How far we've strayed from the original topic, but not "how unusual!" Americans getting miffed that Brits think 53% of us are creationists; agnostics flapping about the capitalization of "God" (for us middle-of-the-road Protestants, that's his/her name. I won't go so far as to say His/Her Name.)

The real issue here is that the Oxford Entrance Exam questions are, in some cases, sexist, arrogant and misleading. However, if the young people who take them are brilliant, hopefully they are shooting the ones that look so frivolous full of holes.

P.S. Neveu's historic review of 19th century reactions to Darwin brings it all back now. He's right--people didn't want the particulars of the biblical story called into question and they certainly did not want to be descended from apes! Too bad. What we have these days is a superficial understanding of both what the bible says and what Darwin says, and lots and lots of hysterical cable TV commentators to stir them all up!

WM

quote:

The real issue here is that the Oxford Entrance Exam questions are, in some cases, sexist, arrogant and misleading.

I disagree. I think that ONE of the real questions is "...are the Oxford Entrance Exam questions, in some cases, sexist, arrogant and misleading?..."

quote:

That you happen to believe it makes on one iota of difference.

Geez! I think what I "happen to believe" makes an iota of difference. Why so touchy? My experience from living in the U.S. (and from fairly extensive travel here) is that neveu's figures are more accurate than the 53%. Once again, remember a survey is only as good as its questions and its sample. In this one, I just don't buy the Gallup survey results. They have been wrong before and will be wrong again.

Still, I doubt you could get 48 U.S. Senators to endorse Darwinian evolution.

I'm sorry if I appear touchy or rude - but I stick to my guns. Opinions (or beliefs) without accurately researched facts mean little to anyone apart from the believer. My point about "beliefs making not one iota of difference" was supposed to express this view. Of course, to the believer they make a lot of difference - but they make no difference to the reality.

That extremists from some religions are prepared to kill or die for their beliefs shows how powerful beliefs are; it does not prove that the beliefs are correct. I have never seen a single fact that proves to my satisfaction the existence of any deity and I await such proof before I embrace any religious belief. But that's my stance; if the statistics I have seen are accurate I am in a minority - most people do believe in some deity. And the belief is enough; facts don't matter. I remember well the words of my religious instruction teacher (R.I. was a compulsory subject in English schools at that time) who, when I tackled him about proof, said, "It's as though I have met a fried in the street and you later said to me, 'you couldn't have done - he's abroad'. It doesn't matter how much proof you give me that he wasn't there - I know he was because I saw him" In other words, he believed in his god and that was enough. "Don't try to confuse me with facts, I know what I believe". Poor old Joe. I didn't get on with him but in truth he was a lovely old Staffordshire man who was very intelligent, very genuine and probably very kind.

I have done very little research on the prevalance of belief in creation amongst Americans; until such time as I do, the best statistics I have seen are Gallup's. I have already posted my views on the validity (or lack thereof) of personal impressions.

And this whole thread is beginning to be a fine lesson in why it's best to avoid discussions on sex, religion or politics (all three of which are arguably present in a discussion on Darwinian Evolution Vs Creationism)

I now want you all to go off and read the section on the Babel Fish in The Hitch Hikers' Guide To The Galaxy.

Whereas I might not agree about sex, I surely agree about the usual pointlessness about religious arguments.

Religious beliefs are not based on facts and thus to argue with beliefs by quoting facts is will never work.

Mind you, I can get a lot of enjoyment by doing just that with the Jehovah's Witnesses who call around to try to convert me to their own particular brand of religious myth.

quote:

Mind you, I can get a lot of enjoyment by doing just that with the Jehovah's Witnesses who call around to try to convert me to their own particular brand of religious myth.

Now that's perverse, Richard! Are you Richarding them? (My husband, when we were first married, used to say he was going to have a bronze plaque made up to say, "Proselityzers Will Be Shot.")

Here's an article that goes into some detail about the quality of the questions behind the polls/surveys. In addition to our Douglas Adams reading assignment from Bob for the weekend, I recommend A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper by John Allen Paulos.

WM

When I was younger, I used to enjoy discussing theology with Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses, if they came to my door unexpected. They usually were the first to leave our little discussions and often never returned. I did this service at a friend's mother's house, and she was so happy that she baked me a pie.

quote:

Now that's perverse, Richard! Are you Richarding them?

I never ask them to come to try to convert me. If they choose so to do then they must accept that I might wish to argue. On a cold and wet day I suspect that many of them are happy to come in and debate over a cup of coffee.

But in the end, every debate ends with the quite unanswerable statement, "...Well, no matter what you say, we know what we believe..." or something similar.

Discussing evolution is actually good fun, since I have never met a JW who has ever even picked up "The Origin of Species". They use one reference book only, so far as I can see, and that is the Bible. A reasonable historical record, I agree, but far from being 100% accurate or 100% compreghensive.

That review of the polls is moset interesting, especially what it says about the Gallup poll. Their point "...In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life, but 55% also said this about evolution. Since creationism and evolution are incompatible as explanations, some portion of the public is clearly confused about the meaning of the terms..."

Confusion is abviously a contributive factor here but this result, and the other results they analyse, all seem to show that Americans who believe in creation are around 50% of the population by any measure.

Zmj, if you'd shwoed up at my doorstep forty years ago you would have saved me a lot of grief. My ex-wife got sucked into the J.W. thing. YUUCCCHHHH!!!

Apparently, JWs have their own version of the Bible which isn't like any other versions. Not having read their version, I can't confirm this, but I also enjoy having discussions with them. I got quite friendly with a couple when I was still married and we regularly chatted about all sorts of things over coffee and biscuits (cookies) for years till I left the area.

JWs used to use the King James, but later did their own, "New World" translation. Mormons have the Book of Mormon that's a LOT different!

JWs use their own translation of the New Testament which consistantly translates the Koine Greek kurios (κύριος) 'lord' as 'Jehovah'. The name Jehovah is based on a misunderstanding of the ineffable Hebrew name of God, YHWH, (יהוה, aka the Tetragammon), which when pointed (i.e., having the vowels indicated) used the vowels from the word 'adonai 'lord'. The usual classical reconstruction of the pronunciation of the Hebrew God's name is Yahweh.

quote:

I never ask them to come to try to convert me. If they choose so to do then they must accept that I might wish to argue. On a cold and wet day I suspect that many of them are happy to come in and debate over a cup of coffee.

Well guess I am more perverse and less hospitable than you! I am seriously annoyed by people coming door-to-door trying to convert me to their religion, when I've already got one of my own. We never did put up the PWBS plaque--I would just say, "Sorry I've already got my own religious affiliation" and shut the door in their faces. Haven't seen any door-to-door religion pushers in several years. )

Just discovered this site which collects together all sorts of polls. You need to wade through it a bit but there are several relevent to this thread. The contents page (for those who want a wider selection of polls to look at) is here

It's late, Bob, and I don't have time to read your links, but I will.

It is interesting the quote that Richard pulled out of Wordmatic's link (nice article, BTW!); it supports his stance, of course. Here's another: "The two organizations find similar numbers in favor of a creationist position ­ 42% for Pew, 45% for Gallup ­ although each describes the concept in decidedly different terms. But Pew finds far more people believing in natural selection (26% vs. 13% for Gallup) while Gallup finds more subscribing to the view that God or a supreme being guided the evolutionary process (38% vs. 18% for Pew)." Not so supportive.

You see, statistics can frequently be used to support your position, no matter what it is. I find "How to Lie with Statistics" an excellent source on that.

I think your post simply highlights the confusion. Wordmatic's link suggests that it is not possible to support evolution and creationism - but the statistics quoted seem to prove that many people to think it is.

Incidentally, the well-known religious commentator, The Reverend Canon Arthur Peacocke, MBE, PhD, who died on October 21, said, "...Darwinian evolution is consistent with the idea of God, and indeed helps explain creation. Evolution is not an evil to be dismissed as heretical, but rather a 'disguised friend'..."

According to this stance, it is possible to believe both in creation and natural selection (which I suspect is probably the position of the "intelligent design" supporters).

Many people believe in God and evolution at the same time. It might not make sense to the atheists or agnostics, but some often believe that there is part of all of this here on earth that we will never understand. For others everything has to fit neatly in a compartment, and they can't understand believing both ways. Those nuances in beliefs make a survey by Gallup or Pew on that subject nearly impossible to do reliably and validly, IMHO.

I hate when people read one fact or figure (like "the Pew report says that 90% of Americans believe in creationism...") and then take it for truth because it is written. That happens way too much. I wish more people would critically evaluate what they read before they pontificate about the facts. [I am not referring to this board because I do think we debate those kinds of facts, as we have here.]

I think the point is that while it is perfectly possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time (Darwin did after all) it isn't logically possible to believe in creationism and evolution at the same time. Both cannot be true.

None of which stops people holding logically inconsistent beliefs of course.

quote:

Alice laughed. "there's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age I always did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I think if multiple polls show similar trends it is reasonable to believe that there is at least some validity to them.
And having examined the questions asked in a number of the polls on this subject (including the Gallup one in the US and the MORI one over here) they seem quite well constructed to me. It does appear, to me at least, that somewhere between 30 and 80% of the people in both our countries expressed the belief that God created the world and the people in pretty much their current physical form sometime in the last 20000 years, a belief that is inconsistent with geological evidence and inconsistent with belief in evolution.

That may be as few as a third rather than a half but it still looks like a disturbing trend to me. On the other hand my atheism may well look like a disturbing trend to the religious.

The only certain evidence of creation that I have seen is that for the human creation of gods (many of them, in fact).

I have seen and heard nothing but heresay for the reverse.

quote:

... somewhere between 30 and 80% of the people in both our countries expressed the belief that God created the world and the people in pretty much their current physical form sometime in the last 20000 years, a belief that is inconsistent with geological evidence and inconsistent with belief in evolution.

Even worse - it was decided by James Ussher that the world was created in 4004 BC (only 6,000 years ago). See here for how he worked it out.

Not being a mathematician, I can't understand this, so I can't tell whether his conjecture is flawed or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
The only certain evidence of creation that I have seen is that for the human creation of gods (many of them, in fact).

I have seen and heard nothing but heresay for the reverse.

You still haven't read that Hitch Hiker's Guide reference have you?
To save you the trouble let me summarise.

The Babel fish is a fish. You insert it in your ear. It feeds off sound and excretes brainwaves so that it acts as an instantaneous translator for every language in the galaxy. The natural existance of such a mind-bogglingly useful creature is so unlikely that it is seen as the final proof of the non existence of God.

The proof goes like this.

1. God refuses to prove that he/she exists as the basis for religion is faith without proof.

2. The Babel fish is a dead giveaway though isn't it, only God could have created it.

3. Oh bugger. If there is something in the universe that proves God exists then it contradicts proposition 1.

4. God disappears in a puff of existential logic.

-------------

That's it from memory without looking it up.

What this really proves is the unprovability of the existence of God. I'm an atheist but I did once do a University maths module on the theory of unsolvable problems and this one is quite neat.
By definition you cannot have proof of the existence of a God because it is always self-negating.

PS please forgive any remaining typos I have a painful throat infection which is affecting my concentration. I've fixed the ones I noticed.

Di, of course it's flawed. Not only that, it's famously flawed. It's an argument often trotted out by people trying to "prove" that the Earth is only 4000 years old. When I don't feel so ill I'll take the time, if you wish, to list the ways in which such a simple-minded model of population growth is nonsense. Right now though I'm about to take a couple of paracetamol and go to bed.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
The only certain evidence of creation that I have seen is that for the human creation of gods (many of them, in fact).

I have seen and heard nothing but heresay for the reverse.

Is that an oxymoron?

quote:

I think the point is that while it is perfectly possible to believe in God and evolution at the same time (Darwin did after all) it isn't logically possible to believe in creationism and evolution at the same time. Both cannot be true.

As I had said in my post above, Bob, people who believe in God and evolution also admit to believing that there are some mysteries in this wonderful life. At any rate, it seems to me that you can't, logically that is, believe in God and evolution. Did God evolve?

I would agree with the fact that multiple surveys, with similar results, do tend to validate each other. However, if multiple studies support "30% to 80%" of people in both our countries believe that God created the world and the people in pretty much their current physical form sometime in the last 20000 years, as you said, then that is way too wide a range to be meaningful. I, therefore, can't see that the studies do show "similar trends" with that kind of range.

If one is willing to accept that "30% to 80%" range as a reasonable statistic, I suppose you could say then that between 30% and 80% of people who smoke get lung cancer...or whatever. It's just not a useful statistic.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Is that an oxymoron?

quote:

evidence

I don't see why. Evidence can be qualified - good, vague, compelling, circumstantial - so I don't see why it can't be "certain" as well.

quote:

You still haven't read that Hitch Hiker's Guide reference have you?

I have been an enthusiast since the first broadcast (on BBC radio). And I am familiar with Douglas Adams's clever and very amusing "proofs".

quote:

It's just not a useful statistic.

It's a very broad range, I agree - but that's not to say it's not very useful.

The lowest figure of 30% suggests around 100 million Americans believe in creation and reject evolution. That is a very worrying statistic suggesting, as it does, the this huge number believe in religious myth and mumbo-jumbo with all that such flawed beliefs imply.

If the evidence for smoking's link with lung cancer were only that high it would still be quite high enough to suggest that action should be taken. Remember what happened a few years ago when a very tenuous link between BSE and CJD was suggested (far lower than 30%)? The USA (and many other countries) banned the import of British beef - even though more people are killed every year from falling out of bed than are killed through CJD.

quote:

Not being a mathematician, I can't understand this, so I can't tell whether his conjecture is flawed or not.

Trust me, it's well flawed!

Basically he's saying that exponential growth of population (doubling is his model) means that the world cannot be more than a few thousand years old. His mathematics is fine; the basis for his figures are rubbish. The flaw is clear to see, in his own words "...Either populations double, or they don't....", which is about as accurate as GWB's famous "...Either you're with us or you're against us...". These kind of simplistic statements might appeal to simplistic minds - but that doesn't make them right. Populations can double in a generation, of course. They could also quadruple, or halve, or increase by 1.1%, or do almost anything else.

As Asimov proved many years ago in a very readable article (and I trust Asimov far more than I trust WongHoPinyan) if the world's population doubled in size every generation from now on, in a few thousand years (not even a million years) it would reach the total mass of all the bodies (stars, planets, asteroids - the lot) in the known universe (don't trust me on the actual numbers I might be slightly out - but the point is clear enough).

Human population does not double every generation. It might in some societies and for some generations but it very soon stops doing so. There are plenty of ways extant for killing off excess humans and they have generally kept things under control - although the advent of better medical science and other advances has rather distorted that mechanism over the past century.

But the point at issue is that a simple calculation of the age of the Earth based of exponential population growth is, as we say in England, a load of old cobblers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Well I was going to debunk the maths rather more... well, mathematically but Richard's argument will suffice.

Excellent analysis, R.E. It's another example of what I've been calling -- for lack of a better term -- the exponential fallacy. Nothing material grows exponentially for very long.

Since we're talking of evolution...I found an article in the NY Times theorizing that there might be a "Darwinian payoff" if blue-eyed men had a blue-eyed mate because he could be more certain that a blue-eyed child was his. So they asked Norwegian college students to rate photographs of the opposite sex. Interestingly, the blue-eyed men in the study preferred blue-eyed women (rating them an average of 3.29) versus brown-eyed women (rating them 2.79). The female students, on the other hand, had no preference.

The conclusion, according to the Dr. Bruno Laeng of the University of Tromso, was nicely explained by the evolutionary theory. He says, "There is strong evolutionary pressure for a man not to invest his paternal resources in another man's child." He admitted that a cultural explanation is not impossible, but he said that would require a lot of assumptions.

Hmmm...I think we now have the data to convince the creationists.

quote:

Hmmm...I think we now have the data to convince the creationists.

I doubt it. They'll say that a change from a blue eyed man and a brown-eyed woman to brown-eyed offspring is simply a change in human characteristics. The offspring are still human - and their parents, and their parents, and their parents and so on, have all been human ever since God created them in his own image.

The theory of evolution suggests that modern humans developed from primitive humans, who developed from earlier primates, who developed from earlier mammals and so back until our ancestors were simply single-celled organisms.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
until our ancestors were simply single-celled organisms.

I think some of my family still are.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:


I think some of my family still are.

Welllll, considering what symbiotic critters we are, parts of all of us are! I've heard it said that mitochondria were once independent organisms, and still function mostly independently. The bugs in our guts digest our food for us. Without those single-celled organisms, we complex ones are just lumps of protoplasm. Explain THAT via creationism!

Mitochrondria apparently were indeed once independent organisms and have their own DNA. I speculate that many of the other organelles will be found to have a similar history.

I've also heard that the number of bacterial cells covering our bodies exceeds the number of somatic cells (bacteria are much smaller) but I've never verified this.

quote:

I've also heard that the number of bacterial cells covering our bodies exceeds the number of somatic cells (bacteria are much smaller) but I've never verified this.

I've got no data either, but it sounds quite reasonable. Do any of you medical/biology types know?

I don't know.

Richard, I was being facetious, as you probably knew, about convincing the creationists. I don't think it is easy to convince them, or the evolutionists, to change their beliefs.

quote:

Richard, I was being facetious, as you probably knew, about convincing the creationists. I don't think it is easy to convince them, or the evolutionists, to change their beliefs.

I realised that;-)

But the underying truth is that it's very difficult to persuade people to change their beliefs and, I feel sure, the fewer the facts to support the belief, the more firmly do believers hold it.

Religion, as I have said previously, is the supreme example. With a vanishingly small body of factual evidence for any religious belief, there yet exist millions of people who hold extreme religious convictions - so much so that some are prepared to kill or die for them.

Incidentally, there is an interesting article in this week's "Time" magazine about the USA's 300 million inhabitants and their beliefs. I recommend it.