Intelligence Inquiry

[AV1611VET]

Religious people.

Close.

Which came first: the belief, or the [two-volume] documentation?

SOMEONE had to eventually write it down, and Satan had just the ones to do it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Close.

Which came first: the belief, or the [two-volume] documentation?

SOMEONE had to eventually write it down, and Satan had just the ones to do it.

Yep, it's called the b i b l e.

The Biblical Roots of Racism | HuffPost

 

[HitchSlap]

Claiming that Darwin invented modern racism is just sheer desperation talking. I wonder what creationists think they are accomplishing with such ludicrous ideas.

The same blind zealousness that caused Lady Hope to lie about Darwin's 'deathbed conversion.'

 

[The Righterzpen]

Gott mit uns

 

[The Righterzpen]

The Scopes trial wasn't about challenging creationism. It was about the fact that teaching human evolution was made illegal in Tennessee and that John Scopes was in violation of that law.

I'm speaking in a modern sense though. Knowledge continuously progresses throughout human history. Creationists have been actively trying to impede that progress, specifically by impeding science education.

The Butler Act in Tennessee (as highlighted by the Scopes trial) is a prime example of that.

Still does not negate the fact that it was not the creationists who impeded upon the evolutionists. Creationism was being taught in Tennessee. Evolution was a "johnny come lately" theory in the grand scheme of the history of human beliefs about origins.

 

[pitabread]

Still does not negate the fact that it was not the creationists who impeded upon the evolutionists.

You mean besides trying to make it illegal to teach human evolution?

Creationism was being taught in Tennessee. Evolution was a "johnny come lately" theory in the grand scheme of the history of human beliefs about origins.

This doesn't change the fact that modern creationists have continuously attempted to impede the progress of science knowledge re: biological evolution.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Do you think that scientific knowledge should be stymied to protect religious dogma?

 

[inquiring mind]

Knowledge continuously progresses throughout human history. Creationists have been actively trying to impede that progress, specifically by impeding science education.

On average, which of the two, Creationists or Evolutionists, would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education.

 

[pitabread]

On average, which of the two, Creationists or Evolutionists, would you say is likely more qualified and prepared through education (H.S., college, informal, seminary) to discuss the other’s belief intelligently? I’ll bet Creationists have far more science education than Evolutionists have theology education.

I'd want to see a study.

In terms of science, I already know that creationists score lower in understanding of science and evolution compared to non-creationists.

And I recall a Pew Research religious knowledge poll that actually put atheists/agnostics scoring the highest in terms of religious knowledge. Although that poll did not necessarily cover comprehensive theological knowledge.

The other thing to consider is that creationism is primarily found in conservative protestant beliefs. There are many denominations of Christianity that do not adhere to creationism, yet have Bible scholars of their own. It might be interesting to see if there is anything published on relative beliefs and theological knowledge among Bible scholars from different denominations.

 

[inquiring mind]

nm.

That would be a good thing for evolutionists to keep in mind when playing the 'ignorance card.'

 

[HitchSlap]

That would be a good thing for evolutionists to keep in mind when playing the 'ignorance card.'

Yet, I've never met a creationist with anything more than a PRATT list and a straw man. As for theology, most atheists on this board used to be Christians.

 

[pitabread]

That would be a good thing for evolutionists to keep in mind when playing the 'ignorance card.'

You're replying to a "no message", since I inadvertently hit the enter key in the midst of replying. I've since edited my post; you can go back and reply to what I wrote.

 

[pitabread]

Yet, I've never met a creationist with anything more than a PRATT list and a straw man. As for theology, most atheists on this board used to be Christians.

A 2010 Pew Research poll actually had atheists/agnostics scoring highest in terms of religious knowledge. White Evangelical Protestants scored 4th place.

U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

 

[inquiring mind]

You're replying to a "no message", since I inadvertently hit the enter key in the midst of replying. I've since edited my post; you can go back and reply to what I wrote.

I knew what I was replying to.

 

[pitabread]

I knew what I was replying to.

Are you going to reply to what I have since posted or no?

 

[inquiring mind]

I'd want to see a study.

Look for one if you like, but after two days of discussion about religion not being allowed in public school, you'd think my statement would be obvious.

 

[inquiring mind]

Are you going to reply to what I have since posted or no?

Are you gonna reply to me, or not?

 

[pitabread]

Are you gonna reply to me, or not?

I did. I edited my post. That was my reply to your question.

 

[pitabread]

Look for one if you like, but after two days of discussion about religion not being allowed in public school, you'd think my statement would be obvious.

If you already think you know, then fine. I'm interested in going where the data goes. That's why I like looking at things like surveys, studies, etc. It lets us separate our personal opinions from factual data.

 

[inquiring mind]

I did. I edited my post. That was my reply to your question.

Nice try... my last statement?

 

[Astrophile]

Actually it wasn't the creationists who "picked the fight". Prior to 1925; creationism was the the only theory of origin of the universe taught in schools in America. The first case to challenge that was the Scopes trial in 1925.

Darwin didn't write "Origin of the Species" until 1859; and ideas of origin outside of a religious context didn't exist until the 1830's. In all the thousands of years of history prior to this; all questions of origin of life were always couched in a religious belief system.

In 1809, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829) published a theory of evolution in which living things evolved through the direct effects of their environment, or as a result of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In his historical sketch at the beginning of The Origin of Species, Darwin says that Buffon (1707-88) was 'the first author who in modern times has treated it [i.e. the transformation of species] in a scientific spirit'. Looking farther back, Aristotle (384-322 BC) believed in spontaneous generation of living things rather than in creation by gods, and Lucretius (ca. 99-55 BC) said, in Book V of The Nature of the Universe, 'the new-born earth first flung up herbs and shrubs. Next in order it engendered the various breeds of mortal creatures, manifold in mode of origin as in form', again implying some sort of spontaneous generation out of the earth rather than creation by gods.