Only a third? I would expect more (even amongst the US population in general).Seems to me the wording of the questions make the different surveys play out quite differently. The questions in this seemed rather balanced to my (untrained) eye.
Templeton likes having big-name scientists and secular academics on its panels and in its published discussions, for their presence lends an air of versimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing enterprise.Scientists and theologians can talk all they want. What the link author doesn't want is theologians coopting science by saying "I agree with everything you just said about the natural world and PS God totally exists".
I have had my say about materialism and the persistent attempt by religious spokespeople to muddy the waters by claiming, without a shred of support, that materialism (in the sense I have defended for my entire career) is any obstacle to meaning, or to an ethical life.posted by DU at 8:07 AM on February 22, 2010 [2 favorites]
Sova:Cause everything else in religion is perfectly reasonable? We either have standards or we don't, but it's not as though the whole "dinosaurs lived with humans" thing is the first time a religious person has believed something just a little bit cakey.Sova hits it on the nosey.
Republican members of Congress do not believe in climate change.posted by ericb at 1:08 PM on February 22, 2010
The First Republican [2008] Presidential Debate: Three Of Them Don't Believe In Evolution.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): I’m Not ‘Anti-Science’…But I Don’t Believe In Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Or Evolution.
CallMeJayThey're like hosts without immune systems waiting for people to deliberately infect them.Exactly. Religious fundamentalism is a backdoor key into the mind. It allows religious and political leaders a more direct pathway into controlling the thoughts and actions of their (religious/political) followers.
they even managed to add a line requiring books to give space to conservative icons, “such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly and the Moral Majority,” [...]Make no mistake, Christian Fundamentalism is at war with Science, Liberalism, and even critical thinking itself (“This critical-thinking stuff is gobbledygook,”), and so on. Revisionaries: How a group of Texas conservatives is rewriting your kids’ textbooks.
three of the six people appointed [to help write the textbooks] were right-wing ideologues, among them Peter Marshall, a Massachusetts-based preacher who has argued that California wildfires and Hurricane Katrina were God’s punishment for tolerating gays, and David Barton, former vice chairman of the Texas Republican Party.
With great care, attention to the scientific evidence and a wonderfully accessible style, Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago, presents an overwhelming case for evolution.I would reiterate that Coyne does a good and methodical job of debunking the arguments in favor of Intelligent Design without being condescending, patronizing, or putting up strawmen. (But that is just a small part of the book).
Ranging from biogeography to geology, from anatomy to genetics, and from molecular biology to physiology, he demonstrates that evolutionary theory makes predictions that are consistently borne out by the data—basic requirements for a scientific theory to be valid.
Additionally, although fully respectful of those who promote intelligent design and creationism, he uses the data at his disposal to demolish any thought that creationism is supported by the evidence while also explaining why those ideas fall outside the bounds of science. Coyne directly addresses the concept often advanced by religious fundamentalists that an acceptance of evolution must lead to immorality, concluding that "evolution tells us where we came from, not where we can go."
Readers looking to understand the case for evolution and searching for a response to many of the most common creationist claims should find everything they need in this powerful book, which is clearer and more comprehensive than the many others on the subject.
Texas, as comforting as it may be to believe, is not the root of the problems in America. We may be a point of convergence, we may be a large and powerful state, but the problem is in all of us, everywhere. It is simply biology -- we did not evolve in a friendly world. Let's try to make the world better so our descendants may have that luxury instead of finding reasons to get angry at or mock each other.First, we know at least 33% of Texans will disagree with you, at least on the point of us not 'evolving' in a friendly world.
« Older ZDNet(!) reports on a strange case of technology j... | "The reality is that the post-... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chasing at 10:38 PM on February 21, 2010 [29 favorites]