How can so many Americans be duped into believing Genesis over Darwin's theory?
553530
It's all history - being in the right place at the right time - or wrong. Remember America is the new land of the Puritans. The Puritans didn't leave England because they were persecuted as much as they left because they lost their bid to frame the theology of the Anglican Church. In America they were free to influence the new and growing Protestant population. The underlying themes were church control and strictly dictated morality. \n\nYou have to skip ahead a couple hundred years for the rest. By this time, the Puritan philosophy had entered mainstream American Protestanism:\n"In 1883 a group of Christian bible scholars met for the first time at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, near Niagara Falls and established the principles of Christian fundamentalism. Article XIV of the 1878 Niagara Bible Conference Creed states, 'We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation, but is fast ripening for judgment, while there will be a fearful apostasy in the professing Christian body; and hence that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking.'"\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Bible_Conference \n\n"The term fundamentalism was first used in the early 20th century to refer to an American Protestant movement that asserted the literal truth of the Bible (not only against unbelievers but also against "sophisticated" theological interpretation) at a time when Darwinian evolution, secularism, and liberal theology were emerging. The centerpiece of this movement was a twelve-volume publication printed between 1910 and 1915 entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth." \nhttp://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/teaching_resource/tr_fundamentalisms.htm\n\n"In the protestant milieu of the USA, fundamentalism crystallized in response to liberals' eagerness to bring Christianity into the post-Darwinian world by questioning the scientific and historical accuracy of the scripture. Subsequently, the scourge of evolution was linked with socialism, and during the Cold War period, with communism. This unholy trinity came to be regarded as a sinister, atheistic threat to Christian America...Bruce [Chpt. 9 of Caplan 1987] suggests that to understand the success of the Moral Majority, an alliance between the conservative forces of the New Right and the fundamentalist wings on the mainly Southern Baptist Churches, we have to appreciate these fears, as well as the impact of a host of unwelcome changes - in attitudes to 'morality', family, civil and women's rights, and so on - which have, in the wake of economic transformations since the Second World War, penetrated especially the previously insular social and cultural world of the American South." (Caplan 1987: 6)\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism\n\nHere's the official view from the Catholic Church (The Whore of Babylon, according to some fundamentalists):\nhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalism.asp\n...and their broadminded take on a few sticking points:\nhttp://www.catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
768700
The Bible was written by ancient people who also believed  that the Earth was flat. They lacked the intelligence to comprehend the things that they wrote about and they made  mistakes.  If 21st century man witnessed the things that they saw we would not call it God. If you were alive then and had a cigarette lighter and flicked it, everyone would call you God because you could make fire come from your hands. If we all came from Adam & Eve, where did Chinese, Hispanic, or Aborigines people come from?  There are over 1 million different species of insects, how did Noah get to the Amazon Rain Forest to gather some of them? I'm not 100% certain that we came from apes but the World is loaded with religion disagreement problems because we have been forced to accept a God concept from people who had no idea as to what was going on.
997161
Hello Mr Jim-\n\nThey put God in the gap because their shallow faith in God's Word and their lack of understanding science will not support them. You know-its kinda like a safety net. But it will not hold water. There is no gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2. They really want to believe in God, but they can not fathom the possibility that some in science can be wrong. They are just trying to straddle the fence. All I can say is if they slip-it might hurt.\n\nHow are you feeling?
686107
They have lost their relevance now but does that stop people from believing ? Absolutely not. The reason for this is a genetically inherited instinct for gullibility. Gullible people were favored for survival for hundreds of thousands of years because they accepted authority and were easy to control and manipulate. Whilst skeptics (like myself) who question authority figures and the claims they make, would have been culled out of the population as atheists, heretics or blasphemers. So the Gene for skepticism was virtually eliminated from the gene pool as it was not favored for survival. We have been artificially genetically engineered to be gullible so religions and governments can use us as pawns to fight their silly wars. Little will change in the next thousand years.
222212
OK, I will put this nice and simply.  There is absolutely no scientifically credible evidence that supports creationism, or the idea that we originated from two individuals.  Faith is a wonderful thing but is not a substitute for evidence.
1088968
Creationists believe in the bible. Their belief in the bible is arranged like a house of cards. Its validity depends upon every card being in place to support the others. Take away one card - such as what the bible says about the origin of mankind - and their entire faith collapses. That's a terribly painful, emotionally and intellectually, experience for them. It's more comfortable to deny science and go on blindly believing.
346034
There are certainly some who CLAIM to be Christians and believe that nonsense about Adam and Eve being nothing more than a myth. And I would concede that a few people who really ARE Cristians believe it, but only because they are uneducated in the Bible, and/or have swallowed a lot of lies about the (so-called) science behind the evolutionary myth.\nhttp://www.drdino.com
5323
They don't. The Bible was written a few million years after the disappearance of the dinosaurs by people who did not have a clue about them. The Genesis book was inspired by the Babylolian's myths of Creation. Every old civilization had its own myth of Creation. We now have mathematicians, astrophysicists, biologists, etc. to inquire these fundamental questions : «What is the history of the universe? How did life began and evolved on Earth or - maybe - elsewhere ?» Etc.
276163
My friends in Europe find it outrageous that America would even consider banning evolution from the classroom or teaching creationism along side it.  As far as I know, very few Europeans believe in creationism and reject evolution.  And I'm fairly sure the phenonomon of asking it be taught as science is uniquely American, and is aptly called a psychosis.\n\nshiba: I didn't say anything about the government banning the teaching of evolution (although many states have made frightening leaps in that direction).  However, many creationists do advocate it (spend a few minutes looking around this site if you don't believe me), and the government is taking them seriously enough to pass laws mandating that students be told things like "evolution is a theory, not a fact," and "there are many gaps in the theory of evolution."\n\nWhen you ask that creationism be taught along side evolution you're not asking for equal rights you're asking that Christianity be given more voice than other religions.  Creationism is based in religion.  Evolution is a part of science.  Science is not a religion.  Religion is not taught in public schools.  Teaching creationism in schools infringes on my right not to be Christian (unless, of course, you're prepared to mandate the teaching of Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, and Satanist ideology as well).  Every relgion has its own creation story.  To teach only the Christian one is not giving Chrisitanity equality, it's giving it exclusive favoritism.\n\nThere is no reason under the sun why the Christian story of creation should be taught in a science classroom.  But if it were, you would have to teach EVERY story of creation.  There is no more evidence to support the Christian creation story than there is to support the theory that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  And don't bother to quote the bible at me, that does not constitute scientific evidence.\n\nYou actually don't have the right to force every child in the country to listen to your religion in science class.  Sorry, but that's not a reasonable request.  You're not fighting for equality, you're fighting for government-sanctioned superiority.
241235
are you kidding me?!? how on earth can you believe in evolution with so much proof of creation?!?!? before his death, darwin himself dennounced evolution and claimed creationism.
513828
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
65539
I think it's allegorical, and hard to swallow theory, and I am not sure that the lessons it teaches are relevant now-days. Personally I don't think that they (adam and Eve) were exactly real and if they were, their story got passed down over time to a time when people actually knew how to write and by then, I am sure the story had been groselly distorted and embellished. To me the Divine creation of earth and their expulsion from eden does nothing more than to make God a pretty arrogant entity that demans being worshiped and feared. It just seems so unike Him. \n\nThe worst part is that, truthfully, I think that story is nothing more than fabrication on part of humans and one of the reasons why God no longer manifest himself on earth.\n\nAs for Adam and Even being the first humans, well, can someone explain to me why aren't we all plagued with genetic  defects like say when siblings or cousins have kids. It just doesn't make sense that 6 billion people come from just 2 people, whom I would presume would have been jewish and somewheat middle eastern looking. \nSomeone is overlooking the fact that there are white, black, yellow, red, and brown people in the world and that took thousands of years of natural selection and genetic mutation for that to happen. We also know that people roamed the earth over 10000 years ago, so 28 generations before Jesus, with a life expectancy of 40 would not account to that far back. \n\nI am not saying that there is no God, I am saying however that we are being fooled into thinking that he will punish us if we don't act a certain way. Why would he create imagination, self determination and gives us the will to thrive if he didn't like the outcome? Wouldn't he have been able to know this in advance and create something he could control at will instead of by meaking us fearful of him? I think HE deserves more credit thant what churches and the bible itself are giving him.
913913
First off, those who believe it was "Adam and Eve" don't believe in EVOLUTION. So that throws that out.\n\nSecondly those same people who claim they're "Christians" Keep throwing Levitical/Mosaic Laws in our faces when as "Christians" they should know that even THEY aren't bound to those same laws...their insistance is purely hatefilled.\n\nYou reminded me of something my brother says when he meets someone who's vihemently against gays and gay marriage. \n"Do you believe in God?" \nif yes, he moves on...\n"Do you believe your God is a loving God, a "father" in heaven?"\nif yes, he moves on...\n"Do you believe your God created all people?"\nif yes, he moves on again...\n"Then why would your Loving God, who creates all people, who is OUR Father in Heaven...Ever create an entire group of people JUST to be hated?" \n\nNow, as far as those who do use that silly phrase I say: \n\nYes, it was Adam and Eve, but if you believe in God who created all people, then it's more accurate to say "it's Adam, Eve, Steve, Larry, Janet, Misty, Kahdeem, Horacio, Tiffany, Joe, Alex, Jon, Pete, Doris, Patty, Edith....etc" \n\nI also remind them that if they claim to be "Christians" then they should remember that Jesus left us with only one mandate: "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF!" \n\nThat was it, only one...and he NEVER ONCE said anything about gays/lesbians or same sex marriage. As a matter of fact there's not ONE referance to a committed, loving, devoted same sex couple ANYWHERE in the Bible!
263310
ROFL, typical responses that you were probably expecting given your question.  You have logged onto a site where it seem many literalist fanatics like to reside.  The vast majority of christians in my country, the UK, do not believe or wouldn't even entertain the idea of creationism -As a whole, thankfully, we are a country of ardent Evolutionists.  I cannot say the same for the US, maybe some US citizen can.\n\nThere is a massive amount of research and findings that support the evolution theory, but it is that, a theory.  In fact almost everything in science is a theory, Science isn't math.  Scientists want to know the truth, most don't care whether evolution is the correct theory or not, they just want to know the answer.  At present based on all the available work done world wide, the scientific community and most european societies accept that evolution has the best foundation, evidence and answers to how we and world got here.  They have spent the most time looking at it too.  There is no accepted peer-review paper on why creationism is true or even worthy of investigation. \n\nWhy would I accept a book that was compiled by a roman for political means as the truth to all things, because the book itself tells me too, please come on.\n\nDarwin sat, thought and observed.  Since his theory has been constantly looked at, and 9 times out of 10 the evidence supports it.  For those 1/10, we just don't know the answer yet, ID and creationism is not the answer; I will not be jumping to conclusions prematurly.\n\nour science isn't perfect and we often tear down pre-existing theories.  Evolution will be no different.  The fact that it has lasted since its conception is a testament to it's probable correctness.\n\nScience itself will tell you that given all the evidence Evolution is still the best theory they will endorse for how we all got here.  And in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to prove evolution to me.  Despite looking, and reading throughourly creationist arguments and evidence, not one of them even remotely made me doubt evolution.  The evidence for evolution is quite simply overwelming.\n\nWe cannot and should not accept old ancient texts versions simply because they are there, and others do.  It should be demonstratably true, and the evidence should match the hypothesis.  Creationism doesn't even come close to a science.
499614
Excellent post.\n\nI get quite tired of the strawman versions of evolution and the scientific method trotted out by creationists.\n\nFor example, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.  \n\nWhere the first life form came from has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.\n\nA theory is simply the best explanation for observable data.  We witness the diversity of life around us, and we must explain it somehow.  It is NOT meant to be proven.  Theories, in general, are not intended to be proven.\n\nFor example, gravity is a theory.  Is gravity false?  No.  Does gravity follow certain rules?  Absolutely!  Yet it is still a theory, and there ain't nothing wrong with that.\n\nYou well noted that some mechanisms of evolution are still not completely understood.  The theory, while perfectly valid, is not completely explained (just like gravity).  However, what creationists must keep in mind is that if any theory is going to replace evolution, it must explain ALL the evidence and data we have collected.  Genetics, fossil record, geological record, geographic isolation and allele frequency shift.\n\nAt the very best creationism (or ID) only points at the parts that science has not explained.  It offers no real alternative theory.\n\nLastly, the idea of "proof" for a "miracle" (meaning God's flooding of the earth) is oxymoronic, at best.  If there is proof (meaning observational data we can see today) then there is a natural explanation and God had nothing to do with it.  If it was a miracle, then there would be no evidence (since God suspended natural laws to make it happen).  Silly Christian fundamentalists, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
46862
To dismiss it because of its religious origin would be the same as dropping American history because the founders believed the Bible to be true.\nhttp://www.schneblin.com/studies/pdfs/our_founding_fathers.pdf\n\nYou do not have to bring in the Bible to teach Intelligent Design. You can postulate the possibility as "another view" which can be used as a counterpoint to evolution. You can even postulate the ET theory with aliens dropping off life on an inhabitable planet--anything. But to forbid its teaching is just as much a crime as the Roman Catholic Church condemning Galileo for saying the earth orbits the sun.\n\nI will repeat my argument here:\n\nImagine you are a secular scientist. A meteor falls to the earth and you go to examine it. Upon scraping the crust away, you find that it is a ball of pure, mirrored metal. Back at the lab, you find that you can open an airtight access door. Inside are extremely complex gyros, camera systems, computer processors and propulsion system. \nNow what would you, a secular scientist, be your first scientific conclusion? A.) Imagine how many years this must have been in space to evolve? or B.) This is far beyond our abilities to create, it must be from an extraterrestial source!! \nWith only the evidence of a complex machine, with no way of knowing or testing its origin, of course, no contest, B would be the secular scientist's response. \nBecause some people have "faith" that there is life on other planets, they are not catagorized as "religious" so are free from ridicule. But because we see the complexities of the human machine and proclaim "designer" we are thrown out of schools by the judges, demeaned by scores of people on this forum and others, and debased as mindless lemmings.\n\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life. So why do fundamentalists oppose it? Because it is not science, it's theory with very little evidence. I have not even gone into the fact that the human body is an intrigate closed-system with a fantastic balance system, ability to heal, think, imagine, love and reproduce.\nSo, as a scientist who cannot go back in time and document the origin of such complex lifeform, what are you to think?