 |
|
|
|
June 1st, 2012
03:46 PM ET
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human originsBy Dan Merica, CNN (CNN) - Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today - only a 2-point difference from 2012. "Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982," wrote Gallup's Frank Newport. "All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins." The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents. Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age Not surprisingly, more religious Americans are more likely to be creationists. Nearly 70% of respondents who attend church every week said that God created humans in their present form, compared with 25% of people who seldom or never attend church. Among the seldom church-goers, 38% believe that humans evolved with no guidance from God. The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs. Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats. According to Newport, a belief in creationism is bucking the majority opinion in the scientific community - that humans evolved over millions of years. "It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution," writes Newport. "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief ... that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature." The USA Today/Gallup telephone poll was conducted May 10-13 with a random sample of 1,012 American adults. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
What is so sad about this is that it just goes along with what has become an anti-science mindset, particularly in the last 30 years. It stil seems that the public schools are afraid to touch the subject where I live, as it is a hotbed of ultra-conservative Baptists and others who are Biblical literalists and fundamentalist thinkers. What a picture of ignorance we were when all the Republican candidates swore during the debates that they did not believe in evolution.
It's extremely distressing to see that so many people live in ignorance and continue to devalue education. At the same time, they blame the public school teachers for the state of education.
And they'd rather put money into the military than into the public education system
@Rick James
I know the passage, which you mean. But regard that stoning was only applied after a long time of admonition. Only persistent sinners were stoned. The children you mean were really criminal anarchists and had deserved the death.
The equivalent of stoning today would be the exclusion from the Church, which could worst case also cause the death of the persistent sinner.
The stoning was a special procedure, which God only provided for Israel. The stoning shall not be applied by converted pagans like me.
hahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha. absolutely pathetic
LOL. Getting excluded from the church is the same as getting stoned? Now I've heard it all.
Now now, don't laugh at Rainer. He's just thinking in tongues again.
And he does have one correct point – all of the Black Bloc anarchists I know do indeed get stoned, though I don't think they consider being excluded from church as being as good a buzz.
Tom, I did not state I believe in a God "who created all and condemns its imperfect creation to hell for being imperfect." you did.
Chubby I did not compare 1+1=2 to a scientific fact, I reread what I said and think I explained it, do a search and you will see who is saying that, but it isn't me.
Kind of sad you continue making assumptions about me.
Then you do an extremely poor job of expressing yourself, Be. Give up.
I said, God "orchestrated human existence" and "if some people believe..." the Bible says such and such. Then you stated I believe in a God "who created all and condemns its imperfect creation to hell for being imperfect."
@Evangelical
Yet, when Christ has yet payed for my sins, why shouldn't I increase sinning? Wouldn't that raise Christ's honor, and wouldn't that be logical?
Christ requires repentance. If you increase sinning, you hardly repented.
@Evangelical
My question was just hypothetical. I also think that the life of a believer must improve, otherwise he is a fake.
Yet, how is improvement of my life connected with Christ's sacrifice?
What is your opinion?
The great thing about Rainer and Evangelical and HeavenSent is that their posts are so crazy and repulsive that they actively recruit atheists with their twisted views.
Keep up the good work!
Hey, don't forget Chard!
Evangelical you are a HIGHLY immoral human being, to be able to look at Shariah law and suggest that it is moral
It really speaks to the lack of regard many Xtians have for human life and dignity
First of all, I don't pretend to be an expert in Shariah law, but I do know that poisoning girls who go to school and prohibiting women from driving is not Shariah law. That is more about control. But, yes, Shariah law does keep with some of the Biblical punishments which is actually a good thing. What makes Islam completely unacceptable is that they do not accept Jesus as God who became man to die for the sins of mankind.
You pretend to understand how science works, so pretending hasn't stopped you before.
Drew,
You are a fine one to talk about anyone being immoral. You are an atheist, and hence you have no morals at all.
Your a bad man Evangelical. Stop defining yourself by what you are opposed by.
And eat science, because you can't disprove it.
Actually Shariah law involves preventing women from doing just about anything. And would you like to bring back public stoning in our country? YOu are a barbarian. Also I do have a moral code, I respect human life and freedom. Far superior to yours as far as i can see
Garbage in, garbage out.
Ok, Drew. You say that you have morals. What is the source of your morality? I get mine from God and the Bible.
I roughly derive mine from the golden rule. Which is to say, I derive them from myself
Evangelical, the bible is no excuse to believe in brutal, inhumane practices
If you derive your morals from yourself, Drew, then you have none at all. Either morality is objective or subjective (relative). If morality is objective, you must be able to point to a source. Subjective morality is no morality at all. Anybody can make up their own morality to justify anything at all, much like the ho-mos-exuals do.
My morality is both subjective and objective. The subjective aspect is that I treat others how I would like to be treated, and the objective aspect is that I value that subjectivity of others.
You should know that something is wrong with your beliefs when you think life is good and "moral" in the middle east
Gospel of St. John, Chapter 1: Verses 1-5:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
ProvHerbs 3:12, from the Book of the FSM
"It is easier for a meatball to pass through the eye of a tornado, than for a confused man to enter the Kingdom of Pasta."
See how quoting mining a silly book is?
Ramen!!!
@Rick James
There can be several reasons, when we don't understand a text or a whole book: Either the book is indeed a complete nonsense or our capabilities are too limited to understand a perfect text drafted by a higher person.
May the sauce be with you, bootyfunk.
What's so perfect about the text, Rainer? The Bible tells you to stone your children if they disobey you, as well as the Genesis myth. Not only is it not factual, it's very violent as well.
for christians,
you disagree with me = you just don't understand
@Evangelical
What is a believer in your sight?
A believer is one who believes in God. However, it is not enough to be a believer to be a Christian. That requires believing that Jesus is Lord and Saviour who paid for our sins at calvery.
@Evangelical
Is Christ's sacrifice merely an atonement in your sight or is it even more?
It is not "merely" an atonement. It is God sacrificing himself to pay for the sins of mankind. It is the ultimate gift from God.
@Evangelical
Yet, when Christ has yet payed for my sins, why shouldn't I increase sinning? Wouldn't that raise Christ's honor, and wouldn't that be logical?
How do you see?
I'm so thankful to be living in a nation where the majority of people are believers. The is hope for America yet.
Why are we so much dumber, fatter and more violent than more atheistic countries?
you and all the mindless cult members are just.... scary.
and news flash, go back 50 years and almost everyone believed in evolution. now it's half. in fifty years it'll be 10%. know what that means? knowledge is winning, religion is losing.
It's the same way in the Middle East. Ask the people there how that's working out.
It is excruciatingly S-L-O-W, but perhaps we are making progress regarding these fantasies and superst'itions. It's been a while since the dunderheads threw food and flowers and people into volcanoes to appease the angry god who lived in there. Nobody burns animal sacrifices anymore to delight the olfactory gland of a god up in the sky.
Slow, but I hope, steady, progress.
Let's look at the Middle East. With the exception of the terrorists, the people in the Middle East are more moral than in any atheistic country. What's your poing? They know how to enforce morality and life is better because of it.
Right, women being allowed to drive is such a blight on society
Really? Life is better? Ritual murder? Public stoning? You are really insane
More moral? Phooey. If poisoning girls that go to school simply because you don't want them to go to school is moral, you have a warped mind, my friend.
Define "more moral", Evangel-nutjob.
@It is so dreary rebutting the same fallacious arguments again and again
Sorry, you did not get my point. The focus of my comment was that subscribing to Creationism would not yet be the Saving Faith. It is not important, if my comment was completely scientifically correct. I wanted to express a theological connection.
To the C.N.N moderator(s) of this blog (and you know who you are): Don't you just get a kick out of this topic? Arguing, debating, and your best one...scoffing. The evidence for this is the posting of these opinion articles with the same topics over and over again.
You are, however, all for Islam, same x marriage, the ec.um.en.ical movement, Mormonism, atheism, evolution, bible verse-twisting, the self-fulfillment gospel, compromising, and the list goes on and on, just as long as it all goes against Truth in Scripture so to keep people in the dark.
CNN is unbelievably pro-christian. you are deluded.
That's right, George, CNN moderators are coming after Christianity. It'll be the end of the world as well know. BE VERY AFRAID! OOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
If Christians stopped being so ignorant, CNN wouldn't have any material.
That's the thing about you Christians, you can't accept that people might disagree with you in good faith. Instead, if they contradict your beliefs they must be working for the devil
I don't have a problem with disagreement. Trust me, I don't. As a matter of fact, I thrive in talking to, sharing with and evangelize people that are in disagreement with God's word. I don't waste time preaching the word of God to believers, it would make no sense and what would be the point of that? (Don't get me wrong, I rejoice being with my fellow believers in worship and fellowship.)
I do however, am against people or groups/organizations and media that show disrespect to one group and favoritism to another. Let me give you a few examples (and simple ones):
1) Christ is always portrayed in many mocking and ridiculous ways in the public media (movies, ads, comic strips, etc.), but you never see this done with the prophet Mohammed, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, another prophet Joseph Smith, Hinduism, Atheism. You never ever see CNN discrediting any of these belief systems (and God forbid they do it to Mohammed–oh the horror that would ensue).
2) You always read about a Muslim "terrorist" or "extremist" blowing himself up and taking scores of people with him (or her nowadays). But when it comes to an extremist christian pastor who talks about burning the Koran, he is referred to as an 'Evangelical Minister', not an extremist (which to me is just that). There are religious extremists of every kind, yet the "Christian" extremist is never labeled as such.
3) And the many public debates I've seen on TV with Christian and atheists, Creationists and evolutionists, I always see there is a lack of respect and insults and mocks are thrown at the Christian who gives his point of view, yet I do not see the Christian debater hurling insults and scoffs at the evolutionists.
george, you are being extremely selective in your evaluation. there are TONS of pro-christianity stories on CNN. do some research. and you're complaining about CNN doing a story on child molestation within the church? if they weren't molesting children, there would be no story. plain and simple. how many pro-atheism stories are there? and even when they are talking about atheism, they always have to tip toe on egg shells around the religious so as not to offend. from an atheistic viewpoint, CNN is unbelievably pro-christian.
You are a post dated liar, RE-SEARCH somethings before you talk. If you is a man you have your word eventhough we do not know you. Let your words be a lie just to get out of a tuff spot.
If ever there had been nothing, then there would always have been nothing. All of our experience, all of our evidence shows that nothing comes from nothing. In order for their to be anything, there must be a being who is self-existent. That being is God. He is. And his existence is necessary for mine, and yours.
who created god? what came before god?
But who is God's foreman?
Bootyfunk, you'll never get an answer to that from him.
Self-existence implies non-created. Eternal. Our existence logically requires a being with self-existence. That is God. Your existence is derived, his is inherent.
"In order for their to be anything, there must be a being who is self-existent"
why? evidence?
you can accept that god is eternal, but not that the universe is eternal? why?
I can consider both. But eternal inanimate material without consciousness or intelligence bringing forth the abundance of order and life observed today is much less believable than a conscious, intelligent being. And significantly less logical.
"Abundance of order and life?" For all we know the universe is a huge graveyard.
SciGuy,
There are so many other ways that existence could have occurred and we don't know what we don't know.
A sneeze droplet even has living organisms in it, and a shedded skin cell. New little mini-universes (albeit short-lived, in our concept of time) all over the place.
It is possible that there is a first cause to our existence, but the likelihood that it is the god of the Middle Eastern Hebrew Bible stories is quite miniscule. There is no verified evidence for the supernatural beings and events purported in that book.
less logical? are you kidding? at the end of the day, you have to say the reason is "magic" - and that's more logical? what is in your body that you can't find in dirt? the iron in your blood, the calcium in your bones... you're not made of anything special. there is zero evidence for god - but you say that's logical. hilarious.
@SciGuy,
"all of our evidence shows that nothing comes from nothing."
"In order for their to be anything, there must be a being who is self-existent."
Logically, if you use the first premise to make your point it invalidates your second premise. In other words, if you are saying "nothing comes from nothing" then God, being something, must have come from something and therefore can't be eternal.
Good point, ME. My statement, to be precise, should be that nothing without self-existence comes from nothing.
@SciGuy,
"My statement, to be precise, should be that nothing without self-existence comes from nothing."
So if you are positing that there is something that can self-exist, i.e. God, then why can't I posit the same thing, i.e. a self-existing singularity which caused the big bang?
ME, you could. And that self-existent singularity must logically have consiousness and intelligence, hence is God.
However, there is serious and reasonable doubt that there ever was such a bang (read The Big Bang Never Happened).
@SciGuy,
I see no reason why logically a singularity must have consciousness and intelligence.
"serious and reasonable doubt"? I think the Cosmic Background Radiation, Red-shifting of all stars, etc. are fairly convincing evidence of a Big Bang model universe.
here's a fantastic video explaining evolution in a simply and humorous way:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&w=640&h=360]
Subscribing to the creationist view of human origins is not yet the Saving Faith.
Everybody, who is no complete moron, believes that an intelligent being must have created the whole world together with all plants, animals and human beings. It is a daily experience that nothing emerges accidentally, but only on the condition that we invest lucubration and labour things emerge. Simply consider your car. Gradually it rots without any impact of you. This is the natural course of things. If you want to keep your car beautiful and operative, you have to get it maintained and repaired sometimes. Without investing maintenance that means labour and lucubration your car will be soon a pile of junk.
In physics this is called entropy. All things tend to rot for no reason. If something gets remade that is a socalled entropy sink or a plus of order. The entropy in the universe always increases. That means the universe gradually becomes a pile of junk, because all things rot. Yet always, when an intelligent being creates something, the entropy decreases a little, and the order increases.
This all can be grasped by reason. It is very simple and nobody should assume that that would yet mean salvation or the Saving Faith. That would be too easy.
"This all can be grasped by reason."
Employ some reason in your own rant Rainer.
@Answer
What do you mean concretely?
ROFL. It seems that you are trying to use the second law of thermodynamics, like all Christians try to. It only applies to a closed system. From what I know, the Earth is not a closed system. And since you want to use thermodynamics laws, can you name and explain the other 3?
@Rick James
It is clear that the second law of thermodynamics is only the specification of a universl law, which is valid everywhere. Hence, I am convinced that it is right, what I wrote. About the other laws you can ask any physicist.
Hey stupid, entropy is NOT rot. Entropy refers to energy states in thermodynamic systems. It is a very difficult technical concept to comprehend for the students in that field. It is also one of the many lame attempts of morons like yourself to explain something that they say is outside of science using science that they do not comprehend.
The very way you described entropy proves that you do not understand it in the least, that you are just another fool who is parroting an incompetent argument that has been stumbling aroung the Christian blogosphere. You are an idiot who has no idea of what you are talking about, an idiot who is plagiarizing the incredibly incompetent ideas of others, an idiot who will say anything without bothering to understand it just so long as it seems to support your basic position, and make you appear smarter than you really are (or so you think).
You are an idiot.
"About the other laws you can ask any physicist."
So you don't know. Thanks for being honest for once at least.
Hey, It's so,
You didn't rebut anything. You just called names.
72% of adults in China accept evolution. No wonder why their children are owning our children in math and science, as well as most, if not every, other first- world nation on the planet. Come on America, get with the times.
China is a godless communist nation. You really want the US to be like them? Wow ... just wow.
You'd be surprised. Republicans complain about China having some of our debt and having higher GDP growth than us, yet they believe in God. Do they want to be godless, too? I'm only saying that accepting evolution is smart because it is a fact.
And I didn't only mention China, dimwit. Most first-world nations, and heck Mexico, have higher percentages of people that accept evolution. Get with the times.
Weep for yourself Rick. Sounds like you are the brainwashed and ignorant one.
How so? I never knew not believing in magic makes one less smart. Especially with all the data that shows that atheists have higher IQ's. But then again, you probably believe that a 900 year old man hoards two of every animal onto a boat because the whole world flooded over. Creationism is a joke, get over it.
SciGuy is just bothered about the fact that he's an idiot. This is always the same line of comments and responses from these twits.
Post something with a layer of condescending drivel and have other zealots back themselves up.
christians hate facts.
True.
Checking out facts, researching, proving and validating stuff takes an inordinate amount of time (in some cases). Lazy idiots don't do that because they prefer to just ignore it.
Amen to that 'Answer'
You are a post dated liar, RE-SEARCH somethings before you talk. If you is a man you have your word eventhough we do not know you. Let your words be a lie just to get out of a tuff spot...
A tornado blew through a junk yard and assembled An-225
atheists are not only Godless but they sure are also brainless 😉
Come live in Canada.We are the majority.
I like the fact that a dead zealot equates to nothing.
Wow, you are clueless. Guess Gawd can't fix that, since he doesn't exist.
I
PGA
"A tornado blew through a junk yard and assembled An-225"
Hit in the head by a tee-off, were ya'?
Inanimate object do not reproduce.
@PGA,
This is a false analogy to evolution due to the simple fact that airplanes don't reproduce and therefore cannot evolve over successive generations.
God has revealed himself to us in two ways, general revelation and special revelation. What we call Nature is the general, and his written word is the special. The two types of revelation will never actually contradict each other, though they may appear to do so because of our lack of understanding. Those who believe in Creation do so for many reasons, two of which are that God has revealed in his written word that he created the universe, and there are many things in nature that indicate a special creation and the necessity of an Intelligent designer.
God created the Cosmos in which the universe we are found within is but one universe of untold numbers of universes with the Grand Cosmos, the allness of everything.
Way too stupid.
god is unnecessary to any explanation. look up Occam's razor.
What makes your God right and the other 100s wrong? Let me tell you about you God perfect word it isn't perfect!!!!! Even in your Gods own book their are missing books " go through and see how many books the bible names that should be in their and then RESEARCH THE RCC." This was one of the things that finally turned me. This book is crap and it supposed to tell you how we came about. We are children of the stars. FACT!!!!!!!
"there are many things in nature that indicate a special creation and the necessity of an Intelligent designer."
such as?
People believe in Creationism because they are either 1. brainwashed or 2. ignorant of how the world works. If it's both, I'm really sorry for you.
Gods existence is not sufficient for our existence, but it is necessary.
in what way is it necessary?
In Norse Mythology the last two humans on earth hid in a tree while all the Gods killed themselves off. Look it up the RCC told them that their book was a continuation of theirs....Wonder which one came first. In Egypt i forgot the first man and woman on earth was named but the woman name means " Woman of the rib" WOW IF YOU LOOK INTO OTHER CULTURES YOU WILL FIND ALMOST EVERY STORY IN YOUR BIBLE HAS ALREADY BEEN TOLD. You will never research it, you think they based Jesus on a white man lol f@@l.
It is not surprising that many of the mythical creation stories bear a resemblance to the actual creation story. The true one, as preserved for us by Gid in his written revelation, was corrupted to various degrees as it passed through generations of various cultures. These stories all post-dated the scriptural truth.
Bull**** SciGuy, these stories PREDATE genesis and even monotheism
No, Drew, only God predates Genesis.
what predates god? who created god?
The Sumerians came first and told very similar stories. Judaism draws on ancient persian traditions. It's absolutely ludicrous to act as though your faith came out of a vacuum
SciGuy
"These stories all post-dated the scriptural truth."
–The Enuma Elish is a Babylonian or Mesopotamian myth of creation recounting the struggle between cosmic order and chaos. It was written sometime in the 12th century BC in cuneiform on seven clay tablets.
–The Egyptian creation myths date back to around 3000 BC.
SciGuy i hope you are referring to the Black Man being God since you say only God predated genesis? Genesis must be when White man was created.
I have not addressed the date of the recording of the true creation story versus the date of recording of the mythical ones. I am merely observing that it is no surprise that the mythical ones resemble, more or less, the actual one. In fact, the consistency of resemblances of the many mythical stories to the true biblical event provides external supporting evidence to the veracity of the biblical account.
It might, IF the biblical account proceeded the others. Unfortunately, it does not. About that there is no debate, every historian agrees
No matter when the various accounts were recorded in writing, the oral teachings and traditions of cultures preceded them. Thus the point stands as made without regard to the order of written recordings.
SciGuy oral? This huge world people copied their storys from the bible? Now you are talking out of your A$$. I can see if you said that about Jesus cause he told his followers to go all over the world and preach the gospel but this isn't the Gospel THEY DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR YOUR STORY. They been had there's along time before yours. Well Reasearch Jesus and all the Gods they based him on. EVEN YOUR GOD IS A CLONE OF MANY!!!! Read the book the 13 crucified saviors.
That's false SciGuy, because the same myths were held by cultures that actually predate the jews completely. You are trying to cheat with history
@SciGuy,
"What we call Nature is the general [revelation], and his written word is the special. "
"The true one, as preserved for us by Gid in his written revelation, was corrupted to various degrees as it passed through generations of various cultures."
If I understand what you are saying, it would seem logical to give Nature primacy over the written revelation, due to the corruption mentioned, correct?
Therefore, since the physical world cannot lie, would it not make sense to trust the world, or science, over the Bible in cases of apparent conflict, until the conflict was resolved?
Drew, no, not cheating. There is a true creation story if God created the universe. Adam and Eve would have passed on the creation account to their children and their grandchildren, and their offspring likewise etc forever. As people migrated and cultures developed the original actual story no doubt would become corrupted, sometimes completely so, but often still containing vestiges of the truth. That is exactly what we find. The fact that God saw to it that the original true version was recorded for us in his word is a benefit for us humans.
ME, Gods written revelation is not corrupted in actuality. We have it in 99.9% original form today, you can buy any one of a few good English translations everywhere. So, no, natural revelation does not take precedence over special revelation. And while the physical world cannot lie, mans interpretation of it can be innocently wrong, and worse, purposely distorted.
SciGuy, you insist that we have always had god's word, ignoring the fact that the new testament was only created in the council of nicea, centuries after the death of christ
@SciGuy,
" We have it in 99.9% original form today,"
I'm curious about how you arrived at this figure. If some corruption is possible, then how do you determine the amount of corruption? Unlike the physical world, which in many, if not all, cases, is self-verifying, how do you check for corruption in the only doc.ument of "special revelation"?
".... mans interpretation of it can be innocently wrong, and worse, purposely distorted."
But can't the same can be said for the written word?
Drew, I insisted no such thing. The NT contains many books, some of which existed as early as AD 50, all of which were written prior to AD100. But none of that is pertinent to my point here.
Good questions, ME. Life is happening here and I have to go for now. I will try to return sometime this weekend and give the short answer, if you're interested to check back.
The textual evidence for the NT is vast. Literally 1000s of manuscripts. While we have none of the original manuscripts, called autographs, we have sufficient textual evidence to reconstruct the originals to virtually their pristine form. My 99.9 figure is not intended to be a precise number, but to say that the text we have is for all practical purposes the autographs. Since the autographs were God-breathed, the text we have today is the infallible, inerrant word of God.
Yes, the same can be said for the written word. The big difference is that you and I can read the written word for ourselves, and see where distortions are being made. But scientists who would deceive, either innocently or deviously, do so under a cloak of expertness which the layman is without hope of countering, except through other experts who pick up the banner for him. When those other experts become outcasts in their field due to the control exerted by the field's high priests, then the common man appears helpless. Bad situation.