 |
|
|
|
 Commenters were fired up about Bill Nye, creationism and evolution.
August 28th, 2012
10:37 AM ET
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critiqueBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Bill Nye does not think that children should be taught to deny evolution, and a YouTube video of him explaining why has gone viral. The CNN Belief Blog's report on the video has generated around 10,000 comments and thousands of Facebook shares since Monday. There were some broad themes in the comments, reflecting a debate that is largely unique to the United States. While Christianity is booming in Africa, Asia and Latin America, creationism is not, Penn State University religious studies professor Philip Jenkins writes in his book "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South." Here are five schools of reaction that have emerged in comments: 1. Those using this controversy to bash religion Atheists love the Internet, as we've chronicled on the Belief Blog. While they may be a small portion of the population, they seem to make up about half our commenters. It was their chance to join with Nye and cheer him on:
2. Those who say wait a minute, being a creationist isn’t necessarily being anti-evolution Lots of folks from the theistic evolution camp came out to say that believing God was involved doesn't automatically make you anti-evolution.
3. Those who say that science is stupid and that young Earth creationism rules Young Earth creationists, who believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old, appeared to be out in force in the comments.
4. Those who say Nye should stick to his area of expertise This tweet was the most polite remark we could find on this subject. Other comments and tweets, not so much.
[tweet https://twitter.com/watsup1101/status/240168918109523968%5D 5. Those who say CNN is cooking up controversy where none exists Lots of people suggested we were generating a story instead of covering one.
For the record, plenty of other news outlets covered this story, pointing out that Nye's video was posted on YouTube just before the Republican National Convention opened. Turns out that Nye taped the segment awhile back and had no say in when it would be released. Thanks for chiming in. The comments are open here, and you can always hit us up on Twitter @CNNBelief. soundoff (2,811 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next »
Next entry »Dolan to pray at Democratic National Convention
« Previous entry5 faithy players to watch at the Republican National Convention
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
If the earth is 6000 years old, WHERE DID THE DINOSAURS COME FROM???? If you think god put dinos here to test our faith.....well just say it out loud.
Where are there no bunny rabbit fossils in the fossil beds with the dinosaurs?
where in the bible does it say the earth is 6000 yrs old?
did you even read the article.....THE huge section about young earth'ers.....
So where in the bible does it say the earth is 6000 yrs old?
the sign of a man who knows absolutely nothing of which he speaks is the man that answers a question with another question!!!
Im obviously addressing the people who identify with Young Earthers.....The zealots who interpret the bible how they see fit. Get it......wow
So that's a NO??? It's not in the bible? Thanks!
LOL keep thinking you dead parents are in heaven. They're decomposing buddy.............
OK,
The bible describes the generations from Adam and Eve (via a lot of begottens). Young earthers have added up the ages of these generations and came up with about 6000 years. So in a way, yes the bible does say it.
Pwned......I would have said as much, but i dont waste my time reading fairy tales that the church has rewritten/changed 100 times
Note how this so-called debate is taking place on CNN, the global news site that used to have a "Science" section on its home page. It's been gone for years (check out archive.org to see). It's quite clear reading this why CNN took it away. Yet of course the "Tech" section is still featured, because God forbid (or whomever) we miss the latest advancements of the human race when Twitter changes its logo. Go America!
Language makes us sloppy. Most people talk about Science as if it's a thing, instead of what it truly is which is simply a process of finding out. Not unlike those who lump the mysteries of life together as a notion of a person, such as "God", instead of... the mysteries of life.
I am an old Earth creationist. I don't know why all the focus is on young Earthers.....I guess because they are nuts. There are plenty of old Earthers. I think it is UNDENIABLE the Earth is old, and frankly I never understood why anyone thinks the Bible mandates a young Earth. Just because there are six days of creation does mean we were created 6 days ago, 6,000 years in their interpretation. The Bible in no way requires that. Memo to young Earthers: a description of past history (world created in six days) does NOT equate in any way, shape or form to a TIMELINE from initial creation to today. I believe in what creationists would label "microevolution," but not macroevolution.
Why don't you believe in macro (over a long time) evolution?
Well, I do believe in that. I was referring to what some creationists label that as, specifically the idea that man evolved from other primates. I believe man and other primates are very close and are likely related to primates. But, I do not believe that necessarily means we evolved from one of them. Why couldn't one of them evolved from us (there may be a reason I admit I don't have the knowledge to know, as I am not an educated scientist)? And over the years I have been increasingly accepting of evolution, even the ape to man idea. But, I still can't accept that. I don't quite know why, for I have no problem for evolution with any other animal.
Bob,
There was a common ancestor, not a man nor an ape. That ancestor branched off into several species over time. One branch led to humans, one to apes, one to monkeys, etc...
Here's an interesting revelation: apparently over 3,000 scientists (including Nobel Prize winners) doubt evolution as traditionally defined, and think science education should be open to teaching Intelligent Design. (you'll find that touted many places on the web)
Impressive huh? Makes you think. Think about this: The AAAS estimates that there are 5.8 million professional scientists. That means that – given those 3,000 scientists – a whopping 0.0005% of scientists are expressing doubt concerning evolution. Makes you think, huh?
Rufus
No, noting can or will make them think. That's the problem
The thought that those that believe in God and creation cannot grow up to be critical thinkers is absurd.
As a Christian who also happens to be a Mechanical Engineer and MBA graduate – with an exit exam in the top 12% of the country; I'm pretty sure I destroy that theory. Mr. Nye is showing he is as close minded as those he is professing against.
Define the god you believe in. If it is the one that had a son through a virgin, then you are compartmentalizing, my friend.
So why do you take the principles of chemistry and physics into account when designing anything because at a whim God can change them?
Your fancy degrees aside, it makes it no less incorrect a conclusion if you begin with the wrong premise. You start with believing in a thing, a story, a book, a whatever, with absolutely nothing tangible to support, and can make tons of logical, coherent, and smart-sounding statements. But it is an exercise in futility. Begin with the opposite premise, and put the same level of effort into understanding it. You'll find evidence, logic, reason, etc., just like with religious faith. But the difference is that you have some incontrovertible facts to go on with science and atheism. Evolution and the sciences under its umbrella require no faith. Simply look and see with the same fervor you have done with your christianity. You'll see the discrepancies. Real evidencce is real evidence.
I can say that I am the Queen of Denmark, but that doesn't make it true.
chuckleberry...absolutely fabulous comment...everyone should read it carefully.
IIt seems to me that whenever an individual comes up with some wonderful formula in the scientific community this person is praised almost as it were as a god, genius or whatever. Hold on folks this person might be wrong? Look at the recent problems of the stock market- an individual thought he had a wonderful formula to sustain the financial market, for growth and prosperity. All he needed now was a few good talkers to convince the top guys that it would work and soon after convince everybody else. Well look at what that formula did to us now. We are suckers listening to people who think they know everything. As far as I am concerned the theory of evolution is so convoluted to the point of insanity, the way these people are trying so hard to push it. Sorry after years of contemplation I have had enough of this evolutionary wonderful formulas, constants that are sometimes found to be wrong, variables which are not considered but should. The evolutionary theory as far as I am concerned is absolute mumbo jumbo. I have come to the realization to keep it simple stupid(KISS)
Comet hits earth. Earth gestates. Viola we are here. Everything else is random variation for us to enjoy. Thank You God and Thank You Jesus.
you are truly an anal oger
Who is this "someone" of whom you speak? It's a free market, subject to the whims of the masses, supply and demand, and crises. No one is capable of doing what you claim was attempted.
Are you seriously trying to equate stock market formulas with theories like gravity, relativity and evolution?
Interesting. So in a nutshell, you admit that you aren't bright enough to understand science, so you will "keep it simple" and believe in magic.
Congratulations, you would fit right in with cave dwellers 14,000 years ago. You know, before the Earth was created.
So out of the thousand of different religions which is the right one. Yes I expect an answer with evidence backing it up. From at least three sources.
Who's "pushing" evolution? It's already accepted as the most reliable model. Not the junk in your bible rag which is full of things that have been proven dead wrong by science.
Take two minutes to read the first two paragraphs on the Wikipedia page on evolution. Please?
Thats the arrogance of Christians. They think that the Universe was modeled for their enjoyment instead of realizing that we evolved or thrived because of the pressures and were modeled to fit the environment and laws that the Universe is derived of.
Anybody who believes in creationism has not taken the two minutes to read the first few paragraphs about evolution in Wikipedia, and just rejects evolution based on what their priest has told them about it.
Ryan, if you read the column you would have noticed that some people believ that there can be harmony between creation and evolution. We believ that God created us, we also believe that through some natural selection horses, elephants an many other animals have changed to adapt to new surroundings. Do I believ in Darwin's theories – No, because too many flaws have been found. The probabilities for us to have evolved from single cell creatures to humans is higher than me hitting the lottery every week for the next decade. not going to happen However, I cannot deny that life has changed on this planet we call home.
Scott, your math is wrong, and you have to support your other statement that too many flaws have been found.
Scott...you "create" a "God", then say God created us. Can you understand the absurdity?
@jungleboo
@Tom, Tom, The Piper's Son+
I await your response and citation to peer-reviewed studies which contradict my findings. (Because, as a Ph.d. in bioengineering myself, I know well you won’t find it, son. And, yes, I will continue to call you, son, so long as you persist in acting like an arrogant and uneducated child.)
That said, I stand by what I said earlier. People on these formus would be SHOCKED to find that a good half of the scientists of the world are, in fact, theists professing no level of atheism or agnosticism in personal belief.
Peace.
you are no more a bio-engineering phd than i am
liars like you should be taken out and shot behind the science building
be glad this is anonymous blog or i would kick your ass
I'll be SHOCKED when you produce a list of these multi tudes of scientists, you phony little turd. While you're at it, make sure you specify which of them not only are religious but believe in creationism.
Please tell me how they used the teachings of the bible and not the scientific method, to discover anything.
Peace sooooon. aaaaahahahahahahah
What was your PhD thesis?
He has a PhD from BSU.
@Here a Little, There a Little,
Only a third (33%)of scientists believe in "God" such as an Abrahamic God and a further 18% believe in some kind of spirit (such as deism). About 40% of serious scientists don't believe in God.
This is 10X the general population – a staggering variation.
Subjects are sampled from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
ananom posted: "be glad this is anonymous blog or i would kick your ass"
Yep, here it is folks. Proof positive that at least one poster here evolved a little bit, (he has typing skills), from a neanderthal ...
As a biologist, a parent and a staunch believer in evolution (and agree with Bill not to deny that education to our children), I some how believe that we should not deny religion to our children as well. To me – the more I learn in science, the more I believe that there is a higher being. It's all so beautiful – the universe!! We are learning more and more about the Who, the When, the Where, the What and the How.....but it's that pesky "Why"....maybe there isn't a Why – maybe "why" is a human invention. But maybe there is a reason to all of this...that's what drives the human race. I think it's all amazing.
what you are experiencing is confirmation bias along with other biases
beauty is not proof of anything but that your primitive brain finds it pleasing
So finding beauty in anything is a primative concept?
Finding something beautiful is a (mostly) subjective psychological experience, but not proof of any higher being.
@anamon
BS. I agree with Java. As a Ph.d. in bioengineering and a J.D. (practicing law but formerly worked in reserach) I agree that that the my scientific background, research, experience and education only made me believe MORE in a God, not less.
The truth is that anyone who knows anything about science will tell you that there is ample room for both science and devout adherance to religion. A former professor at the University I attended, Dr. John Lewis (i.e., former professor of planetary sciences at MIT and counsel to both NASA and various European Space Programs), is a devout MORMON. I am sorry, but there is no basis for some scientists belittling the belief or non-belief systems of their contemporaries, many of whom have more credentials and more reserach and publication experience than they do.
And yet, you can't tell us who all these believers are, can you? Can you tell us if all of them believe in creationism, or did you forget what this article is about?
Any scientist will not tell you that. Most will not, in fact. You can find examples of it, maybe in some fields more than others, but in most university settings (and I have worked at a few, and visited many more), this is not the sentiment.
I would add cognitive dissonance to confirmation bias.
The single greatest thing we, as parents, can do for our children is to refuse to brainwash them, refuse to indoctrinate them into the irrational insanity that is "Religion".
Why is most definitely a human invention. We want to know why because we have evolved with just enough intelligence to communicate and be aware of ourselves.
I do not believe in creationism. Life began as single cells millions of years ago – the scientific evidence is there. I shouldn't have used the term "religion"....I meant "spiritual". Organized religion scares me and it is taking over politics and taking over rational thoughts of it's patrons. It honestly scares me how people are so brainwashed so easily....but honest faith and spirituality should not be abandoned...in my opinion.
Science is not a belief system. There is nothing esoteric about the scientific method and its exhaustive and self-correcting methods. It is the most reliable way to understand Earth, living things, medicine, disease, human psychology, the universe, etc. Science revels in criticism, critical thinking, reason, patience, and the objective. Religion/Faith revels in ignorance, magic, wishful thinking, black & white thinking, the absurd, hate, lies, coercion, and the subjective. The faithful would have astrology taught alongside astronomy and metaphysics alongside physics. Evolution explains our biology without a god. Science explains the natural and does not need the concept of god get there. If you attempt to add “god” to your approach to finding out how the natural world works, you would never get the definitive answer to anything. Question: Why does the apple fall when I let it roll off my hand? Answer: Because a god forces it down. Question: Where the sun sets, is that the end of the world? Answer: Yes, that must be a god and his chariot flying through the heavens. <– Throwing God into the equation does not answer a thing. Math is considered by most to be the language of science and you won’t find true scientists adding god into their math. Go ahead. Try it. (16)3 + God = Any number you choose.
If anyone on here who believes in Creationism can explain to me what entropy is, what enthalpy is, what the Gibb's free energy equation is and explain to me why entropy is absolutely necessary for the existence of life then we can talk about evolution being only a "theory" until then. Please, I beg of you don't teach your kids creationism of any pseudo-religious science garbage...
Thank you,
A Chemist
A chemistry student, I'm guessing. I have known many chemists, and none of them would have written that.
Keep telling yourself that atheists are a "small portion of the population". Nietzsche announced "God's" death over a century ago and the majority is gradually coming around to it. I'm hopeful this will happen in my lifetime, and religion will finally be powerless in impeding reason.
I used to believe in God and I was sure I would never stop believing. A loving God, life after death, justice after death for bad guys, Jesus to protect, comfort, and guide me, and answered prayers were all incredibly alluring. Besides, most everyone I knew believed so it must be true. But, as much as I tried, I couldn’t ignore these pesky things called facts:
1) A loving Creator God wouldn’t make a home for mankind that includes earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, drought, tornadoes, and tsunamis.
2) A loving Creator God would not make infectious agents like malaria, gangrene, Small Pox, Syph.ilis, Gono.rrhea, Polio, …
3) A loving Creator God would make man susceptible to cancer, birth defects, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia,..
4) A loving God would not have let the serpent into the Garden of Eden.
5) A loving God would have watched over Adam and Eve.
6) A loving God would want Adam and Eve to understand good and evil.
7) An intelligent God would not consider acquiring knowledge of good and evil a sin.
8) An intelligent God would not have expected Adam and Eve to be good (obedient) without them having an understanding of good and evil
9) A loving God would not punish Adam and Eve for simply learning about good and evil.
10) An intelligent Creator God would fix his creations Adam and Eve, instead of punishing them.
11) A loving God would not punish us for something our ancient ancestors did.
12) The flood that killed everyone but Noah’s family that didn’t. Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Asians, Europeans, and Africans all lived.
13) A loving God would not condemn people who never heard of him to an eternity of h.ll.
14) A loving God would not find sacrifices (killing and burning animals) appealing.
15) A sacrifice is by definition a ritualistic killing of a creature, in an attempt to somehow please a god so the god would bestow some reward (rain, fertility,..) An intelligent God would not send his Son Jesus to die on the cross, to please himself so he would then give mankind the reward of eternal life.
16) A loving God would rid the world of Satan.
17) A loving Creator God would have given us good consciences, adequate willpower, and good discernment abilities so we would make good “free will” choices.
18) A good Creator God would not have given Hit.ler such a hard heart and poor conscience.
19) A intelligent God would not want us to believe based on faith alone yet talk directly to Moses, Noah, Abraham,…
I chose facts not blind faith.
It would seem that you have forgotten 2 important things about christianity,
1. God's plan of salvation. That seems to be missing from your list of the good things about creationism.
2. What did you get taught about Satan? If you got taught nothing, I would try to inspire you to learn what you can. Then look at your decision to leave christianity
try reading C.S.Lewis's "The Problem of Pain".
He struggled with the same questions, bust still walked away a staunch believer in God.
1) A loving Creator God wouldn’t make a home for mankind that includes earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, drought, tornadoes, and tsunamis.
God created Eden, a paradise that did not have any of these.
2) A loving Creator God would not make infectious agents like malaria, gangrene, Small Pox, Syph.ilis, Gono.rrhea, Polio, …
Again, Eden did not have any of this.
3) A loving Creator God would make man susceptible to cancer, birth defects, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia,..
Man was a perfect being, created in the image of his perfect Creator.
4) A loving God would not have let the serpent into the Garden of Eden.
It was allowed as a test. We failed.
5) A loving God would have watched over Adam and Eve.
He did. It was their choice to disobey Him.
6) A loving God would want Adam and Eve to understand good and evil.
That's pretty much the lesson we're learning now.
7) An intelligent God would not consider acquiring knowledge of good and evil a sin.
An intelligent God recognizes that He want his children to worship Him of their own free will.
8) An intelligent God would not have expected Adam and Eve to be good (obedient) without them having an understanding of good and evil.
It's why He didn't destroy them outright. We still have the opportunity to share in His love and mercy.
9) A loving God would not punish Adam and Eve for simply learning about good and evil.
They were punished for their disobedience.
10) An intelligent Creator God would fix his creations Adam and Eve, instead of punishing them.
That's pretty much the process we're going through now. Again, it's about free will and self-determination.
11) A loving God would not punish us for something our ancient ancestors did.
It's called Original Sin and God gave us His only begotten Son to redeem us from our sins.
12) The flood that killed everyone but Noah’s family that didn’t. Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Asians, Europeans, and Africans all lived.
The flood was to destroy those who knew of Him, but continued to be sinful and wicked. The people(s) you mention did not know of God until the advent of Jesus and the spreading of the Gospel to the Gentiles.
13) A loving God would not condemn people who never heard of him to an eternity of h.ll.
He doesn't. We can quit our sinful ways and be reconciled to Him through the blood of the Christ.
14) A loving God would not find sacrifices (killing and burning animals) appealing.
The sacrifice in itself was not appealing. It was appealing to God because it was a demonstration of Mans obedience.
15) A sacrifice is by definition a ritualistic killing of a creature, in an attempt to somehow please a god so the god would bestow some reward (rain, fertility,..) An intelligent God would not send his Son Jesus to die on the cross, to please himself so he would then give mankind the reward of eternal life.
Jesus died on the cross because of His love for His Father and for Mankind. The Christ had the power to escape, but chose instead to do the "will of My Father who is in Heaven".
16) A loving God would rid the world of Satan.
We brought Satan's influence into our world. We choose to follow God or Satan through our free will.
17) A loving Creator God would have given us good consciences, adequate willpower, and good discernment abilities so we would make good “free will” choices.
Then it wouldn't be "free will", it would be His predetermination. Might as well be robots ...
18) A good Creator God would not have given Hitler such a hard heart and poor conscience.
Hitler hardened his own heart and lived within his own conscious through his own free will.
19) A intelligent God would not want us to believe based on faith alone yet talk directly to Moses, Noah, Abraham,…
"Blessed are they who believe, but have not seen."
I chose facts not blind faith.
Then I'd say you chose poorly. But, through God's Grace and Love, you can return to Him if you want to.
@52pan
"God's plan of salvation" certainly is not going to do the people God condemned to an eternity of h.ll because they never heard of him any good.
This story isn't even good fiction. It is really bad tasting Kool-Aid.
@TheTraveler
Wow, what an amazing illustration of just how blind faith can be.
Enjoy your Kool-Aid.
If Jesus was the Son of God and he was on this earth for 33 years, why didn't he write the New Testament? Why didn't he write, or dictate and edit, to make sure the Word of God, His words, were true and accurate for future generations? I ask because man is always quoting the Bible, a book, man wrote saying it is God' words.
Where is his long form birth certificate????
A better question: If alcohol is such a no-no in the Bible, why then did Christ turn water into wine?
@jungleboo
@Tom, Tom, The Piper's Son
So, it doesn't seem that study in any particular field is necessarily associated with a disbelief in God's existence in any scientific field. Moreover, more than half surveyed (some 60% to 74% depending on the field) could not readily profess a disbelief in god.
Moreover, and contrary to the claims of the new-age atheists (like you), most scientists do not necessarily see religion and science as always being in conflict with one another. Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and coauthors published another peer-reviewed research of the responses of scientists at 21 elite U.S. universities, finding that only 15% of the respondents felt that science and religion were always in conflict. More importantly to this study, almost a full HALF of the respondents expressed some form of regular religious affiliation.
I would express my verification of this as well that in my (albeit subjective) experience, about half of my colleagues, regardless of age, are “theists.” Of the other half, I would say all that I have had the pleasure of working with and discussing these issues with are “agnostic” to some level. I personally have yet to work with and personally discuss with any scientist in any field who is who is a full blown “atheist” – i.e., professing an absolute 100% disbelief in God. Even those who profess a disbelief in God quite all will readily admit that there is no way they could know one way or the other AND also readily agree that there is certainly the possibility (and in some cases a likely probability) of a supreme being or a creator.
The findings of these recent studies are well published and, in truth, come as no surprise to the scientific community at all. The only individuals who might find this shocking are the new-age atheists and the Dawkins brats who, not being scientists themselves, have no clue regarding what scientists believe or do not believe.
How do you know they aren't scientists?
it didn't occur to you that they were just humoring you?
you really are gullible and stupid
So you can't produce a list of these numerous scientists, then? Why should I take your word for it? For that matter, why should i believe you're anything more than a pig farmer?
You can pretend and say anything you want on an anonymous forum. So far, all you've done is bloviate.
@Here a Little, There a Little,
when you say:
"Of the other half, I would say all that I have had the pleasure of working with and discussing these issues with are “agnostic” to some level. I personally have yet to work with and personally discuss with any scientist in any field who is who is a full blown “atheist” – i.e., professing an absolute 100% disbelief in God. Even those who profess a disbelief in God quite all will readily admit that there is no way they could know one way or the other AND also readily agree that there is certainly the possibility (and in some cases a likely probability) of a supreme being or a creator."
I lose track of how many times you contradict yourself.
theism = belief in God
athesism = disbelief in God, NOT belief in the non-existence of God.
As you imply in there somewhere, you can't prove non-existence of anything.
A: "Santa Claus doesn't exist"
B: "OK prove it!"
There is no such thing as "full blown atheism". Trying to shade degrees of disbelief into agnosticism and atheism is irrelevant in this discussion. While there are people here who self-identify with agnosticism, most of the people who discuss agnosticism as a distinct idea are believers who want to define it as some kind of half-way house to disbelief.
The philosophers are welcome to stay up all night and worry about nuances in belief but in the sciences logic is key. We are talking about a binary outcome: belief or disbelief in God. No more, no less.
About 40% of scientists, don't believe in God – 10X the general population.
@jungleboo
@Tom, Tom, The Piper's Son
But let’s talk facts shall we:
In recent years, Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle published a peer-reviewed study where they questioned 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology from 21 elite U.S. research universities. Overall, 75% of professors contacted completed the survey. Among the different disciplines, disbelief in the existence of God was not correlated with any particular area of expertise:
Physics - 40.8 percent professed a disbelief in God.
Chemistry - 26.6 percent professed a disbelief in God.
Biology - 41.0 percent professed a disbelief in God.
Sociology - 34.0 percent professed a disbelief in God.
Economics - 31.7 percent professed a disbelief in God.
Political Science - 27.0 percent professed a disbelief in God.
Psychology - 33.0 percent professed a disbelief in God.
In fact, disbelief in the existence of God was nearly as high in the natural science as in the "soft" sciences. Earlier studies had shown a similar trend, with those in the social sciences regularly attended religious services less often than those in the life sciences.
Your religion is more something your family and friends taught you as a child. Most of us are born into our relgion as this is the religion of our family.
Not "professing a disbelief" does not equal "professing belief." I'd think such an erudite fella would know that.
@Here a Little, There a Little,
the data you present is reasonably congrent with the Pew Forum data:
................................................................. Sciences .... General Population
Believe in God ................................................ 33% .... 83%
Believe in universal spirit or higher power ..... 18% .... 12%
Don't believe in either ....................................... 41% .... 04%
Don't know / refused to answer ...................... 07% .... 01%
http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
By field the Pew data spread of "don't believe" is 39% – 47%
I don't understand your point. With the exception of Chemistry, the "softer" disciplines are less atheistic/agnostic than the harder sciences. The data are
(This posted before I was ready.)
The data are quite consistent. I don't see your point.
What is abundantly clear is that with higher education, the rate of atheism/agnosticism goes up by a factor of ten! You don't see the correlation there?
Comparing your Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle with the Pew Forum we have the following:
.......... Ecklund/Scheitle .... Pew
Geosciences .................... 47%
Biology ................. 41.0 ... 41%
Physics ................ 40.8 ... 46%
Sociology ............. 34.0 .... na
Psychology .......... 33.0 .... na
Economics ........... 31.7 .... na
Political Science ... 27.0 .... na
Chemistry ............. 26.6 .... 39%
The only real outlier datapoint is Chemistry. Otherwise the data are higly correlated and congruent with 'hard' sciences representing a higher degree of non-belief.
No matter how you slice this more education = less belief in God. This correlates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gtbaKCoQ0o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUFUujSNpEU
Science has reduced astrology to a laughable column next to the funny pages. Religion is moving ever closer to the same place.
HeavenSent
YOu are doing nothing to further the cause of the Kingdom or The Church of Christ. Anger is not a part of the Ministry of Christ unless it was He that was anger and judging. We are not to judge. You may be better off reading the Bible, try Matthew 5-8 for a start and remembering the two greatest commandments, "Love God with all your heart, your mind and your soul" and "Love your neighbor as you want to be loved." Thus endeth the lesson.
Faith is for people who never took a critical thinking course in college.
Nice, dummy.
critical thinking courses are for people who lack faith.
A person shouldn't have to take a college course to know how to think critically. If you don't question outlandish extraordinary claims by the time you are college age then you're probably beyond hope.
Apparently, you never took a course in philosophy.
Dog, I still don't understand why faith is some sort of virtue. Doesn't faith imply that you believe in something that lacks evidence? How is that an awesome trait? I'd prefer to be known as rational over having faith.