"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[John1222]

Regardless of what you would like to believe,Jimmy Carter has publically stated that he is a creationists.He is also a scientist,and a Southern Baptist.He claims not to be a fundamentalist. Maybe you should let Jimmy Carter know that he is not a creationist in spite of what he believes.

 

[Chalnoth]

Regardless of what you would like to believe,Jimmy Carter has publically stated that he is a creationists.He is also a scientist,and a Southern Baptist.He claims not to be a fundamentalist. Maybe you should let Jimmy Carter know that he is not a creationist in spite of what he believes.

Where? In what context?

 

[John1222]

Jimmy Carter on Creationism

"I believe there's a supreme being, God, who created the entire universe, yes. And I am a scientist, as a matter of fact, as you may know, I studied nuclear physics. I helped to develop nuclear submarines. So, I believe in science. I believe we ought to explore the far outreaches of space. We ought to make sure we understand everything we can about the particles that make up the atoms. "

I can't post links,but it shouldn't be difficult to find.You might ask the on who knows how to find the absolute truth in all of five seconds.

There are a lot of creationists that believe in evolution.Regardless of what sub titles they gave been given,they are creationsts.There is also an article that claims Carter believes Adam and eve was created just like the Bible says.I haven't been able to confirm it,and knowing that Carter believes in evolution makes it seem unlikely.He has never stated a belief in a young earth.

 

[tanzanos]

Creationism is fine if it stays in the Faith Department. Once Creationism is allowed to rear its head in the education department then we can conclude that mankind has learned nothing from the evils of the Dark Ages!

 

[Chalnoth]

Jimmy Carter on Creationism

"I believe there's a supreme being, God, who created the entire universe, yes. And I am a scientist, as a matter of fact, as you may know, I studied nuclear physics. I helped to develop nuclear submarines. So, I believe in science. I believe we ought to explore the far outreaches of space. We ought to make sure we understand everything we can about the particles that make up the atoms. "

Usually people who say such things don't call themselves creationists.

 

[Dal M.]

There are a lot of creationists that believe in evolution.Regardless of what sub titles they gave been given,they are creationsts.

So you are using a definition of "creationist" so broad as to render it effectively meaningless. Around here - and everywhere else I've seen where it's useful to be able to distinguish between the pro- and anti-science crowds - creationists are identified by their opposition to the theory of evolution.

Is that why you disputed the OP - because you assumed that when someone said "creationist," they meant "believer in a creator god"?

 

[John1222]

Whatever you think,but I'm not from around here.
Creationists are people who believe in creation.
I have no idea what the OP believes,a creationist is someone who believes in a creator God.
I suppose that you assume an evolutionist is someone who believes in evolution?

 

[Chalnoth]

I suppose that you assume an evolutionist is someone who believes in evolution?

To me, the only use of the word "evolutionist" that makes any degree of sense is somebody who works in the field of evolution. Evolution is not, after all, a belief for somebody to believe in. Instead it's a scientific fact and a theory. We don't use this kind of terminology for any other scientific facts or theories, so it makes no sense to use it here.

 

[TheOutsider]

To get back on topic: I found a good article on reason.com on each of the candidate's views on the creationism/evolution debate: http://www.reason.com/news/show/124271.html

I love Gravel's response.

When LiveScience asked the senator if he thought creationism should be taught in public schools, Gravel replied, ""Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial....My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they've got a mental problem. We can't afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I'm concerned."

 

[Dal M.]

I have no idea what the OP believes...

You do now. Why not reread the OP now that you have a better understanding of what was meant, and see if it still rankles you?

 

[NOTW]

Creationism is fine if it stays in the Faith Department. Once Creationism is allowed to rear its head in the education department then we can conclude that mankind has learned nothing from the evils of the Dark Ages!

It doesn't have to stay out of the education department completely. They can at least teach Creationism in a religion class and not a science class

 

[mpok1519]

yes, but, what could possibly be LEARNED from a creation class other than religious doctrine?

in public school, you cant teach religious doctrine.

the argument mostly is that teaching religion at the secondary school level simply doesnt adhere to the ciriculla of most standardized tests, ie, the SATs, the ACTs, etc. There are never religion based-questions within those tests, which means, any informtion learned in a religon class won't have an impact on later education UNLESS one goes into religious studies at a university level.

tax payers just don't want to deal with the nonsense. Also, at the econdary education level, one has few choices to select 'elective' classes and people view other subjects as having more educational value than religious courses.

now, HISTORY of religion is not a religion course; that might qualify. But simply "Garden of Eden 101" is just unacceptable.

 

[NOTW]

yes, but, what could possibly be LEARNED from a creation class other than religious doctrine?

That's the intention.
Religion class teaches doctrines and not science.
Creation is a doctrine and not science. Creation is metaphoric and symbollic and not science.
Creation is poetry and not science.

in public school, you cant teach religious doctrine.

True. But in universities you can.

the argument mostly is that teaching religion at the secondary school level simply doesnt adhere to the ciriculla of most standardized tests, ie, the SATs, the ACTs, etc. There are never religion based-questions within those tests, which means, any informtion learned in a religon class won't have an impact on later education UNLESS one goes into religious studies at a university level.

That's why offer the class as an elective and not as a required to graduate course.

tax payers just don't want to deal with the nonsense. Also, at the econdary education level, one has few choices to select 'elective' classes and people view other subjects as having more educational value than religious courses.

I would love to agree with you on this point, but the sad but true fact is this:
According to John D. Miller, from Michigan State University, and published in The New York Times, a polls show that barely 40% of the population of the United States accept Evolution, which puts us in 2nd to last next to Turkey. [source]

now, HISTORY of religion is not a religion course; that might qualify. But simply "Garden of Eden 101" is just unacceptable.

Oh well.

 

[mpok1519]

I think that if you did a study now, that it'd be over 40 percent of people who believe in evolution. and that number I'm sure grows everyday.

In most public schools, however, religious courses are not offered as electives. whatever one learns about religion in public schools, its usually through some kind of history course.

I think religious courses are great at university level bc the professors generally know alot more about the subject than a highschool level teacher would.

Its always been my opinion that religious studies should be restricted to university level.

 

[NOTW]

I think that if you did a study now, that it'd be over 40 percent of people who believe in evolution. and that number I'm sure grows everyday.

That piece of statistics was conducted back on January 23rd, 2007. So that's pretty recent. Population's opinion won't change that quick.

In most public schools, however, religious courses are not offered as electives. whatever one learns about religion in public schools, its usually through some kind of history course.

True

I think religious courses are great at university level bc the professors generally know alot more about the subject than a highschool level teacher would.

Its always been my opinion that religious studies should be restricted to university level.

Agreed

 

[mpok1519]

really? that was only a year ago? wow. I thought we were a bit more progressive than that.

its nt that learning about religion is a bad thing, its just not gonna help with the SATs ~shrug~

 

[TheOutsider]

A Harris poll from 2005 has it closer to 50% but the percentage changed wildly depending on how they worded the question:

A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do not).
Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

 

[mpok1519]

its, almost half...

which is good.

 

[TheOutsider]

its, almost half...

which is good.

Depends on how you look at it. Imagine if we had those kind of numbers on any other scientific theory. It would seem absolutely pathetic, wouldn't it?

 

[mpok1519]

yeah, i guess thats right. it would be sad if only half of the people believed say, the laws of thermodynamics....

then again, i dont know if half of the people even know what that is. =)