Do Most Americans Believe in the Literal Interpretation of the Bible?

[paul_peciak]

For those Europeans participating in this thread, I put a lot of the blame for the US' religious fervor on your ancestors. Your ancestors chased their religious fanatics overseas to the Americas. We have to live with their descendents and their memes.

Thats a ridiculous argument.

 

[D H]

And what is so ridiculous about it?

Did Europe have a religious theocracy that rivaled the Sharia Law in its severity, as did the US in Massachussetts?
Did Europe suffer the two Great Awakenings that occurred in the US?
Did Europe react as vociferously against Darwin as did the US?
Did any European nation attempt to legislate that pi=3, since that is in the Bible?

 

[Rach3]

Did Europe have a religious theocracy that rivaled the Sharia Law in its severity

No, only for a few hundred years

 

[D H]

Did Europe have a religious theocracy that rivaled the Sharia Law in its severity the onset of immigration to the New World?

My point is that Europe exported most of its religious nutjobs to the Americas. The memes that they brought with them are still rampant in the US but are much less rampant in Europe.

 

[Severian]

To contrast, from a BBC-commissioned poll in the UK, last year, it turns out that 48% of respondents state that Evolution theory (as opposed to Creationism or ID) best describes their view of human origin and development. More importantly, only 15% of respondents didn't want Evolution taught in school (compared with the 37% in the US).

http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml

I think this poll exemplifies what I hate about polls made by journalists (who basically don't know their arse from their elbow). The poll is completely rigged to make classifications that they percieve, not to find out what people really think.

For the site, their first question was:

Can you tell me which of the following theories best describes your view?

1. The "evolution theory" says that human kind has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
2. The "creationism theory" says that God created human kind pretty much in his/her present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
3. The "intelligent design theory" says that certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God

I would have had to answer 'none of the above' to this, even though I am a scientist who believes in evolution, because I am also a Christian, and have to reject the 'God had no part in this process.' statement. I wouldn't answer no 2 because I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I would almost be inclined to answer yes to number 3, but I don't know what the hell they mean by 'intervention' so I would feel deeply uncomfortable answering yes to this, because I am sure they mean ID in the new American sense.

I may have answered 1 depending on what mood I was in.

So basically, this poll is almost entirely useless in distinguishing what people believe (although atheists are presumably a subset of 1.)

The second question (should each of the three views be taught in school sceince) is also pretty useless, because it makes no attempt to distinguish reasons. Clearly I think evolution should be taught in science class because it is a scientific theory. I don't think creationism should because it is not a scientific theory (unless to point this out). But that says nothing about my view on their correctness - it is simply a statement of categorization.

I don't think I have ever seen a poll that asks reasonable questions.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Apparently there is a difference of opinion between those who feel that creationism is not falsifiable and it is true, and those who feel that creationism is not falsifiable and it is false. As a result, the argument that creationism is not science because it is not falsifiable seems to have been replaced by the argument that creationists are stupid because they are not scientists.

 

[D H]

It is not so much creationism that is no falsifiable as ID. Biblical inerrancy is falsifiable unless one invokes a whimsical god who created the universe and mankind and created a lot of fake geological, biological, astronomical, chemical, physical, mathematical, archeological, ... evidence against creationism.

ID, on the other hand, takes on many forms. There is not one intelligent design theory, and most can accommodate any evidence.

I say call their bluff. Expose creationism for the myth that it is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Biblical inerrancy is falsifiable unless one invokes a whimsical god who created the universe and mankind and created a lot of fake geological, biological, astronomical, chemical, physical, mathematical, archeological, ... evidence against creationism.

That "unless" hogs a mess of ground. But creationists don't normally invoke whimsy, just bad science. The argument that scientists are stupid because they are not creationists would be inappropriate in this thread. But you know that's what they're thinking. Retaliation is all too common a response.

 

[Evo]

As with all discussions involving religious beliefs, this thread has reached a dead end.