Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The 2nd most creationist country in the industrialized world is the most scientifically advanced. How can this be?
Denise O'Leary makes a good point: If creationism is such a threat to science knowledge, as Darwinists like to claim, then why is it that, in a study of 19 industrialized countries, the United States ranks second to last in its support of evolution (ahead of only Turkey) in its support for evolution, while it is ranks first in practically every science category?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Apples vs oranges. The poll showing low support of evolution was done on the general public, not on scientists in the biological, geological, or relevant sciences.
This shows, at the very least, that there is a divide between the scientific "elite" and the common American. Disdain can be a great motivator, that could explain some of it. I think it unlikely, though.
Probably, it just has to do with the fact that the small percentage of the population that actually generates advances in science is just much better educated than most people (Turkey lacks the same sort of scientifically educated class) and the fact that the US has more resources than most countries. The high percentage of those who reject evolution don't have much of a causal relation to advances in science at all.a
I would attribute much of the higher incidence in belief in Darwinism in other countries with a higher level of disbelief in Christianity. Of course, Darwinists will argue that's the same thing as having a better educated public. However, it has been clear from numerous discussions on this board that someone can reject the gospel according to Darwin and still be an educated person.
Also, as we have witnessed on this board, that the rejection of Intelligent Design is not a question of evidence, but assumptions. If one assumes at the outset that there must be a purely physical cause for everything, and that there cannot possibly be scientific evidence supporting the idea of design in nature, then one has not reasoned that the supernatural was not involved, but only assumed it. Darwinism is a curious philosophy which allows arguments against supernatural causes, but allows no arguments in favor.
And much as the Church tries to weed out (often unsuccessfully) people who are not true believers, so does the Church of Darwin (often unsuccessfully). If the measure of one's scientific prowess is one's devotion to Darwin, you can find yourself on the outside looking in if you challenge that orthodoxy.
I know a Christian who earned a Ph.D. in astrophysics at a major state university. This fellow believes in the "young Earth" cosmology as defined in Genesis. I asked him if he had experienced trouble getting through the Ph.D. program, given his views, and he replied that he had managed to keep them to himself. If he had let the cat out of the bag, he told me, that would have been the end of his academic career. It's not enough to master the knowledge; one must also embrace the officially approved belief system, or at least not challenge it out loud.
One can be well-educated and be a flat-earther too. Although, like with creationism, you wouldn't want to spread that around.
I wonder what the rate of flat earthers in the US is compared to other countries?
I don't know how many real flat earthers we have since Charles K. Johnson died a few years back. However, we do have several geocentricist creationists. One guy names Geraldous Bouw (spelling?) actually has an astronomy degree and used to teach computer science at Case Western Reserve College. Apparently he was a better programer than astronomer. His book on the "scientific" and religious evidence for geocentricism is a hoot -- I have a copy somewhere at home. Drat those scientists that conspire against the truly loopy! There must be a conspiricy. They just aren't "fair" to the creationists, "Cdesign proponentists", geocentricists, and flat earthers.
set up straw man...
knock straw man down...
"Oh, ya wanna fight, eh?"
set up straw man...
knock straw man down...
"You're not so tough, are you?"
So your argument is that since some creationists are crackpots that therefore creationism is a crackpot theory? Does that mean that if I can produce evolutionists who are crackpots that therefore evolution is a crackpot theory?
http://www.fixedearth.com/
I like the name they use: "The Fair Education Foundation, Inc." Sounds like a name the DI would come up with. You need to join forces with these folks.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
Better prop that straw man up a little better, Hey-nonny-nonny-mous... He didn't fall all the way down last time you whacked him. No points for TKO.
Post a Comment