Evolution debate in schools

Visit Sullivan-County.com the progressive voice of Tri-Cities.

Evolution Debate in Schools

by Lewis Loflin

Christian fundamentalists are absolutely convinced that the continuing drop in church attendance is because of high school science classes. Figures show this is not true. Only 9% of the general population are atheists yet church attendance is as high as 65%, others claim below 40%. Very few people reject God, many people reject Christian institutions for a variety of reasons.

The majority of Americans (a slim margin) believe in evolution as fact but over 80% of those believe in theistic evolution, that is evolution is the work of God. Most of the complainers are gripping because their particular view of theology and the absurd claims of a literal "six day" Creationism got rejected. That happens to be rejected by many churches as well.

This rejection of six-day Creationism (and their extreme form of theology) is not a product of high schools but college where 75% reject six day Creationism. The fact is most people stop attending church as adults because of what they find in the pulpit. That is where the fundamentalists are a failure. The children's parents reject their church and will not attend, so they just want a chance at other people's children and a captive audience in the public schools. Yet most refuse to help children after school.

Answers in Genesis?

When they are not thinking, Christian fundamentalists can tell the truth once in a while. A fundamentalist website called Answersingenesis.com is typical of the efforts to undermine modern science. One of their leading writers, a Ken Ham, has this to say in the AIG Newsletter in 1998,

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.
I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AIG main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation...When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).

That is what "Creation Science" is really about, a flawed religious theology. Based only on the ramblings of Paul, a man that never even knew Jesus in flesh, he claimed via the voices he heard in his head (revelation) that some risen Christ died for the sins of Adam. Unless the Adam in the Garden story is true, their "Biblical authority" in undermined. The desperation and nonsense go to extremes. Here is some more on the "Six Day" revolationist (occult) method instead of the scientific method:

Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe. And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions...

There is no use trying to reason with those that reject reason. No amount of proof is good enough. Yet evolution was known in a basic form to the ancient Greeks, Muslims, and even the church fathers such as Augustine. Martin Luther states it well: "Reason is that greatest enemy that faith has…(it) must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed…trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

Answers in Genesis and other revelation or creation science organizations do just that. Their "experts" have no credentials in any earth science related fields, have never been published in any mainstream scientific journals, and many have no credentials of any kind. Ask them a question and they resort to personal attacks. There agenda is a literal Genesis to defend Paul's "Original Sin" theology.

The Greek Orthodox Church (the oldest) does accept evolution as fact and attributes this "Six Day Creationism" that is limited mainly to the United States to mistranslation and politics. Quoting one Eastern Orthodox writer:

The reason for the persistence of the fundamentalists, which makes this not merely a privately held belief, is social. It is only in our current situation of fin de siecle (the end of the age) that it became possible to come into open conflict with scientific data. At the end of this century statements contrary to science have become fashionable. Astrologers, fortunetellers, magicians, and other occultists are free to say the most bizarre things. It seems that people are tired of scientific sobriety and responsibility and are ready to accept anything — "Why not?" The purest form of voluntarism and irrationality takes the place of argumentation: "This is what I feel! This is so exciting!" This massive ecstasy by irrationality makes also Protestant literalness completely into sellable goods...
Views and opinions of radical creationists can not be accepted because they use scientific data in an arbitrary and non-objective way, by which they produce fair objections from those who are professionally involved in science. There is a real danger here that a biologist, having read some arrogant creationist book, will apply the word "rubbish" to Christianity in general.

One can visit "Answers in Genesis" at www.answersingenesis.org. they are a Christian ministry, not a science organization. To quote The Australian June 5, 2007 (click here), "Last week, the status, success and power of the Answers in Genesis ministry was ordained for even non-believers with the opening of its Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Ham's immaculate concept of a pilgrimage place for the faithful was built on the back of $33 million in largely small donations raised in the US, where 65 per cent of the population regularly go to church, compared with 7 per cent in Australia. With exhibits of Noah's Ark, the Garden of Eden and dinosaurs walking with humans, the museum opened with much fanfare, as well as 4000 first-day visitors, some of whom had lined up overnight... Ken Ham is an ex high-school teacher from Australia.

The problem is extremists on both side of the issue dominate the discussion. Schools should present all sides of an issue or stop allowing one side (atheism or fundamentalism) from censoring others. We will look at the other extreme at the so-called ‘National Center for Science Education' later on.

The fact remains there is no verifiable scientific proof that life began by chance or any "natural" mechanism to account for this. It has been tried and tested in laboratories for decades and has failed. In other words, self-creation is bunk.

Spectrum of viewpoints

This being a Deist' website accepts the position of evolutionary Creationism and rejects both atheistic naturalism and Christian fundamentalist' Six-Day Creationism. Deism may respect the Bible in many aspects, but Deism doesn't recognize Biblical authority. The individual Deist is welcome to believe as they wish. I know of no Deist (myself included) that accepts a historical Adam. Deists are often attacked by both atheists and religious fundamentalists.

Evolutionary Creationism is a variant of Creationism which accepts micro evolution and macro evolution while retaining a theistic interpretation of evolution. Theistic evolution is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholicism, some Juwish denominations and other religious organizations that lack a literalist stance concerning holy scriptures. With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature.

View of Deism

Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the day-to-day world or create miracles. Some deists believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. Deism allows for God to guide the process at some points, Deism doesn't deal in allegorical interpretations merely to go along with holy books. If a literal reading is proven wrong based on the evidence, Deists reject he claim.

One good example of this is the recent (December 2004) conversion to deism of the former atheist philosopher Antony Flew. Professor Flew now argues that recent research into the origins of life supports the theory that some form of intelligence was involved. Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argues that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He has also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."

Some evolutionary biologists were also theists. These facts also need to be discussed with evolution, not just the one-sided atheist' view.

Although evolutionary biologists are often atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins) or agnostics, there are nonetheless others who have a belief in some form of theism. These have included Alfred Russel Wallace (1823 — 1913), who in 1858 jointly proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection with Charles Darwin. Russel was a deist who believed that "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded to create life as well as consciousness in animals and (separately) in humans. Both Ronald Fisher (1890 — 1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900 — 1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary Creationism:

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

More recently, Kenneth R. Miller professor of biology at Brown University, has written Finding Darwin's God in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God". Much to the dismay of atheists that distort Darwin's work, Darwin was a Unitarian that warned "natural selection" does not apply to humans. Other Christian evolutionary creationist include Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick and R J Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London, who has written extensively on the subject.

Muslims

Many Muslims believe in evolutionary Creationism, especially among Sunni Muslims and the Liberal movements within Islam. More literalist Muslims, including followers of Wahhabism reject any form of evolution as incompatible with the Qur'an. However, even amongst Muslims who accept evolution, many believe that humanity was a special creation by God. For example, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, an American Muslim and specialist in Islamic law has argued in Islam and Evolution that a belief in macroevolution is not incompatible with Islam, as long as it is accepted that "Allah is the Creator of everything" (Qur'an 13:16) and that Allah specifically created humanity (in the person of Adam; Qur'an 38:71-76).

Jews

In general, the major Jewish denominations accept evolutionary Creationism, with the exception of some Orthodox groups. The general approach of Judaism is that the creation account in the Torah is not to be taken as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or mythical work. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great interpreters of Torah in the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and inform the interpretation of scripture.

Below is a sample letter to the editor to a local paper so I could watch their reaction. They just do not get it. They want to preach their theology in schools yet go crazy when it's questioned. That is further proof that this revelation/creation science has no place in the science class. Also note that they contradict each other and our reverend below only talks about "4,000 extant copies."

Problem isn't biology classes in schools; it's a lack of logic

Bristol Herald Courier Sep 12, 2002

To the editor:

In regards to "Let evolution, creation slug it out" (Herald Courier, Aug 29) Cal Thomas proves again Christian fundamentalists are clueless. Let's examine both evolution and the Bible in public schools and present all the facts.

Polls show among earth/life scientists only 700 of 480,000 (or .14 percent) believe six-day Creationism. Among the general public six-day, 47 percent: Theistic evolution (TE) 40 percent: Naturalistic or atheistic evolution (AE), 9 percent.

Education is the main factor. Six-day is 65 percent high school or less, only 25 percent for college graduates. TE is 23 and 54 percent: AE is a dismal 4.6 and 16.5 percent. High school biology classes aren't producing atheists.

Which creation story does Cal want? Genesis 1? (God created earth, animals, man/woman) Or Genesis 2:4? (God created Adam then animals, Eve.) 2:4 is total myth with no proof at all while Genesis 1 fits theistic evolution broadly. Without Adam/Eve, Paul's theology is dead and Jesus gets His church back.

The following doctrines are false: original sin, predestination, human depravity, eternal damnation, faith alone, Trinity, etc. Most of these were concocted centuries later based on Paul, who never even met Jesus. No wonder the Church once outlawed even owning a Bible. The Protestant Reformation, printing press, and religious freedom spelled doom for religious tyrants.

Protestants accepted the Catholic New Testament. Jesus claims divinity only in the Gnostic-Greek John. The Catholic New American Bible admits "shorter original," "later editing," and "multiple authorship." Jesus denies divinity in Mark 10:17. The earliest copies of the Bible only go to the 4th century.

There's no support for any second coming beyond the 1st century. (Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32, John 21:20) Revelation is a failed prophecy concerning the Roman Empire.

Fundamentalists need to stop blaming public education for their failures. I volunteer to "slug it out" on this issue in any public school for free.

Lewis Loflin
Bristol, Va.

Here is where I obtained my data from http://www.religioustolerance.org/

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% ₅However, the American public thinks very differently.

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others.

Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were:

Belief system	Creationist view	Theistic evolution	Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults	God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.	Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.	Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone	47%	40%	9%
Men	39%	45%	11.5%
Women	53%	36%	6.6%
College graduates	25%	54%	16.5%
No high school diploma	65%	23%	4.6%
Income over $50,000	29%	50%	17%
Income under $20,000	59%	28%	6.5%
Caucasians	46%	40%	9%
Afro-Americans	53%	41%	4%

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Belief system	Creationist view	Theistic evolution	Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults	God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.	Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.	Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone	44%	39%	10%
Scientists	5%	40%	55%

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationist continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationist than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists." ₁

With the elderly representing a gradually increasing part of the U.S. population, one would expect that the creationist view would receive increasing support. In fact, there appears to be a gradual erosion of support for the creationist view. It is barely statistically significant. The sample size is about 1,000 so the sampling error is within +/- 3.2%, 19 times out of 20. It will take a decade or two to determine if a significant shift has really happened.

By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. And its citizens tend to hold more conservative beliefs. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the U.S. than it is in Britain. ₁Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%).

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that: 97% do not believe the world was created in six days. 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Booher

Evolution debate erupts again in the Bristol VA

by Lewis Loflin

"There is no real scientific evidence that a so-called 'big bang' ever occurred." "Skeletons of modern man occasionally have been discovered in rock dated by evolutionists as lower Tertiary, much older than man's supposed ape-like ancestors."
"... evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies. Biblical Creationism, on the other hand, does correlate with the known facts of science. ... The widespread influence of evolution is largely responsible for our moral decline of recent years. ... Herein lies the awesome danger of this Satanic delusion ..."

This according to Larry Booher, a so-called "Christian" biology teacher from his home made textbook Science Battles Evolution. This was distributed in a public high school (John Battle) in Washington County, Virginia just outside Bristol. The local school board voted a few years earlier to ban an advanced biology textbook (the one used at the local community college) from local high schools because it conflicted with certain religious beliefs. This was that very "elective" biology class I believe the book was banned from. The school board claimed not to know he was doing this, I don't believe that.

What I always find interesting is the reaction of the public. I'll write letters to the editor merely to read their reactions that reveals a constant pattern of fuzzy thinking. Many Christian publications on this subject are little more than deliberate misinformation. Fundamentalist' churches dictate belief from the top-down where more moderate churches such as the United Methodists allow individual interpretation.

What Mr. Booher did was pass on what he believed true based on his religious beliefs alone. To quote one local fundamentalist, "Creationist scientists start from a literal interpretation of the Bible.." Science doesn't operate that way.

They believe their inability to fill local churches is related to high school science classes. But atheism is both discredited and in decline or has held steady for years. The majority that believe in scientific evolution also believe in God, but rarely the Christian fundamentalist' version. This is also at the heart of home schooling and demands for vouchers, etc. Many fundamentalists don't want their children exposed to modern science, or alternate belief systems. There is some merit with concerns over drugs and violence even in this rural region, but it's usually religion.

It isn't just evolution as such, they believe the entire universe appeared by magic in its present form about 4004 BC based on some nonsense from a Bishop Usher in the 1600s. Booher's sources for his "book" has been discredited.

For the record, I'm a theistic evolutionist. That is I believe evolution is the work of God and this process occurred over billions of years. While I am a Deist (Deism originated in Christianity), I attend a United Methodist Church where we don't discuss evolution or politics or trash other churches. Have no doubt Jesus Christ is Lord, Savior, and God in this church and Jesus is the only subject in this church. When someone gets sick, they go to the doctor and everyone prays for them. The Bible "proves" illness is caused by demon possession, but these people as do most Christians don't act irrational in trying to cast-out demons and let someone die.

The above table didn't state the statistics for high school graduates, which I assume, is similar to high school dropouts. It also didn't specify if college meant was two-year, four-year, or both. I'll assume both, but here many two-year programs tend to be vocational and are lacking in higher math, science, history, and English. It's clear to see that education is a main factor in belief in evolution with the biggest changes in college. Many universities are often bastions of radical secularism and leftist' politics. Atheism has a clear "choke-hold" on science departments. The Humanist Society claims to have thousands of members and supporters in academia.

Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey. This I got from the New York Times August 31, 2005 shows two-thirds of the people polled by the Pew Research Center supported teaching Creationism. What shocked them was "that teaching both evolution and Creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents..." (This being intelligent design which isn't Genesis.) The poll found "42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." That 42% is nearly identical for everyone in the Gallup poll at 44%. What isn't clear is how they asked the questions and the large percentage (14%) in the "don't know" column.

It should be noted that Intelligent Design is not Six-Day Creationism and does have a scientific basis. From the article:

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism." "It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio. Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because "Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument." "In fact, it's the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal," Ms. Scott said. "But they do have American culture on their side." This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures.

Comment: But exactly who/what is the National Center for Science Education? To quote their website (www.natcenscied.org), The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out. NCSE is the only national organization to specialize in this issue...The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership organization..We educate the press and public about the scientific, educational, and legal aspects of the creation and evolution controversy...NCSE is religiously neutral... That part about "religiously neutral" is absurd. They are a private political organization with a political agenda.

Their critics accuse them of being an off-shoot of the Humanist Society. The ACLU and the Humanist Society (there are several and they keep changing names) were both founded by many of the same people, often disgruntled socialists. Many of those supporting the NCSE are often militant atheists or members of the Humanist Society, etc. I don't believe this is some conspiracy here. These people share common beliefs, share similar social positions, etc. They are in the position of power and like anyone else promote their beliefs from that position. They are no more "religiously neutral" than Answers in Genesis is.

To continue from the NYT, Intelligent design is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it. The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. More of those who believe in creationism said they were "very certain" of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent)...Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals had "too much control" over the Democratic Party (44 percent), and that religious conservatives had too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent)...

In other words why not both as the majority of people support? I for one don't support introducing any form of supernaturalism,mysticism, or politics into science. But unless they admit outright in the science class that critical sections of evolution are under dispute and/or unproven, they should present both.

This is part of an earlier fight involving a student in Sullivan County that got suspended over harassing a science teacher over religion and evolution. To understand why fundamentalists are so adamant on this issue, I wrote the following published in the Kingsport Times-News October 26, 2003:

Student went too far

Regarding the latest uproar over science in school and the student suspension in Sullivan County, it's not about science. Theory in science means the best explanation for the observed data. Science can't deal in questions of God. It's not about evolution, just the Apostle Paul.

Paul is the true founder of Christianity. He never even met Jesus in the flesh but proclaimed some Gnostic Christ during an epileptic seizure on the road to Damascus. Self-proclaiming his own authority and influenced by Hellenistic Platonism and Stoicism, he elevated the man Jesus to a deity. The Greek convert John (126 CE?) completed the platonic Logos.*

Accused of idolatry and polytheism, the church concocted the pagan Trinity in the fourth century to tie together Paul's Gnostic Christ, the Jesus idol, and the Hebrew God. This is a total violation of the Ten Commandments these fundamentalists demand others worship.

Genesis has two conflicting creation stories. The first at 1:26 has God create animals, then man and woman together. The second (2:4) has in order: dust, Adam, garden, animals, and rib, Eve. Without a historical Adam, Paul's Original Sin theology falls apart. Evolution doesn't disprove God at all, just some religious interpretations.

The student persisted in promoting the bigotry she was taught at home, was warned, and got what she deserved. Trying to reason with irrational people is a waste of time. No amount of proof will work. If these cult-like fundamentalists want to play science, then their religion deserves scrutiny as well.

They are welcome to their self-imposed ignorance and censorship, but don't force it on others.

Lewis Loflin
Bristol, VA.

* Jesus never mentioned Adam at all, but the Apostle Paul did claiming Jesus as a "blood" sacrifice for the sin of Adam. St. Augustine invented the idea of inherited sin passed to Protestants through founders John Calvin and Martin Luther. See Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22 & 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:13-14. John was a pseudo-Gnostic.

Friday, June 8, 2007 10:32 a.m. EDT

Gallup Poll: Two-thirds of U.S. Are Creationists

This article was written by Dave Eberhart for NewsMax.com

A new USA Today/Gallup Poll has found that two-thirds of Americans say creationism is definitely or probably true. The poll also found that by a margin of more than 2-to-1 more Americans believe creationism is "definitely true” as opposed to those who believe as strongly in evolution. Creationism is the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years in accordance with biblical accounts. The debate over creationism and evolution continues to evoke strong emotion across the country in school boards and various state legislatures.

It has also become a point of interest in the presidential race, especially among the Republican candidates running. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee all raised their hands during the GOP candidates’ debate May 3 when asked who did not believe in evolution — the competing belief system that humans evolved from less-advanced life forms over millions of years, according to a report in USA Today. "For me it’s as simple as ‘In the beginning, God created heaven and earth,’” Huckabee told members of the media recently.

Does he believe in the theory that modern humans descended from primates? "No, I don’t,” is his response. While Huckabee says the issue doesn’t belong in a presidential race and seven in 10 in the new poll agree it is "not really relevant,” it promises nonetheless to continue to haunt the candidates and may even impact their appeal with certain voters. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said the three hand raisers at the debate make the GOP "look like it’s a front for the Flat Earth Society” — and that could turn off independents.

Meanwhile, Lawrence Krauss, a physicist and astronomer at Case Western Reserve University, remarked that the candidates’ creationist stance was in his opinion a danger sign. "Evolution happened whether or not a candidate believes in it,” he told USA Today, adding presidents should not let "religious or ideological beliefs trump reality.” Although the creationists racked up the highest numbers in the poll, the evolutionists made a good showing — with 52 percent of those polled saying evolution is definitely or probably true.

There were plenty of middle-of-the-road responses as well, with 25 percent saying both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true. There were not many claims of ignorance — with 86 percent saying they were "totally familiar” with creationism and 82 percent professing they were "totally familiar” with evolution. As to the 25 percent that go along with both theories, Geoffrey Layman, a politics and religion expert at the University of Maryland, told USA Today that, in his opinion, many folks are trying to reconcile science and religion. "They might believe the science, or they might see the science as hard to dismiss, and they don’t necessarily take Genesis to be literal,” he says. "But they do think that God played some role in directing this evolutionary process.” Poll results are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 U.S. adults, aged 18-plus, and was conducted June 1-3, 2007.

Evolution controversy in Sullivan County:

Homepage Article List 1 Christianity Deism Page

Visitors since
March 2002