Most Americans Believe In Creation

big bang theory.... can be argued as just a theory, even a really good theory.
Creationism.... cannot be argued at all...absoltely no facts

Evolution... cannot be argued as a theory.... absolutley undeniably, proof based on facts.

Fundimentalists are not denying the laws of physics only because there is no story in the Bible about it.

Good thing the Bible doesn't say "up is down and down is up" or we would be in a world of crap

www.rael.org...

Evolution is myth really, just our misinterpretation of the scientific progress and learning of the Elohim who genetically created all life on this planet. They started by creating simple things, and then something a bit more complex, a bit more complex, etc.

From Rael's book:

First of all you must dispel from your minds all uncertainty about evolution. Your scientists who have elaborated theories of evolution are not completely wrong in saying that humanity is descended from the monkey and the monkey from the fish and so on. In truth, the first living organism created on Earth was unicellular, which then gave rise to more complex life forms.

But this did not happen by chance! When we came to Earth to create life, we started by making very simple creations and then improved our techniques of environmental adaptation. This enabled us to make in turn fish, amphibians, mammals, birds, primates and finally man himself, who is just an improved model of the monkey to which we added what makes use essentially human.

In this way, we made human beings in our image, as it is written in the Bible in Genesis. You could have realized for yourselves that there is little chance of a series of accidents producing such variety of life forms - the colors of birds and their elaborate mating rituals, or the shape of antelope horns.

What natural need could lead antelopes or wild goats to develop curled horns? Or birds to have blue or red feathers? And what about exotic fish?

All that is the work of our artists. Do not forget the artists when you create life. Imagine a world without them - no music, films, paintings or sculptures ... Life would be very boring and animals very ugly if their bodies corresponded only to their needs and functions.

Evolution of the various forms of life on Earth is really the evolution of techniques of creation and the increased sophistication of the creators' work. ....

In short, the plants, animals, people we see is nothing more than living art, created by an advanced race for the purpose of pleasing themselves. They did because they could, just as we will create and design life ourselves someday.

Now, is it that farfetched to think that we could create and design life on day? Isn't that where science is leading us? And once we do, don't you have to question evolution and say, "We'll if we are capable of creating and designing life then was the life we see and know today created by someone?” Many call that someone "God". I recognize them as the Elohim.

Do you like plants? I do – I love perennials. I have a patch of Black-eyed-Susans mixed with Purple Cone flowers (yellow and purple contrast nicely). If you ever get a chance, look at them. Really look at them. Don’t think and appreciate what it is that you see, and appreciate it for the art that it really is. [Sarah McLachlan's Ordinary Miracle plays in the background ...]

It's wonderful to be happy

I'm confused here (which isn't all that uncommon for me)

My experience with science classes in school was that first you learn the scientific process and the difference between a law and a theory. After that you do go on to learn about various scientific laws and theories. Now things like evolution and the big bang (in my school anyway) were taught as a theory or "this could be how it worked based on the information we have so far". It was never said, "this is exactly how it happened".

Now forgive me, I don't really know too much about the creationism stance, but it seems to be a religious idea, not a scientific theory. Now wouldn't it stand to reason that if most scientists have not accepted creation as a scientific theory (can you even test it? it seems like a faith thing...) then it shouldn't be taught in science class? I mean what exactly would be used as text? You can't exactly use the bible really since it would alienate people of all other faiths.

I, like others here, would have no problem with schools adding in some theology based elective coursework, I had an interest in various religions in high school and wouldn't have minded learning more about them. But it seems like we should really be letting scientists decide what is taught in science class. Not doing so would be like math teachers deciding what to teach in engish class...

As far as the majority rule thing, are you actually suggesting that everyone in the united states should take a vote to decide what will be taught in science class? I mean, it's science... shouldn't it be taught based on the observations and conclusions of scientists?

Why can't religious kids learn about religious ideas in church? If a theory threatens your religion, don't believe it. But there is no sense in adding non-science to science class or removing scientific thought from it just because your religion doesn't agree with it, this is public school i assume we are talking about, public school is for people of all faiths.

Originally posted by thebeard
Now things like evolution and the big bang (in my school anyway) were taught as a theory or "this could be how it worked based on the information we have so far". It was never said, "this is exactly how it happened".

This is true. Evolution is a theory, but it is acknowledged as fact by many, and at this point, because of indoctrination, (in general) people declare 'this is exactly how it happened'.

I myself feel evolution is real but is a divine operation... as are all processes of creation. I would still say it is a theory.

Now forgive me, I don't really know too much about the creationism stance, but it seems to be a religious idea, not a scientific theory.

It has it's base in religious texts, taken quite literally (like Genesis) but as I see it, many spiritualists and progressive religious people have assimilated creationism as a metaphor for evolution. Still, some take it literally, and are incapable of considering it a theory, but instead the absolute word of God etc.

So, I still think evolution and creationism are theories that can coincide, and that literalists, on both the scientific and religious side, have seperated the theories like oil and water due to their own hatred of one another. Science can prove evolution, creationism can include evolution, therefore religion and science can still meet on even grounds. The people do not want this, though.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Thanks for the reply, I can totally see where you're coming from since although I am not a religious man, I can see how if there were a creator, he would want to make us adaptable so that we could change if needed as our surroundings change around us. Adaptation is important.

I still do not understand wanting to put creationism into the school system or wanting to remove evolution from it however.

From the op:

The truth is that Christians are not forcing their beliefs on anyone.

and then from the end of that same paragraph:

If creation was taught in schools before evolution then evolutionists must have forced their 'science' on the majority of people who happen to be Christians. So what's wrong with the majority of Americans trying to bring back creation to the majority?

(*bolding mine)

Now as I see it, no one "forced" evolutionary science on anyone other than to tell school kids that "this is the current prevailing scientific theory of life on earth" whether they take it as truth or reject it outright, that is the right of the student as it is a theory. If it is forced on them then that is bad teaching. if we bring creation into the schools, isn't that forcing an idea based on the bible on kids who may or may not be religious? Wouldn't that be exactly what the op said Christians don't do?

I always thought that schools where to prepare kids for the future and give them various options for future careers, if we leave out a theory as major as evolution or the big bang from science class would that not be a hindrance to them if they decide to enter the science field?

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


okay, you are all kinds of wrong.

firstly, it is well documented that the founding fathers were, in fact, at best... agnostic. AT BEST. also, since we're dealing with the success of our nation being founded on christianity.. then why is it that our founding fathers clearly stated in the Treaty of Paris that they wanted religion to have nothing to do with government.

secondly, science has given us substantial evidence for evolution. in fact, it has been proven that our 23rd pair of chromosomes is a result of a molding of a 24th pair that is seen in chimpanzees. godbegone.blogspot.com...
watch the video.

third, christians do, in fact, force their beliefs on millions of americans on a daily basis. these americans happen to be children. yes, children are taken to church every week without a choice. they are brought up christian. they do not choose to be christian. it would seem to me, and i'm sure many other logical people like myself, that if these children were taken to temple or mosque instead, they would have a different set of beliefs. this is why we would rarely see a christian child in an islamic country.

fourth, stating that christianity does not force its views upon people, then claiming that science does by having evolution taught in schools is quite a poor claim, indeed. tell me why you believe that science having evolution taught is forcing a view rather than presenting another side to the argument. i suppose that is quite the key difference between religion and science... science is open to revision.

fifth, what evidence do you have for any of the beliefs shared by christianity? the fact of the matter is simple. nobody has any evidence, period. i could probably type for days on end as to why religion is nothing more than a blind faith. in fact, i will go as far as to say that religion exists for, among others, 2 major reasons. the first is that people are afraid of being alone. by this i mean that there is no answer to death, and people are petrified of the nothingness that ensues. the second is that every claim made by religion, seemingly particularly in christianity in america, is explained in a deus ex machina manner. how convenient!!!

Perhaps it is best that theologians and theists stick to their subject matter. I don't know why it is acceptable in their eyes that a theologian or theist may refute the work of a scientist, and the scientist would have no business disproving religion.

I understand why people choose to be religious, assuming they aren't brainwashed as children into being a member of any certain religion. It is because they are afraid, and it provides comfort. At least, that is my humble opinion. In my quest for existential truth, I have gone back and forth on these matters, and I currently am an atheist. I use currently because, like any logical human being would, I am leaving the subject open to revision. I repeat: It is possible that I am wrong, but I side with Dawkins.

I believe I did quite a beautiful job picking apart your bold claims, and I'm very proud of myself.

Thanks for an entertaining night.

And as you may note, I joined the site because you inspired me! May this be a warning to all others who make false claims, or claims that provide absolutely no evidence.

Sir or Madam, you are entitled to your opinion, but do not mistake opinion with fact, as I may vomit on my keyboard.

furthermore, it has come to my attention that i made a mistake. upon further review, i have found that many of the founding fathers were deists. en.wikipedia.org... and for further evidence of separation of religion and government desired by these men, read the treaty of tripoli.

do you see what i did? i reviewed, tested, and retested my claims. show me a theist who does that!

[edit on 25-1-2008 by CaptainG0705]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
It has it's base in religious texts, taken quite literally (like Genesis) but as I see it, many spiritualists and progressive religious people have assimilated creationism as a metaphor for evolution. Still, some take it literally, and are incapable of considering it a theory, but instead the absolute word of God etc.

So, I still think evolution and creationism are theories that can coincide, and that literalists, on both the scientific and religious side, have seperated the theories like oil and water due to their own hatred of one another. Science can prove evolution, creationism can include evolution, therefore religion and science can still meet on even grounds. The people do not want this, though.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not. When scientists talk about theories, it's not merely a guess or stab at some idea. A scientific theory is more than guess work. It has to be supported by objective observation and make predictions. So far, creationism hasn't shown any of that.

The fact that they are separated has nothing to do with hatred. At least not for the scientists; their decisions are based on nothing more than objective observation and experimentation.

Scientists haven't closed the door on creation. In fact, there could be some evidence that shows up tomorrow which could turn the table right around. But the point is that it hasn't shown up yet. To conclusively say "that and this", i.e creationism, is not possible 100% is not scientific. Science is always open to new ideas AS LONG AS there is observable, objective data to work with. Science never deals with 'ultimate' truths, as it is always open to speculation and revision.

When religious people and creationists claim that creationism should be taught in science class alongside evolution there are certain standards that have to be met. It is creationists who claim that their ideas should be taught as science and as such have the burden of proof to convince scientists that their ideas are indeed scientific. So far they haven't done that. And that is why it is not taught in science class; it has nothing to do with hatred.

Show the scientists some observable and objective data and they will be more than happy to include it in a science class.

So, where is the data?

[edit on 25-1-2008 by LuDaCrIs]

We'll be able to test "Creation" theory, once we begin to create and design life - it's going to happen.

reply to post by ThreeNF


that's not a test on the origin of life...
and honestly, the raelian stuff is just as BS as the other forms of "creation"
...actually, slightly more. it creates infinite regress. it's not an answer to anything.

and evolution is far from a myth, it's scientifically proven that life has evolved. life was not created in its current state. why do i say this? well, we don't see rat fossils in the strata near the dinosaurs, do we?
we only see fossils around where they should be based on evolutionary theory, instead of in a random jumble as they should be if everything was created

ThreeNF,

Nothing you are saying merits any serious response. Just because you firmly believe something to be true, does not mean that it is so. Do not confuse this statement as a similar downfall of science. Science is experimental. It is logical. It is open for revision. Any theory that you may choose that science has produced is logical. Some things are not experimented upon yet, but only because we do not have the capabilities to do so in some situations. However, these untestable scientific theories are also mathematically proven. Your beliefs sound beautiful, actually. I would be more than happy if they were true. The problem is that you telling anybody that certain set of beliefs is like me telling anybody else that we came from a distant planet entirely outside of the reach of human comprehension. There is no evidence, and I have safeguarded myself with my own statement.

You cannot possibly know any of your beliefs to be true. They are beliefs. It is possible that they are correct, but no more possible than my previous statement.

Please refrain from stating one opinion or belief as truth, when there is no possible way of testing that belief. Making the assumption that we will be able to create life and see your belief as true is utter nonsense, because you have no idea whether we'll be able to do that or not. It is just another useless statement of yours.

Massive truck of fail. Massive.

Originally posted by CaptainG0705

okay, you are all kinds of wrong.

firstly, it is well documented that the founding fathers were, in fact, at best... agnostic. AT BEST. also, since we're dealing with the success of our nation being founded on christianity.. then why is it that our founding fathers clearly stated in the Treaty of Paris that they wanted religion to have nothing to do with government.

Well I look at America's motto, the currency, the national anthem, engraving's on government building's, statues on government property, past government documents...etc and their is a strong reference to God.
They didn't want an established religion and there never was one in America. This doesn't mean that they didn't believe in God.

secondly, science has given us substantial evidence for evolution. in fact, it has been proven that our 23rd pair of chromosomes is a result of a molding of a 24th pair that is seen in chimpanzees. godbegone.blogspot.com...
watch the video.

It has been proven? No it hasn't. It is assumed based on a theory. We have never observed this happen and therefore it cannot be science. No evolutionary claims about ancestry can be proven which shatters the theory.

third, christians do, in fact, force their beliefs on millions of americans on a daily basis. these americans happen to be children. yes, children are taken to church every week without a choice. they are brought up christian. they do not choose to be christian. it would seem to me, and i'm sure many other logical people like myself, that if these children were taken to temple or mosque instead, they would have a different set of beliefs. this is why we would rarely see a christian child in an islamic country.

Going to church does not force you to be a Christian. If like you say, children are being 'forced' to go and they don't want to that would make them turn from Christianity as they age, and this happens. In my opinion going to church would teach the children good morals.
We rarely see a Christian in an islamic country because the Koran specifically says, "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another." It then says in another verse, "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

fourth, stating that christianity does not force its views upon people, then claiming that science does by having evolution taught in schools is quite a poor claim, indeed. tell me why you believe that science having evolution taught is forcing a view rather than presenting another side to the argument. i suppose that is quite the key difference between religion and science... science is open to revision.

I believe science having evolution taught is forcing a view because it is the only view. There are no other views allowed. Evolution can only provide science for microevolution and no one opposes this.

fifth, what evidence do you have for any of the beliefs shared by christianity? the fact of the matter is simple. nobody has any evidence, period. i could probably type for days on end as to why religion is nothing more than a blind faith. in fact, i will go as far as to say that religion exists for, among others, 2 major reasons. the first is that people are afraid of being alone. by this i mean that there is no answer to death, and people are petrified of the nothingness that ensues. the second is that every claim made by religion, seemingly particularly in christianity in america, is explained in a deus ex machina manner. how convenient!!!

Christianity is based on the Bible. Which has never been proven wrong. It's not blind faith, every part of it actually happened.

Perhaps it is best that theologians and theists stick to their subject matter. I don't know why it is acceptable in their eyes that a theologian or theist may refute the work of a scientist, and the scientist would have no business disproving religion

There are creation believing scientists just as qualified as evolution believing scientists.

I understand why people choose to be religious, assuming they aren't brainwashed as children into being a member of any certain religion. It is because they are afraid, and it provides comfort. At least, that is my humble opinion. In my quest for existential truth, I have gone back and forth on these matters, and I currently am an atheist. I use currently because, like any logical human being would, I am leaving the subject open to revision. I repeat: It is possible that I am wrong, but I side with Dawkins.

You are religious. Your religion is atheism.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
We have not observed any of that. good try though.

It is full of observations. Data which has been used to test the predictions made from the theory of evolution.

That is how science works.

Go back to your original quote:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Collection of data through observation - check

Formulation and testing of hypotheses - check

Then you might read this from the pages I linked earlier. Read and learn. You don't get to determine what science is. Sorry about that.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by melatonin]

We have never observed evolution. In fact we haven't observed anything beyond thousands of years ago. Not millions.
Observing is not the same as assuming.

Originally posted by gekko
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

Isn't evolution just a long string of micro-evolutions put together? How can you believe one is proven and not the other?

It's like saying: "I believe your words, but not the sentences they make."

No it's not. Have you ever seen an animal become a different animal? I haven't