, creationism, etc., is detrimental to the IQ isn't quite true.

*ends with a high-five for Tomk80*

 

[Arikay]

on a side note, IQ points don't mean as much as percentile, and that doesn't mean much either.

 

[Gracchus]

I suspect that creationism arises from stupidity and not the other way around. Of course sometimes it arises from insanity or other mental defect, such as intellectual sloth.

 

[jb-creation]

"Thank you" for ignoring essentially everything I mentioned in my last couple posts. Of course, a number of famous scientists from the past (not all before Darwin published The Origin of Species, either) were creationists (let's see, I think there may have been Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, Lord William Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Rudolph Virchow, James Joule, James Maxwell, and Samuel Morse [keep in mind I'm only listing the ones who died after Darwin published his book. Including those prior to The Origin of Species would include the likes of Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, and Isaac Newton--did they suffer from stupidity/insanity/a mental defect, or do these attributes only apply to the post-Darwin creationists like Pasteur, Mendel, Maxwell, and Joule?] Or, if you prefer a very modern example of an outstanding scientist who happens to be a creationist, there's always Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner. Was he stupid, insane, or mentally defective?).

 

[Sanguine]

do these attributes only apply to the post-Darwin creationists like Pasteur, Mendel, Maxwell, and Joule?]).

All they suffered from was being far too ardent.

edit: And I should add that it's not entirely surprising that they remained skeptical, the "nail in the coffin" didn't come till many years after Origin of the Species.

 

[RoboMastodon]

I checked out the survey, and I found it disappointing that it only went up to an IQ of 132. The lowest IQ in the truly outspoken creationist group at my school registered a 135! We also had some in the 140s, one in the 150s (a 152 or 158, I think), and one 171. In fact, the lowest IQ in the entire class was, I believe, a 101. (Do I even know anyone with an IQ lower than 100? I don't know of any...) I sort of anticipated that the survey would register a IQs a good amount higher for that Ph.D. level area.

Perhaps the reason that the more educated have less belief in God, the Bible, creation, etc., is because many college professors discredit those beliefs so often.

In the page's conclusion, it mentioned that these "low-IQ" creationists have a higher rate of divorce and incarceration than the athiests who believe in evolution. First, where's the support for that notion? Also, I recall Jeffrey Dahmer (you know who he was, right?) citing evolution as his justification for what he did (he later became a Christian and a creationist before he died).

I'd have to say that the assertion that belief in God, the Bible, creationism, etc., is detrimental to the IQ isn't quite true.

*ends with a high-five for Tomk80*

I'm calling B.S. or a really messed up sample, or a crappy iq test. Evidence: No iq's less than 100 (that's average); IQ's of 150 only occur something like 1/50,000 and 171 is something like 1/100,000 (top of my head figures, not sure if these are right). I remember reading that the average creationist has an IQ of 96. To give another example the AP/gifted/honors subgroup (only about 1/6 take any ap classes) of my class (these were the only people I knew as I never took any average-level classes) in my high school of 2800 (mind you this was in Georgia) about half were atheist and off the top of my head I can only think of 3 creationists, of which I converted two. It wasn't too hard they just have misconceived notions about evolution, cosmology, definition of a theory, and whatnot.

Edit - I'd say that lower IQ will corrolate to higher instances religiousness and creationism with the causation probably being IQ->religiousness and not the other way around (converting won't make you stupid). This is mostly from experience (I can't cite any studies off hand) e.g, every time I encounter an individual who I perceive to be really intelligent I, out of curiousity, ask them what their belief system is and not one has yet to say "Christian" (some have said agnostic/theist, or secular deist).

 

[Oliver]

Of course, a number of famous scientists from the past (not all before Darwin published The Origin of Species, either) were creationists (let's see, I think there may have been Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, Lord William Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Rudolph Virchow, James Joule, James Maxwell, and Samuel Morse (skip).

I'm not sure that all of them were creationists, if you mean by this that they opposed the theory of evolution. For example, I didn't find any reference to Pasteur being an opponent of Darwin (except on the AIG websites which doesn't seem to offer much support for their view). I'd say that he probably wouldn't have had any strong position since he doesn't seem to have studied this subject.

As for Joule or Kelvin... well, I would'nt give more credit to the words of a physicist, however famous and competent in his field, than to the opinion of those who work in the field, and it seems that the latter finally accepted Darwin's theory over the creationist theory(ies).

 

[jb-creation]

To RoboMastodon (in post #288):
Perhaps my area is a bit of a messed-up sample group, but the reason there was nothing below 100 is that the IQ test was only administered to the two most advanced science classes in that grade. The individual with the 171 used to take IQ tests in his spare time, and all of them got extremely close to 171 for a value (had to turn down admission to MENSA, though--couldn't afford the entry fee). The IQ test is, indeed, typically within a small number of points of most other tests. In this test group, I know the views of a number of the subjects. I remember a few evolutionists and a large number of creationists, with the most outspoken creationists falling into the higher IQ category. There are a number of evolutionists at the school, but most of them are more along the line of lucky-to-get-straight-Ds-in-the-average-and-below-average-classes students. The upper level of creationists certainly knows evolution pretty well (considering that most of them got over 95% on all evolution-related tests in science class the next year), better than any student evolutionist of whom I know (even equal to or better than a number of teachers, by the teachers' admissions).

To Oliver (in post #289):
These individuals were indeed creationists. Your assertion that the opinions of Joule and Kelvin are unimportant because they were physicists baffles me. How does it logically follow that a trained scientist is unqualified to evaluate a subject that we are all here to discuss, simply because evolution relates to a field in which they were not experts? I mentioned their names in response to the notion that creationism is linked to stupidty, insanity, and/or mental defects. They certainly were not any of these things. Pasteur was indeed known to oppose Darwin's theory.

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the work of the Creator."--Louis Pasteur

Darwin was criticized by many outstanding scientists of his time (and later times), such as Richard Owen (the man who coined the term 'dinosaur'), geologist Adam Sedgewick (who wrote to Darwin, "I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at until my sides were sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grieviously mischievious."), astronomer and mathematician John Herschel (who referred to evolution as "the law of higgledy-pigglety"), Louis Pasteur, Louis Agassiz, and numerous others.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Using this:

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the work of the Creator."--Louis Pasteur

Does not support this:

Pasteur was indeed known to oppose Darwin's theory.

especially considering the fact that Darwin made similar comments about his awe regarding what he felt was the work of a Creator. But more importantly, that quotation does not directly support your claim.

Darwin was criticized by many outstanding scientists of his time (and later times), such as Richard Owen (the man who coined the term 'dinosaur'),

It would be helpful if you provided sources for your claims. After all, this likely came from AiG or one of any of the creationist websites out there. I've also read about Owen in reference to evolution the following:

However, his pronouncements on the subject of evolution were puzzling and contradictory; in later years he alternately denied its validity, professed ignorance on the matter, and claimed to have come up with the idea himself almost ten years before Darwin.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/owen.html

geologist Adam Sedgewick (who wrote to Darwin, "I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at until my sides were sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grieviously mischievious."),

It's interesting that you use Sedgwick because he is often cited as the one responsible for disproving young earth creationism in terms of a literally derived age of the earth and flood. He was, however, in opposition to Darwin's work likely because he considered it blasphemous, not because he had any solid scientific objections to it.

The point being made about creationism, is that those who espouse it and reject evolution (including an old earth and no global flood) do so for emotional, rather than scientific, reasons. That doesn't necessarily reflect on one's intelligence, but it reflects on one's ability to be intellectually honest. Citing people like Sedgwick does not support the claim that there were reasonable objections to evolution cited by significant scientists. Their work was in a completely different field, for one. Furthermore, no such objections have been presented as relevant.

 

[jb-creation]

1) It is abundantly clear from reading Darwin's writings that he was overtly athiestic, while Pasteur's writings reveal a clear, actual belief in a Creator.

2) At least a number of these sites listed below should have relevance:
www.science.siu.edu/zoology/king/304/biogrphy.htm
www.geocites.com/Heartland/7547/cscient.html
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/13-NDFE/darwin/05-Darwin-friends.htm
www.wwy.org/wwy0996.html
www.apologeticspress.org/sensci/2004/sc-04-01.htm
www.rae.org/bits20.htm
http://old.mbconf.ca/mb/mbh3603/taylor.htm
www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm
www.origin-of-species.com
www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.htm
www.sandpoint.net/tknapp/debaun1.htm

 

[Nathan Poe]

1) It is abundantly clear from reading Darwin's writings that he was overtly athiestic, while Pasteur's writings reveal a clear, actual belief in a Creator.

I don't have my copy of Origin handy. Can someone please field this one quick?

 

[orange]

Hi all

 

[Sopharos]

Hi all

Goodday. Whatcha been up to lately?

 

[Arikay]

1) But Darwin Was a christian. I believe Darwin explained why it would appear that he was overtly atheistic. Basically it was because of all the Jury rigged designs that were found, and he believed that an omnipotent god would not dirrectly create these unintelligent designs and thus god used a force to do the work.

1) It is abundantly clear from reading Darwin's writings that he was overtly athiestic, while Pasteur's writings reveal a clear, actual belief in a Creator.

2) At least a number of these sites listed below should have relevance:
www.science.siu.edu/zoology/king/304/biogrphy.htm
www.geocites.com/Heartland/7547/cscient.html
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/13-NDFE/darwin/05-Darwin-friends.htm
www.wwy.org/wwy0996.html
www.apologeticspress.org/sensci/2004/sc-04-01.htm
www.rae.org/bits20.htm
http://old.mbconf.ca/mb/mbh3603/taylor.htm
www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm
www.origin-of-species.com
www.trueorigins.org/isakrbtl.htm
www.sandpoint.net/tknapp/debaun1.htm

 

[The Son of Him]

1) But Darwin Was a christian. I believe Darwin explained why it would appear that he was overtly atheistic. Basically it was because of all the Jury rigged designs that were found, and he believed that an omnipotent god would not dirrectly create these unintelligent designs and thus god used a force to do the work.

You are right on this one, Darwin was not atheistic.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

1) It is abundantly clear from reading Darwin's writings that he was overtly athiestic, while Pasteur's writings reveal a clear, actual belief in a Creator.

Well, then it is abundantly clear that you have not read much of Darwin's writings. He was a Christian at the time of his formulation of the theory of evolution.

How does the following quotation, from the conclusion of Origin of Species, NOT "reveal a clear, actual belief in a Creator?"

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Obviously he wasn't an atheist when he wrote this.

 

[Oliver]

To Oliver (in post #289):
These individuals were indeed creationists. Your assertion that the opinions of Joule and Kelvin are unimportant because they were physicists baffles me.

I did not say that they were unimportant in and of themselves, but that I wouldn't give them more credit than the opinion of those who work in the field and are equally famous.
After all, I wouldn't turn to a physic Nobel prize winner (even though I have great respect for them) if I needed surgery, but I would go to a hospital. Likewise, I wouldn't expect a surgeon to be an expert in astrophysics, or to repair my car better than a mechanic would.

How does it logically follow that a trained scientist is unqualified to evaluate a subject that we are all here to discuss, simply because evolution relates to a field in which they were not experts?

Well, because, as you just said, they're not experts in this field. Which of those scientists would you rather trust if you were to try and understand nuclear physics: Archimede, Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur?

I would trust an expert in the field over a scientist trained in an unrelated field, and of course over the opinion of anonymous debaters on the net (me included). I would also trust a contemporary scientist over one which lived more than a century ago (provided that they both work(ed) in the field at stake). But you're free to disagree...

I mentioned their names in response to the notion that creationism is linked to stupidty, insanity, and/or mental defects. They certainly were not any of these things.

I don't think a belief in creationism is always to stupidity, and I certainly don't think that the scientists who disagreed with Darwin were stupid. Lack of data/interest/knowledge are other factors which come into play.

Pasteur was indeed known to oppose Darwin's theory.

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the work of the Creator."--Louis Pasteur

I would really like to see your evidence for this. As I said, I didn't see any mention of this apart from the AIG site.
Besides, as others have mentioned, the above quote does in no way show a disagreement with Darwin. Remember: evolution != atheism.

Darwin was criticized by many outstanding scientists of his time (and later times), such as Richard Owen (the man who coined the term 'dinosaur'), geologist Adam Sedgewick (who wrote to Darwin, "I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at until my sides were sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grieviously mischievious."), astronomer and mathematician John Herschel (who referred to evolution as "the law of higgledy-pigglety"), Louis Pasteur, Louis Agassiz, and numerous others.

Gallileo was also criticised by many of his peers. It does not make him wrong or his opponent stupid, but to disagree with him nowadays, with all that we've learned since that time, is certainly not the same thing as disagreeing with him then.
Likewise, I don't think that to deny that evolution occurs today is equivalent to denying it at the time of Darwin.

Which is probably the main reason why I think bringing up these lists of supposedly creationist scientists from centuries ago does not bring much to the

 

[jb-creation]

Unfortunately, as I was typing a post a few days ago, my computer shut down and I lost it. Included in these were several quotes from Darwin demonstrating that he certainly was not a Christian. I don't know of any Christian who would refer to the New Testament as "a d***able doctrine," as he phrased it, or would say, as darwin did, that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred texts of the Hindus or the beliefs of any barbarian. Near the end of his life, he preferred to refer to himself as an agnostic.

I did not mean that the opinions of such men as Joule and Kelvin are more important than a true expert in the field of biology. However, numerous evolutionists often hurl around claims that science is impossible without evolution and that no scientist can reject evolution. Evolutionists have even made statements that are tantamount to saying that evolution is so important that all fields of scientific discipline are subject to it.

I disagree with the notion that rejection of evolution is due to a lack of knowledge. I would contend that the evidence actually fits better with the creationist model than with an evolutionist one.