<p>Even among college graduates, only just over half accept evolution. A bit more than a fifth reject it, and just over a fourth have no opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your standard for judging this “enlightenment”, other than “believes evolution”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I based a claim on “a book by Phillip Johnson” would you accept it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have I failed to answer any of the objections raised in that other thread? I believe that for each one I have explained what I consider flawed in it, and recognized what I consider true in it. If I’ve missed any feel free to repost them, and I will try to find time to address them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As stated by my Bible, divorce (or rather “remarriage to a different person”) is only allowable in the case of adultery or abandonment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only time that it is allowable to leave your spouse is if they commit adultery. If they choose to leave you, then obviously it isn’t your fault.</p>
<p>That said, I also believe that it’s none of the governments business. So if people want to get a divorce, they should be allowed to. Marriage vows should be as binding as any other contract, but anything more than that is between the couple and God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a more difficult issue for me, as I have not given it as much study as I have issues like evolution, and therefore my views on this issue are subject to change as I learn more about it. However, my views as they stand:</p>
<p>The same thing that makes extramarital heterosexual acts wrong. According to the Bible the only context in which sex is acceptable is between one man and one woman, who are married for life. Note that, contrary to what some people say, I do not believe there is anything wrong with “being gay”, if that is indeed a innate psychological condition beyond a person’s control. It is the things that people do, not things that they are, that are wrong.</p>
<p>But, as with divorce, I don’t think that it is any of the government’s business what people do in private with their own persons and property.</p>
<p>That is huge --just the difference between the creationist viewpoint with those who haven’t graduated from high school and those who have graduated from a 4-yr college. In other words about 70% of childhood creationists change their minds after maturation and exposure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Recognizing that evolution is fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The statistic is cited somewhere but you don’t have to accept it. I don’t really care. You selectively choose what you take as true anyways regardless of if it is or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None of your arguments were scientifically supported and they got destroyed over and over again. My dad is an evolutionary biologist and read a good portion of what you wrote. He couldnt help but laugh at most of it and was mostly appalled by the rest and flat out stated how scientifically wrong it was. </p>
<p>I don’t think you people mind getting factually beat in arguments; its all about the publicity and putting the lies out before the public. Thankfully publish schools can’t teach that crud (as determined by the Supreme Court).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite a few other valid reasons too. Abuse is a huge one. I don’t see why that should be tolerated. Lack of interest, need of a new life direction, etc. etc. are all valid in my opinion. I don’t think anyone would choose to remain in a loveless or depressive marriage, let alone for potentially 50-80 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mostly agree with this although there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual relationships or practices. They’re just different from the norm.</p>
<p>Well thanks. CC isn’t a big part of what I do in life so I don’t come on here that often. And I disagree with almost everything you say, but you do seem like a very nice person.</p>
<p>Well, first off, assuming the string theory is true there is no need for a divine Creator.
Second off, God is not awesome. He condoned the suppression of women, slavery, the mauling of children, condemnation of homosexuals, ritualistic sacrifice, murder, and rape. Have you even read the Bible? I can hardly get through Genisis before facepalming due to the ridiculousness and impossibility of almost every single event that occured.
I absolutely refuse to condone a religion that has, for years, been used as an excuse to kill, torture, enslave, and oppress. Talk to most people in Uganda, Tibet, or Congo and then tell me that God loves them and that “He” is doing this to him.
I find it absolutely disgusting that a religion that has, throughout history, hated women, gays, blacks, Muslims, atheists, and Jews and still has the audacity to call itself the most loving of all.
Religion makes me sick, and the only purpose in society it has ever served is keeping the masses silent and content with ignorance.</p>
<p>I’ve been using Gallup polls, [this</a> one](<a href=“http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx]this”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) in this case. According to it, about half of the people who didn’t go to college were “no opinion”, and the other half was split almost 50/50, with slightly more disbelieving. College graduates were far less likely to be uncertain, with just over half accepting evolution in some form. The percentage of graduates who rejected evolution was only slightly smaller than that of those with no college education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that is what the categories mean. These polls are taken of a random sample of adults. The “high school” category is not high school students, it is adults who did not attend college. The results are not “before college” and “after college” they are “attended college” and “did not attend college”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would be very interested to see Dawkins’ source for that. Due to the difficulty of defining “theologian”, I suspect that it’s the kind of thing where you can get whatever statistics you want to get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is a specific example of something I claimed that was not true (not including overall conclusions like “evolution is false”)?</p>
<p>I’ve tried to either clarify or revise my position to address every objection that has been raised.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This made me laugh, because I just realized that your dad’s reaction to my statements on evolution probably looks exactly like my dad’s reaction to some of things people have said about Christian theology here. He’s a former minister. Speaking of which…</p>
<p>[tangent]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahem.</p>
<p>-suppression of women: Compare and contrast with contemporary societies. For example, the Code of Hammurabi provides various penalties for striking a pregnant woman, according to the social class of the woman and the injury done. For striking a free-born woman and causing death, the attackers daughter was to be killed. Causing the death of a maidservant was merely a small fine. In the Bible, there is no sliding scale of human worth, and the attacker, not his daughter, is punished.</p>
<p>-slavery: Again, compare with contemporaries. Slavery was near-universal in ancient societies. However, under Mosaic law, slaves had protection: If a master caused permanent injury to his slave, such as knocking out a tooth, then the slave received his freedom as compensation.</p>
<p>-the mauling of children: Um, what? If you are referring to the instance where Elisha summoned some bears, “teenage gang” might be a better term.</p>
<p>-condemnation of homosexuals: If by “homosexuals” you mean “people who commit homosexual acts”, then yes. Israel was intended to be a holy people, who would not tolerate any corruption. Homosexual acts, along with many other immoral things, were punishable by death or banishment. Since Jesus came, the Church is no longer expected to act as the legal authorities, except among its own willing members.</p>
<p>-ritualistic sacrifice: So what? Virtually every ancient civilization practiced ritualistic sacrifices. In ancient Israel, these actually served an important purpose, as they essentially provided the governmental infrastructure for the nation. The sacrifices brought were rarely wasted: they provided support for the priests, who served as the nation’s judges and government, and also (along with other practices in Mosaic law) helped to support the poor and unfortunate.</p>
<p>-murder and rape: Um, what? Murder and rape were both capital crimes under Mosaic law, except in the case where the victim married her attacker (which, I suppose, existed to cover the sometimes grey area between rape and seduction. Even in that case it was still a crime. There is not a SINGLE instance of rape being condoned in the Bible. In fact, every rape committed in the Bible ended in the rapist being killed for it.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certain people have used “the good of their country” as an excuse for such things. Do you absolutely refuse to condone any of those countries? You might want to look in to real estate in Antartica.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ironically, the populations of those countries are all overwhelmingly religious.</p>
<p>And God does not do those things. People who ignore God do those things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone who hates any of the above people is entirely without the Bible’s support in so doing.</p>
<p>[/LONG tangent]</p>
<p>ANYWAY…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Christians are expected to endure situations like that, so that the world will be won over by their patience and love.</p>
<p>But I don’t think legally a person should have to stay in something like that, if they didn’t promise to. Therefore as a voter, and therefore a part of the government, I wouldn’t try to force that on other people.</p>
<p>Christian standards are supposed to be a choice.</p>
<p>I think this quote is an important one that is too often ignored by every religious establishment. There’s a reason Spinoza saw the purpose of government as to make sure freedom of beliefs was ensured.</p>
<p>^ Abortion is a totally different issue as seen by Christians. Since Christians consider an unborn baby to be a human with the rights of humans, to them abortion is not just a lifestyle choice, it is a murderous assault on a human being.</p>
<p>This is really what the issue hinges on. Not whether a woman should have control over her own body, but whether an unborn child is indeed a nonhuman part of the mother’s body.</p>
<p>^ well… if you take Pico della Mirandola’s words for it -</p>
<p>
-</p>
<p>the definition of man is free will, and, therefore, an unborn child, let alone a collection of cells that would be aborted, having no free will, is not human. Therefore it is not murder in any sense. </p>
<p>^Well, you have to prove that we do not live in a deterministic universe, that we are Agents in ourselves, that an unborn child has no “free will.” And this only works if one accepts the ludicrous proposition that humans are human because they have free will, and anything that does not have free will is not human.</p>
<p>Its not a longitudinal study but it does suggest that level of education is a huge factor in accepting evolution and that less educated people don’t accept it. College does have an effect on world outlook. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most theologians are receptive to evolution although it depends on how receptive they are to science. Most accept science and prefer to see their god in terms of the empirical evidence. And why the “why would I accept anything Dawkins writes” attitude? I would doubt you’ve read a single book that he’s written.</p>
<p>And not to be a stickler but you keep on making the same punctuation error. Commas and periods go INSIDE quotations not outside of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have been called on almost all of them before. You are just embarrassingly incompetent when it comes to science (and logic and philosophy as well — you put enough holes in your arguments to drive a truck through). It was irritating to read your subtle twists and outright lies. Then if people call you on it, then THEY are the ones to get ridiculed because we’re supposed to respect everyones beliefs. I can respect beliefs to some extent but not if the people supporting them have to spread lies to do so.</p>
<p>There’s a good deal of truth in what Deziky said. The fair treatment of women, gays, racial minorities and people who don’t believe in their wacked-up ideas has been ■■■■■■■■ by religion. That’s completely true. Religion claiming to be the moral force in the world is a sick joke with no reality. In fact, it’s been pretty much the opposite. The Old Testament is a disgusting book and there are not many moral truths to take from there. The New Testament is better but there is still gross opinions about women and slavery is supported. </p>
<p>Too bad the sheep-herders didn’t make up a story about how the holy force would kick major ass if people owned slaves and treated women, minorities, and outsiders terribly. Maybe history would be a little bit different and I could respect the Holey Babble a little bit more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You people are supposed to endure abuse? How does enduring abuse win the world over with patience and love?</p>
<p>Undoubtedly. It is unsurprising that, considering the colleges teach evolution as true, those who have attended college are more likely to believe it than others. But it is not nearly the level of effect you think it is. To some extent, people who enter college in the first place are more likely to believe evolution, for the reasons I mentioned above. I can’t find any actual data as to what percentage of people change their beliefs in college. I expect it would be a fair amount, because people who don’t think about their views as much tend to just “follow the crowd” in their beliefs, and college faculty tend to be evolutionists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if it’s empirical evidence we’re talking about I want some for these statistics.</p>
<p>But “preferring to see God in terms of empirical evidence” doesn’t necessarily mean “accepting evolution”.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that “evolution” is poorly defined. By the standard scientific definition of it “change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations”, I accept it. I just don’t accept the “neo-darwinian synthesis”, or the idea that this process is sufficient to get from microbes to men.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point is that if you wouldn’t accept the writings of my “fanatics”, why should I accept yours? As one of the most outspoken antireligionists on the planet, Dawkins is hardly an impartial source.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. I doubt you have read much creationist literature. It’s better to base these debates on mainstream sources that everyone can accept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that. It’s a deliberate rebellion. That rule confuses meaning, and is based on economic issues that haven’t existed for more than a century.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, there’s no way I can fix any errors if you won’t tell me what they are. And,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa, have I ever ridiculed you or any other person I have debated? If I have, I apologize. I accept no responsibility for anything other people have said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Specifically, by people who twist religion and by other people who don’t study their religion enough to know when it’s being twisted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And even in the New Testament:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem here is not with the Bible, it is with the people who don’t read it but claim to be following it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It eliminates any possible accusation of false motives, and it demonstrates the power of our faith. This was especially relevant in the early church, as one accusation people were bringing against Christianity was (ironically, given the attacks against it today) that Christians were trying to upset the status quo, make slaves and wives rebellious, etc.</p>
<p>Please tell me why almost ALL the universities in the world teach “Neo-Darwinism” as true if it’s not? What do they gain? And the 99.9% of biologists who also accept it? Why would they lie? I smell a conspiracy theory</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Like Christianity? </p></li>
<li><p>Not all biologists are atheists. Even if they are, they don’t just blindly accept evolution. They have devoted their lives to studying it, and they see the evidence for it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>No, because Christianity (at least as I practice it) still is reasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ones that aren’t Atheists are free to choose whatever side they wish. But if you are an Atheist you must accept evolution regardless of the evidence, because if it is false then your basic beliefs are false.</p>
<p>It is possible for a person to reasonably believe evolution, but it is not possible for a person to reasonably believe that evolution is proven true or that creationism is definitely false, with the evidence currently available.</p>