PDA

View Full Version : More Americans Believe in the Devil than in Darwinism



William Haskins
12-01-2007, 07:51 PM
DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.

It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.

Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.

Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of "natural selection."
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN2922875820071129

rugcat
12-01-2007, 08:20 PM
That's because the evidence for Darwinism is inferential, yet we daily can view the work of the Devil. Eh, Mr. Haskins?

Voyager
12-01-2007, 08:22 PM
Then there are those who believe Darwin was the devil.

KTC
12-01-2007, 08:23 PM
Some say inferential. Others, not so much.

KTC
12-01-2007, 08:23 PM
Then there are those who believe Darwin was the devil.

Touche.

nerds
12-01-2007, 08:26 PM
Not going near this subject with a ten-foot pitchfork.

;)

William Haskins
12-01-2007, 08:28 PM
That's because the evidence for Darwinism is inferential, yet we daily can view the work of the Devil. Eh, Mr. Haskins?

indeed.

Bufty
12-01-2007, 08:30 PM
Inherit the Wind.

shakeysix
12-01-2007, 08:35 PM
sadly, the wind they have inherited is between their ears--s6

Ol' Fashioned Girl
12-01-2007, 08:35 PM
Where'd they take the poll? Outside a church?

William Haskins
12-01-2007, 08:39 PM
Methodology
This Harris Poll® was conducted online within the United States between November 7 and 13, 2007 among 2,455 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.


These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
more data tables and information here:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=838

Perks
12-01-2007, 08:43 PM
I must live in a bubble, because these results really surprise me. I thought secularism was far more dominant than that.

William Haskins
12-01-2007, 08:53 PM
http://theresurgence.com/files/american_jesus.jpg

eldragon
12-01-2007, 08:59 PM
I can't even believe people believe in the devil.

Just saying "the devil" is unbelievable to me. I feel like laughing.


Speaking of the devil, who most Americans believe in, have any of you ever seen the original Bedazzled, starring Dudley Moore? It's hilarious. Even though I don't believe in the devil, I highly recommend the movie.

William Haskins
12-01-2007, 09:00 PM
the devil is in the details, or perhaps in miss jones.

Bravo
12-01-2007, 10:00 PM
it's stuff like this that explains bush's reelection.

Bmwhtly
12-01-2007, 10:02 PM
well, shoot, if I had your government, I'd probably believe in the devil too.

I'm kidding, of course.

SherryTex
12-01-2007, 11:43 PM
Who came up with the "Or" nature of the question? Why? The Devil is in the details...

JLCwrites
12-01-2007, 11:55 PM
I believe in deviled eggs. So yummy.

Angelinity
12-02-2007, 12:22 AM
doesn't surprise me one little bit. The Devil is a symbol for the negative, which most people have experienced on a personal and probably quite disturbing level.

no one has experienced 'evolution' in a single lifetime. that i know of.

KTC
12-02-2007, 12:23 AM
Well, I believe in Crystal Lite and I believe in me.

rugcat
12-02-2007, 12:29 AM
no one has experienced 'evolution' in a single lifetime. that i know of.I've evolved from a thoughtless, unthinking idiot to a thoughtful and thinking idiot.

Angelinity
12-02-2007, 12:33 AM
I've evolved from a thoughtless, unthinking idiot fool to a thoughtful and thinking idiot.

is that evolution? :D

William Haskins
12-02-2007, 12:43 AM
doesn't surprise me one little bit. The Devil is a symbol for the negative, which most people have experienced on a personal and probably quite disturbing level.

this seems like a bit of spin. the results seem to indicate that the respondents were considering a literal devil.

AlleyNV
12-02-2007, 12:46 AM
I do believe in God, Devil maybe; or at least there's a little bit of evil in everyone. But as for what we do, it's our own decision what path we chose to make. Well that's my own theory at least.

Backward Masking
12-02-2007, 12:46 AM
I believe in Harvey Dent.

Angelinity
12-02-2007, 01:04 AM
this seems like a bit of spin. the results seem to indicate that the respondents were considering a literal devil.

same thing in my book -- The Devil is a symbol for Evil. Evil is an idea, a concept, a conglomerate -- people need to put a 'face' on it before they can begin to defend themselves against it. hence, The Devil.

He does become literal in the believer's mind at this point.

KTC
12-02-2007, 02:21 AM
Yeah...I took it to mean they were saying they believe in the idiot with the pitch fork, horns and red tights. I mean, come on...

truelyana
12-02-2007, 02:23 AM
What would be the difference between the Devil and Darwinism to an American?

KTC
12-02-2007, 02:26 AM
What would be the difference between the Devil and Darwinism to an American?

The two are not comparable, True. Just saying that they believe in one more than the other.

Darwin Theory:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/darwin-evolution-skeletons.png


Devil:
http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/eng97_8/nichols/gtw/devil.jpg

rugcat
12-02-2007, 02:44 AM
The devil as a horned demon is one thing. The Devil as a supernatural being, a fallen angel, the antagonist to God, is quite another.

If you are a Christian who believes in God, I don't see why a belief in the Devil would be so odd. If you believe in a literal God, not just an abstraction of good, why wouldn't you also believe in a literal Devil?

KTC
12-02-2007, 02:47 AM
Some believe in God as an abstraction...as the everything...and everything is everything, both good and evil.

robeiae
12-02-2007, 02:57 AM
same thing in my book -- ...
What is your book about?

As to believing in the Devil, many people probably answered instinctively. It doesn't translate into a belief in an active, corporeal devil with pointy horns. The results don't surprise me. But I think if you sat down with the respondents, the tale would be quite different.

William Haskins
12-02-2007, 03:04 AM
As to believing in the Devil, many people probably answered instinctively.

i don't think it's instinct so much as it's indoctrination. as religions go, the force diametrically opposed to that which is "good" is something of a recent development.

Simple Living
12-02-2007, 03:08 AM
There's plenty of evidence that shows Darwin repented of his evolution views and became a Christian before he died. This (http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm) is only one such link with the evidence.

Of course, you'll find other sources that insist he didn't, but the evidence that he did indeed become a Christian outweighs the reports that he didn't, when you examine all the evidence. I guess only God really knows. (And Darwin, of course.)

robeiae
12-02-2007, 03:08 AM
i don't think it's instinct so much as it's indoctrination. as religions go, the force diametrically opposed to that which is "good" is something of a recent development.That's fair. But I'd argue that the indoctrination is as much along the lines of putting up the proper front, as it is religious indoctrination, proper. People--imo--tend to say what they think they should say...or what they think others want to hear. It's a built-in problem with polling data that can never be properly accounted for, short of lie detector tests for all respondents.

Rolling Thunder
12-02-2007, 03:09 AM
I'd have to lean towards indoctrination, too. The 'Judas' as betrayer is a good example. No betrayer: no death, for the cleansing of sins. No devil: no punishment, for following a worse path.

robeiae
12-02-2007, 03:13 AM
There's plenty of evidence that shows Darwin repented of his evolution views and became a Christian before he died.
No, there really isn't. And it's kind of moot, regardless.

William Haskins
12-02-2007, 05:31 AM
indeed. that's like thinking that somehow, had newton had a change of heart on his deathbed, it would have invalidated the law of gravity.

SherryTex
12-02-2007, 06:15 AM
Anyone who doesn't believe in the Devil hasn't been paying attention in America...

If it may please the court,
Exhibit A: American Idol
Exhibit B: Bushes the elders
Exhibit C: Bill Clinton
Exhibit D: Dick Cheney
Exhibit E: Enron
Exhibit F: Kevin Federline being a model parent by comparison with ex.
Exhibit G: George W. and Al Gore
Exhibit H: Hillary
Exhibit I: Ipods and It=Segways. Also IT phone trees --sure proof of Hell if not the big pointy tailed red guy.
Exhibit J: Christmas songs like Jingle Bell Rock still being played
Exhibit K: The Response to Hurricane Katrina
Exhibit L: Lawyers who make companies put lables on jars of peanut butter warning it may contain nuts.
Exhibit M: Madonna's current Moral Superiority complex, Michael Jackson, Parent.
Exhibit N: Negative numbers --I hate math.
Exhibit O: OJ, not the juice.
Exhibit P: Paris Hilton
Exhibit Q: Make up your own here, couldn't think of one that was clever enough
Exhibit R: Reagan and/or Rush
Exhibit S: Brittany Spears Parent
Exhibit T: Teddy Bear Teacher being threatened with Execution
Exhibit U: The UN Human Rights Commission being headed by IRAN, Syria or any other country with such a lovely track record.
Exhibit V: Vast Right or Left Wing Conspiracies Advanced or Believed
Exhibit W: Weather --Global Warming, Global Cooling, Global Weather Hypocondriacs and Global Weather Emperor Neros who fiddle while the Earth burns.
Exhibit X: any accidental move on the internet=porn
Exhibit Y: Youtube --voyarism of TV without the talent, beauty or production values
Exhibit Z: Okay...I tried really hard to think of one but this scrabble ten point letter is going to go unused.

Devil Ledbetter
12-02-2007, 06:35 AM
indeed. that's like thinking that somehow, had newton had a change of heart on his deathbed, it would have invalidated the law of gravity.:roll::roll::roll:

Angelinity
12-02-2007, 11:22 AM
What is your book about?


apple blossoms.


As to believing in the Devil, many people probably answered instinctively. It doesn't translate into a belief in an active, corporeal devil with pointy horns. The results don't surprise me. But I think if you sat down with the respondents, the tale would be quite different.

normally i would agree, but since this was an online poll and probably anonymous, the respondents assumably did not feel pressured either to provide socially accepted answers, or to rush their responses.

i think the answers are likely to have reflected the respondents' true feelings (within reason).

aruna
12-02-2007, 01:15 PM
There's plenty of evidence that shows Darwin repented of his evolution views and became a Christian before he died. This (http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm) is only one such link with the evidence.




I can believe that he became a Christian, (as recounted inthe Lady Hope story) but not that he repented his theory. That's pretty ridiculous; and there would be no need for it. Becoming a Christian does not automatically mean believing in the seven-days-of creation story.

There's nothing in Christianity that contradicts evolution. Most Christians outside America believe in evolution. IN fact, ALL the Christians I have ever met accept the Genesios story as allegorical.

blacbird
12-02-2007, 01:31 PM
I'd bet that 98% or more of the American public don't have a real clue what Charles Darwin actually said, and 99.9% haven't read a single word he wrote. Most get their views on Darwin from what people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and John Hagee blather on their cable TV programs.

caw

Bartholomew
12-02-2007, 01:43 PM
I'd bet that 98% or more of the American public don't have a real clue what Charles Darwin actually said, and 99.9% haven't read a single word he wrote. Most get their views on Darwin from what people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and John Hagee blather on their cable TV programs.

caw

Exactly as many have no doubt read the bible, which is the baffling part.

kristie911
12-02-2007, 03:18 PM
Most get their views on Darwin from what people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and John Hagee blather on their cable TV programs.

caw

You mean to tell me people actually watch those weirdos?

Crap. That's way scarier than the devil...in any form.

Stew21
12-02-2007, 04:08 PM
i agree with aruna. i think you can be christian and also believe in evolution. At least i have managed to justify it in my own head.

aruna
12-02-2007, 05:34 PM
i agree with aruna. i think you can be christian and also believe in evolution. At least i have managed to justify it in my own head.


I went to a VERY Christian school in England. They made us pray several times a day: on getting up, before meals, after meals, chapel twice a day, before bedtime, etc. We were taught evoution as a matter of course. I remember distinctly the headmistress reading Genesis to us; it was presented as a story, an allgory. At no time were we asked to accept the Old Testament as literal truth. This was in the 1960's.

That is why it is always so surprising to me to see Christianity cited as being synonymous with a literal interpretation of the Bible. There are Christians of all colours and stripes, and I believe that seen worldwide, the creationist Christians are in a minority.

I also asked a high-ranking German woman from the Catholic Church about the take among Christians in Germany. She too said that there, Adam and Eve is regarded as a story. SHe was astounded to hear that some people really think it is literal truth.

nerds
12-02-2007, 05:41 PM
I must live in a bubble, because these results really surprise me. I thought secularism was far more dominant than that.


Me too, although this particular poll is a small sampling and I don't set a lot of store by polls of any kind anyway.

That being said, I'm wrapping up a year of traveling in an area which has opened my eyes to things I'd thought somehow were long gone, mindsets I'd never encountered anywhere prior to this trip. I have come to know people who do in fact believe in The Devil/Satan as a real entity, a personality, almost literally a personage in their daily lives for whom they must be always on the alert, with whom they must daily do battle. They inculcate their small children with this idea, to the point where these little kids do think Satan's hanging out behind every shrub and around every corner when he's not busy manifesting himself within other humans. Needless to say these children are neurotic, anxious, fearful, and tightly-wound by the ripe old age of five.

All this is done while excluding Darwinism at the same time, which again is not my life experience. I think it was aruna who mentioned upthread that many Christians do not exclude the idea of evolution, which has been my experience as well. Until now.

Had they done this poll where I'm spending time right now, they might well have gotten a 100% devil response.


:e2seesaw:

benbradley
12-02-2007, 06:15 PM
I went to a VERY Christian school in England. They made us pray several times a day: on getting up, before meals, after meals, chapel twice a day, before bedtime, etc. We were taught evoution as a matter of course. I remember distinctly the headmistress reading Genesis to us; it was presented as a story, an allgory. At no time were we asked to accept the Old Testament as literal truth. This was in the 1960's.

That is why it is always so surprising to me to see Christianity cited as being synonymous with a literal interpretation of the Bible. There are Christians of all colours and stripes, and I believe that seen worldwide, the creationist Christians are in a minority.

I also asked a high-ranking German woman from the Catholic Church about the take among Christians in Germany. She too said that there, Adam and Eve is regarded as a story. SHe was astounded to hear that some people really think it is literal truth.
I've known people who would be astonished that people who call themselves Christians would NOT think it's literal truth. I think the phrase used is "Cafeteria Christians," picking and choosing what parts they believe.

Maybe someone can provide some stats on this, but not only is the USA much more religious that other Western countries (specifically there's a higher percentage of Christians), but I have the impression that the percentage of US Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible is much higher than of Christians elsewhere (certainly among Protestants, which are the majority of US Christians). Offhand, I'd guess that about half of US Christians are literalists (perhaps more properly called Fundamentalists).

Certainly, all the Christians I've known who are "strong believers" (whose faith is clearly a large part of their lives, as opposed to the "CINO's" who's only faith action is to go to Church on Sunday, and often as little as twice a year), do NOT believe animals or humanity got here by evolotion, but believe the Genesis account.

benbradley
12-02-2007, 06:19 PM
...
Had they done this poll where I'm spending time right now, they might well have gotten a 100% devil response.


:e2seesaw:

Are you in the Southeast USA? This is where I grew up and lived almost all my life. They don't call this area the "Bible Belt" for nothin'.

nerds
12-02-2007, 06:32 PM
Are you in the Southeast USA? This is where I grew up and lived almost all my life. They don't call this area the "Bible Belt" for nothin'.


I'm running around TN and Miss., primarily. It's been an experience, no question about it. Fascinating, really. Not all negative, I don't wish to imply that, not at all. But much of the religious stuff I've encountered has been very intense, which is all I'll say about it here.

:)

Homewrecker
12-02-2007, 06:49 PM
I must live in a bubble, because these results really surprise me. I thought secularism was far more dominant than that.

The fun part with that is now they're thinking that secularism/religion isn't an either or proposition but can co-habitate.

Wasn't Darwin just trying to explain adaptation and not refute the existence of God? Seems like Evolution of Species only addressed critters and was very careful not into include humans in the equation.



Oh, KTC. You're evolution image was a bit out of date. I've found a more current one for your enjoyment.
:P


http://tuxcafe.org/~renee/images_sites_interactifs/evolution_computer.jpg

Bravo
12-02-2007, 08:08 PM
not that i think this explains the results of the survey, but darwin's theory that we are descendents of chimpanzees is not correct.

chimps's and humans actually share a common ancestor, and then there was a split and voila here we are. (i wish i could find a graphic of this).


eta: found a graph:

http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgssextrastuff/hgss_apes/hgss_apeevolution.gif

Angelinity
12-02-2007, 08:30 PM
now that we're sort of discussing the accuracy of Darwin's theory, who else suspects the truth could lie somewhere in between--as in the ape's genetic manipulations by a different species?

(or am i off-topic again?)

shakeysix
12-02-2007, 08:40 PM
would have been lynched in my part of the country. i have taught with two science teachers who denied evolution. one called the theory of natural selection "communist"--am still mulling that one over. one would actually show the kids a film strip proving creationalism--he did let them read the part in the text on evolution. college biology was always a confusing experience for our graduates but they were sound on chemistry and physics. most attended bible colleges where they don't have to sweat the particulars.

that said i have to add that both teachers are great human beings. the film strip teacher was one of the nicest guys i have ever met. determined to do everything he could for the kids. not involved in the politics of the job at all. the one person i would ask to help me first. i would bend over backwards to help him out.

he was not the only creationist on the faculty. i was a minority--an OOOoooOOoo-DEMOCRAT! the county was very small--less than 6,000 pop: mennonite, catholic, hispanic, protestant, and rodeo hell raisers all living together. we never brought politics or religion into the teacher's lounge or the classroom. we can't do that out here in the sticks because when a tornado buzzes through or a blizzard cuts us off from the civilized world, we all have to help each other. you don't ask the guy who pulls you out of the rubble his stand on creationism.

we take a lot of national flack for the state's stand on evolution but really, i think it boils down to free speech. not believing in natural selection is goofy but your right to be goofy is sacred---s6

William Haskins
12-02-2007, 09:14 PM
now that we're sort of discussing the accuracy of Darwin's theory, who else suspects the truth could lie somewhere in between--as in the ape's genetic manipulations by a different species?

given that there's absolutely not a single shred of evidence to support such a theory, it would remain in the realm of fantasy, in my view.

robeiae
12-02-2007, 09:52 PM
Inter-species reproduction is impossible, K-Fed and Britney notwithstanding.

rugcat
12-02-2007, 09:56 PM
we take a lot of national flack for the state's stand on evolution but really, i think it boils down to free speech. not believing in natural selection is goofy but your right to be goofy is sacred---s6Everyone has the right to be goofy. But I think the right to teach kids in biology class goofy ideas, as if they were equally valid options to scientific thinking, is problematical.

Jean Marie
12-02-2007, 10:06 PM
Devil:
http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/eng97_8/nichols/gtw/devil.jpg
Kevin, that's not a very good pic of Robeiae, but for this discussion, it will do.


The devil as a horned demon is one thing. The Devil as a supernatural being, a fallen angel, the antagonist to God, is quite another.

If you are a Christian who believes in God, I don't see why a belief in the Devil would be so odd. If you believe in a literal God, not just an abstraction of good, why wouldn't you also believe in a literal Devil?
Exactly. It isn't a bit odd, at all, for Christians.


indeed. that's like thinking that somehow, had newton had a change of heart on his deathbed, it would have invalidated the law of gravity.
Excellent point, William :D


I'd bet that 98% or more of the American public don't have a real clue what Charles Darwin actually said, and 99.9% haven't read a single word he wrote. Most get their views on Darwin from what people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and John Hagee blather on their cable TV programs.

caw
I disagree, blac. I went to a parochial school and was taught about Darwin. Both elementary and high schools. I believe it's taught in public schools, as well. Btw, that was a long time ago. Oh, and you couldn't pay me to listen to those dweebs.

shakeysix
12-02-2007, 10:30 PM
my husband and i made no bones about how goofy the creationists were when talking to the kids. and we laughed about the satan in disney contingency. and the nuts who wanted our high school mascot changed from a demon because--well, because we were worshipping the devil whenever we cheered "go demons".
but creationism is weak next to some of the things your kids are learning when not in your 4 walls. parenting is tough, scary work. glad i am out of it. with one wicca, one episcopalian and one single mom--who earns a paycheck and supports herself and child--all self supporting and thinking, voting adults, i guess i can say we did okay. and really, the last of it i was on my own--s6

Angelinity
12-03-2007, 12:06 AM
Inter-species reproduction is impossible...

so was spaceflight to the Romans and making steel to Flinstonians.

robeiae
12-03-2007, 12:09 AM
so was spaceflight to the Romans and making steel to Flinstonians.
That's a non-sequitur. And gene splicing is not reproduction.

Angelinity
12-03-2007, 12:19 AM
That's a non-sequitur.

i disagree -- they did not have the knowledge or tools to makes those things happen. we do.

just because we have not found ways to cross-breed species, it does not mean that it cannot be done--simply that we lack the knowledge and tools.




And gene splicing is not reproduction


precisely.

William Haskins
12-03-2007, 12:22 AM
the notion that some advanced civilization manipulated and kick-started human evolution is wholly without evidence, so at that point you might as well just believe in god.

Bravo
12-03-2007, 12:30 AM
the first screenplay i wrote (of two) was about a race of genetically altered god-like beings who interfered with mankind.

great concept.

not a great execution.


maybe someday i'll rewrite it and make my millions.

Angelinity
12-03-2007, 12:33 AM
the notion that some advanced civilization manipulated and kick-started human evolution is wholly without evidence...

everything we now believe to be fact started with a theory. evidence does not show itself of its own accord. it needs to be sought out.


...so at that point you might as well just believe in god.

i don't believe either. but i don't exclude every theory just because it contradicts the status quo.

Cath
12-03-2007, 12:37 AM
Wasn't Darwin just trying to explain adaptation and not refute the existence of God? Seems like Evolution of Species only addressed critters and was very careful not into include humans in the equation.
I am positive I remember reading (and I wish I could remember where), that Darwin was devoutly Christian, and that he struggled to reconcile his observations about evolution with his religious beliefs. I can well believe that he'd restrict his theories to exclude mankind in that case.

maxmordon
12-03-2007, 12:37 AM
The fun part with that is now they're thinking that secularism/religion isn't an either or proposition but can co-habitate.

Wasn't Darwin just trying to explain adaptation and not refute the existence of God? Seems like Evolution of Species only addressed critters and was very careful not into include humans in the equation.


Most of the people I have met in my life are people who actually believe in both God (they are usually Catholics) and evolution. I think even my Biology teacher commented that evolution it was almost a sign that there is a God who wanted to happen

Unique
12-03-2007, 01:26 AM
more data tables and information here:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=838


What would be the difference between the Devil and Darwinism to an American?




As to believing in the Devil, many people probably answered instinctively. It doesn't translate into a belief in an active, corporeal devil with pointy horns. The results don't surprise me. But I think if you sat down with the respondents, the tale would be quite different.

You all inspire me every day.

I believe in both. I am a scientist so I have to study evolution. Evolution is changing over time. Species adapt to new environments or predators or food - whatever - this is evolution over time.

Whether humans crawled up out of the water - I don't know and I don't care. The world revolves as it does and the planets align as they do somehow. And I'm supposed to believe all the balance in the universe happened by chance?

Okay. You can believe that - but I don't. And I never will. Belief systems are developed over time in an individual by their own experiences. They may not even know why they believe as they do. Some memories are so far back, they can't recall them. They can be recovered sometimes but a therapist has to be so careful not to induce a memory that didn't exist. (Leading the witness)

Science also says things tend to disorder; they break down, not up.
The dead mouse decays. It doesn't change into a bird. But if the decay fertilizes the grass for seeds and the birds eat those - that is nutrient recycling so ... maybe Karma? I don't know. And I still don't care.

Some of my professors were Christians and I know this. They said yes, to evolution but not exactly the way it is presented. So ... I have educated scientists telling me they believe both. To me, this is no surprise. I believe the same thing. For me, this is confirmation.

As Always - YMMV

KTC
12-03-2007, 01:29 AM
Haven't you always wanted a monk-key?

William Haskins
12-03-2007, 01:33 AM
Haven't you always wanted a monk-key?

no. merely a picasso... or a garfunkel.

Magdalen
12-03-2007, 01:33 AM
I am positive I remember reading (and I wish I could remember where), that Darwin was devoutly Christian, and that he struggled to reconcile his observations about evolution with his religious beliefs. I can well believe that he'd restrict his theories to exclude mankind in that case.

Yes, I've heard/read that also. I don't have a problem with evo and devo co-existing with a Judeo-Christian belief system. A) I think those 7 days were way longer than 24 hours each and B) I'm still waiting for that "missing link" to show up. I think/feel that there is a sacredness to human life that does not extend to lesser animals, but that doesn't mean it is okay to abuse them.

William Haskins
12-03-2007, 01:36 AM
I think/feel that there is a scaredness to human life that does not extend to lesser animals, but that doesn't mean it is okay to abuse them.

i am assuming that's a typo and that you mean "sacredness". if so, do you mind if i ask what you base this on?

KTC
12-03-2007, 01:39 AM
animals are sacred. Life is sacred. We are not chosen. We are not special.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 01:40 AM
Animals are sacred when they're on my dinner plate.

Mmm, tasty.

rugcat
12-03-2007, 01:43 AM
I am positive I remember reading (and I wish I could remember where), that Darwin was devoutly Christian, and that he struggled to reconcile his observations about evolution with his religious beliefs. I can well believe that he'd restrict his theories to exclude mankind in that case.A brilliant and insightful (and fascinating) book about Darwin's struggles is Darwin And The Beagle, (http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Beagle-Alan-Moorehead/dp/B000NW7X5K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196631176&sr=1-1) by Alan Moorehead. Darwin reluctantly accepted a theory thrust upon him by what he actually saw. The ship's captain was a hellfire fundamentalist, originally a good friend, who grew estranged from Darwin over the years.

A great book, as are all of Moorehead's. He's a brilliant, entertaining writer as well as a sound historian.

rugcat
12-03-2007, 01:46 AM
the notion that some advanced civilization manipulated and kick-started human evolution is wholly without evidence, so at that point you might as well just believe in god.Not true. It's been conclusively proven. See Chariots Of The Gods

(http://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken/dp/0425166805/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196631829&sr=1-1)

William Haskins
12-03-2007, 01:47 AM
yes. i read it when i was eleven. it was flimsy and often comical even then.

badducky
12-03-2007, 01:54 AM
The poll is quite silly.

Evolution does not need anyone to believe in it, because science is not a matter of faith.

And, the devil also does not need your belief. The devil only needs to believe in you. Both belief and non-belief strengthen the devil's position.

Unique
12-03-2007, 01:57 AM
animals are sacred. Life is sacred. We are not chosen. We are not special.


Bigger brains and opposable thumbs. Oh - goodness.

When I studied genetics the same molecules that make you and I are in the the animals as well. Some species of animals have more genes than human beings. Explain that one to me. I can't remember which ones. I finished that school a long time ago. (1994) But I remember.

DDT, Orthene, cholorobenzene - any poison is poisonous to both but if a bug has 18 brain cells and you have 18 million, guess which one dies first.
First two guess don't count.

Magdalen
12-03-2007, 02:27 AM
i am assuming that's a typo and that you mean "sacredness". if so, do you mind if i ask what you base this on?

Yes, a typo. I fixed it. Thank You.

Well, I had a beautifully eloquent reply all typed out and I lost it. So I will just give the short answer. I base the belief in the sacredness of life in my perceptions of the meaning of the word RESPECT. Using a minimalist approach (as opposed to my poetic and lengthy previous (lost) response) I can only reveal my thought-process as follows: I looked up "sacred" which lead me to "venerable" which lead me to "respect". And then I tried to copy and paste the lyrics to that famous song, done so well by the Queen of Soul herself, Aretha Franklin, and I lost my entire post.

And this isn't even the Karma thread!!!!!

III
12-03-2007, 02:46 AM
I believe in a literal, specific being named Lucifer, as described in the Bible. So if this is the thread to mock those people as foolish, please do me the honor of lumping me in with them.

Seacrest Out.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 02:49 AM
If Jesus believed in Satan, that's good enough for me.

A lot of people say the Devil is the bad in all of us. So how would they explain Luke, chapter 4? Does Jesus have inherent evil? Job describes him entering into the courts of Heaven. He has a name, a character, a personality, thoughts, deeds, plans, and yes, followers.

So I'm with III on this.

This will be my only serious post in this thread.

(Yeah, I wait for a buddy to show up before I come over all serious. I'll go back to my usual jokey self now).

rugcat
12-03-2007, 03:22 AM
I believe in a literal, specific being named Lucifer, as described in the Bible. So if this is the thread to mock those people as foolish, please do me the honor of lumping me in with them.

Seacrest Out.I find it interesting that people who would never dream of mocking someone for belief in a literal God have no problem with mocking them for a belief in the devil.

Not being a religious type myself, I find the devil at least as plausible as God -- maybe more so, given the history of humankind.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 03:24 AM
Well, the Bible does call him the ruler of this system of things. And how could he have offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world unless they were under his control?

Oh man. I've done it again. Did someone slip a spoonful of serious-serum in my tea?

nerds
12-03-2007, 04:07 AM
But a blind faith or belief in either entity, God or Devil/Satan, can have and has had some reasonably dire consequences over history - extreme judgmentalism, burning at the stake of epileptics and schizophrenics because it was thought they were possessed by the devil, there's no need to go on and on. I have one sister who is epileptic, one brother who is schizophrenic. I'm sorry, but neither is possessed by Satan. Science, mercifully, has proven that, but, hey, we in the family knew that about their suffering already.

The father who beat his son who beat his son who beats his son who goes out and murders somebody, that's environmental influence and/or illness they've been unable to overcome. The mother who does away with her children, almost always that is a psychotic break, a physical manifestation.

I do not believe in the existence of Satan. What I do believe in is personal responsibility, which everyone can exercise extant of conditions of severe mental illness, terrible emotional abuse/influence, or psychotic break, all of which are human physical manifestations, frailties and failures of the human brain, not controls and corruptions by evil outside entities.

We are mammals. We are not the best thing ever to come down Earth's pike. Things like dolphins are. Not us. We battle with ourselves and each other. We've got the intellect to know better, yet we make the biggest messes of all, go figure. Not because of God or Satan, but because of our own brain capacity for thought and emotion.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 04:10 AM
But a blind faith or belief in either entity, God or Devil/Satan, can have and has had some reasonably dire consequences over history...

Not everyone who claims to have faith, has blind faith.

One can also have blind faith in things like evolution, too. This could apply to anything which one does not fully understand, yet chooses to 'believe' without making a full investigation. 'Blind' faith isn't restricted to the religious.

robeiae
12-03-2007, 04:43 AM
yes. i read it when i was eleven. it was flimsy and often comical even then.
Obviously, you're forgetting the special knowledge that Donovan had access to...

The continent of Atlantis was an island
which lay before the great flood
in the area we now call the Atlantic Ocean.
So great an area of land, that from her western shores
those beautiful sailors journeyed
to the South and the North Americas with ease,
in their ships with painted sails.

To the East Africa was a neighbour, across a short strait of sea miles.
The great Egyptian age is but a remnant of The Atlantian culture.
The antediluvian kings colonised the world
All the Gods who play in the mythological dramas
In all legends from all lands were from fair Atlantis.
Knowing her fate, Atlantis sent out ships to all corners of the Earth.
On board were the Twelve:
The poet, the physician, the farmer, the scientist,
The magician and the other so-called Gods of our legends.
Though Gods they were -
And as the elders of our time choose to remain blind
Let us rejoice and let us sing and dance and ring in the new
Hail Atlantis!

KTC
12-03-2007, 04:49 AM
Not everyone who claims to have faith, has blind faith.

One can also have blind faith in things like evolution, too. This could apply to anything which one does not fully understand, yet chooses to 'believe' without making a full investigation. 'Blind' faith isn't restricted to the religious.


Even as you tell me repeatedly (ad nauseum) that you hate me, I have blind faith in your all encompassing love.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 04:51 AM
Bite me.

KTC
12-03-2007, 04:52 AM
And in between the lines, I see the love. Faith is blind. Colour me blind.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 04:55 AM
There are no lines!

KTC
12-03-2007, 04:56 AM
There are no lines!

You mean it's pure unadulterated love? How lovely.

robeiae
12-03-2007, 04:58 AM
This a serious thread, Spaz. Go somewhere else.





























:ROFL:

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 04:59 AM
You tell 'im!

Bravo
12-03-2007, 05:59 AM
I believe in a literal, specific being named Lucifer, as described in the Bible. So if this is the thread to mock those people as foolish, please do me the honor of lumping me in with them.

Seacrest Out.


lucifer actually isnt the name of the devil in the bible. luficer literally means "light-bringer" a term in reference to the morning-star (venus).

in fact, jesus christ himself calls himself the morning-star/lightbringer:


I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star

the confusion over who is lucifer occurred as a result the book of isaiah, and is in one of my favorite biblical passages of all time:

How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! - Isiah:14:12

there are allegorical readings of this verse, but the overall point is that if you consider the devil's name to be lucifer, than you, god-forbid, also consider jesus to be the devil.

Mac H.
12-03-2007, 06:16 AM
There's plenty of evidence that shows Darwin repented of his evolution views and became a Christian before he died. This (http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm) is only one such link with the evidence.

Of course, you'll find other sources that insist he didn't, but the evidence that he did indeed become a Christian outweighs the reports that he didn't, when you examine all the evidence. I guess only God really knows. (And Darwin, of course.)Why do well-meaning people keep peddling this myth?

If an athiest claimed that a prominant evangelist recanted their religion on their deathbed, but the evangelist's family claimed it was nonsense .. most people would regard it as a pretty nasty rumour.

How could people believe that there is evidence that he did? To quote Darwin's daughter:


"I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."

Not only that, but her account isn't supported by a SINGLE other person. His family never found him 'always studying the Bible' (like Lady Hope claims). His family and everyone else doesn't believe that he was bedridden 'months' before his death.

And what about the claim that he organised his servants, tenants & neighbours for a church service in the summer-house? Nobody else believes it happens .. not a shred of evidence.

To quote the website you referred to :


There are several criticisms that have been made of her character. It is implied that she married Sir James Hope for his title. He was 69 and she was 35 - a mature woman it should be noted - and they did share a great interest in the temperance movement. When he died, she continued to use the title of "Lady Hope" even after marrying Denny when she should have used his name, but her retention of her title for the added prestige that this would have given to her evangelism in those days is understandable. She appears to have been very imprudent in handling her finances, but it must be emphasised that the money went on good causes, and at the end she seems to have been bankrupted by a defrauder. In one instance, she spent money on setting up hostels for the poor that were unsuccessful.
In those days, to be bankrupt was a serious social stigma and the most probable reason why she went to America. In view of this, her claim that she had left England to avoid the anger of the Darwin family and to overcome the grief of losing her husband (LA affidavit) are understandable "white lies". It was also the most likely reason for Fegan refusing to give her a letter of commendation.

So, in summary, the 'Lady' (sic) Hope told 'little white lies' when convenient for her own means.

It is her word against the entire Darwin family.

Mac

badducky
12-03-2007, 06:17 AM
Bravo, you forget the apocryphal (sometimes) Book of Enoch. If you happen to be Ethiopian Orthodox, you include an enumerated realm of fallen angels.

Nephilim, as well, appear in the Old Testament. Divine beings given in to lust chase after mortal women.

Also, if you are a Manichean - or, possibly, Borges - the true savior was Judas Iscariot, who released the divine from the miserable, evil flesh of the mortals.

Quite a few unholy demons are named by their name in the Bible, and cast out or destroyed, and the separation of the entities is not entirely clear. The unholy one has too many names to dwell on just one.

Silver King
12-03-2007, 06:18 AM
We are mammals. We are not the best thing ever to come down Earth's pike. Things like dolphins are. Not us...
I hear this about dolphins from time to time, and I'm reminded of what I've learned about them and seen first hand in the wild. Bottlenose dolphins (the cute ones that seem to smile) are highly aggressive and social animals, with a clearly defined pecking order. The males are dominant and highly sexual, frequently becoming aroused among one another when females are not present.

The males will often "steal" a female from another pod. They hold her captive, with each male in the group having a go at her while others prod and push and bite her into submitting. For lack of a better term, it's a gang bang in progress, the struggle creating a frothing area of white water and blood, punctuated by dolphin cocks straining to enter the fray.

Females within a group that bear calves refuse to mate until their offspring are independent. Males will sometimes kill the newborn, and within a few days, the female will become receptive to their advances.

When viewed through the human lens, dolphins can either be seen as cruel and selfish predators, or as happy-go-lucky mammals constrained by their liquid world.

William Haskins
12-03-2007, 06:21 AM
We are mammals. We are not the best thing ever to come down Earth's pike. Things like dolphins are. Not us.

dolphins are mammals.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 06:25 AM
dolphins are mammals.

And some of them have really bad hair days to prove it.
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc70/doriangrayspictures/Hairydolphin.jpg

robeiae
12-03-2007, 06:32 AM
Right. Now I'm offended.

KTC
12-03-2007, 08:14 AM
And some of them have really bad hair days to prove it.
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc70/doriangrayspictures/Hairydolphin.jpg

That's not terribly accurate. If dolphins ever have hair, it's almost always black. Unless...is that Raggedy Ann Dolphin?

badducky
12-03-2007, 10:03 AM
Dolphins aren't mammals. They're aliens.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 04:05 PM
So long and thanks for all the fish.

Angelinity
12-03-2007, 04:55 PM
Dare you click the frowning penguin?

no. he looks menacing.

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 04:56 PM
Probably just as well. He is the PengDevil.

KTC
12-03-2007, 04:59 PM
He's got an awfully big head.

Angelinity
12-03-2007, 05:06 PM
yeah. what's in that big head anyway?

C.bronco
12-03-2007, 05:44 PM
I'm a flea-bit peanut monkey
All my friends are junkies
That's not really true
I'm a cold Italian pizza
I could use a lemon squeezer
How'd you do?
I'm a monkey

badducky
12-03-2007, 07:15 PM
How come everyone's sig line is getting so big?

Seriously, when your sig line is more inches long than your usual post, you've got a sig line that's too long.

What are you, a bunch of dolphins?

NeuroFizz
12-03-2007, 07:37 PM
Evolutionary theory, and in particular its basis in modern molecular biology, does not belong in the same room as religion and faith. And more important, the reverse is true. When intromitted, they do not produce viable offspring (both a joke and a serious comment).

scarletpeaches
12-03-2007, 07:39 PM
How come everyone's sig line is getting so big?

Seriously, when your sig line is more inches long than your usual post, you've got a sig line that's too long.

What are you, a bunch of dolphins?

Get me a png image of a penguin that's cuter and smaller than mine, and I'll change it.

Jean Marie
12-03-2007, 07:41 PM
Right. Now I'm offended.
You've been so since you gave birth. Get over it.

III
12-03-2007, 08:08 PM
lucifer actually isnt the name of the devil in the bible. luficer literally means "light-bringer" a term in reference to the morning-star (venus).

in fact, jesus christ himself calls himself the morning-star/lightbringer:

the confusion over who is lucifer occurred as a result the book of isaiah, and is in one of my favorite biblical passages of all time:

How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! - Isiah:14:12

there are allegorical readings of this verse, but the overall point is that if you consider the devil's name to be lucifer, than you, god-forbid, also consider jesus to be the devil.

Jesus also called himself "son of man" which is the term Ezekiel used about himself, so do I have to believe Jesus was claiming to be Ezekiel? Or that Jesus was claiming to be a lamb? I'm trying to think of a passage where Jesus called himself morning-star/lightbringer, but nothing's coming to mind, but similarity of titles doesn't outweigh a very clear message.

But my point wasn't about the name: the Devil (evil one), Satan (the accuser), Lucifer (light-bringer), Father of Lies, whatever. I picked a title that seemed more appropriate for the cultural context of this thread than simply "the devil", which, as evidenced, evokes a more cartoonish image.

nerds
12-03-2007, 08:16 PM
LOL, okay, forget dolphins. At least they're not running around screwing with the world for eons on end, but maybe not the best creature to cite. Mushrooms then. (now someone will come up with studies of aggressive mushrooms :D .)

It's just that not everyone thinks there is a constant ongoing cosmic duel between a Big Bad Entity (insert name choice here) and a Big Good Entity (insert name choice here). Not everybody thinks the Grand Endless Duel is from or due to outside influence but is in fact due to . . . us. Just us.

The effort toward and need to figure out or explain the big questions appears to be an intrinsic human element, but there are those who don't possess that need to know. I personally cannot reconcile the garbage that people do to each other with some outside whatever out there pulling the strings or exercising influence, and I was raised in a very formal church. That doesn't make me un-Christian, in my opinion.

We're here, make it as good as we can while we are here, and we'll know when we go if there's more to know. Some people are okay with just that. Some aren't. Going to go discuss this with some dolphins now. ;)

Jean Marie
12-03-2007, 08:19 PM
Actually, there is a good vs. evil thing going on. Call it whatever you'd like, name it however you want, but it's there. We choose sides, so it is in fact, us. That's why it's called, free will.

I adore dolphins :D

NeuroFizz
12-03-2007, 09:03 PM
Charles and Theone (TheOne)

Charles was a Hatfield
Theone a McCoy
she longed for his hand
he, to stay a boy

And the distance 'tween the hollows
yielded to ill-fated roads

Theone pushed for courtship
over Charles' dissenting vote
her eyes on the prize
o'er the monkey-man's revolt

And the distance 'tween the hollows
yielded to ill-fated roads

As Theone took on airs
of the Hatfield family crest
Charles resisted her advances
citing species null incest

And the distance 'tween the hollows
yielded to ill-fated roads

But DNA can't fight against
a shotgun cocked with lead
and the barrel of the righteous
laid against poor Charles' head

And the distance 'tween the hollows
yielded to ill-fated roads
with the barrels of the righteous
blazing holy rolling loads

Bravo
12-03-2007, 11:37 PM
Jesus also called himself "son of man" which is the term Ezekiel used about himself, so do I have to believe Jesus was claiming to be Ezekiel? Or that Jesus was claiming to be a lamb?

no, the more logical conclusion is to believe that jesus, like all prophets spoke in metaphors.

jehovah, ephraim, abraham, and many others were was also called the sons of God, and the tribes of israel have been described as being the lambs of God.

not many people would take a literal interpretation with that.



I'm trying to think of a passage where Jesus called himself morning-star/lightbringer, but nothing's coming to mind, but similarity of titles doesn't outweigh a very clear message.


see Rev 22:16.



But my point wasn't about the name: the Devil (evil one), Satan (the accuser), Lucifer (light-bringer), Father of Lies, whatever. I picked a title that seemed more appropriate for the cultural context of this thread than simply "the devil", which, as evidenced, evokes a more cartoonish image.

i understood your point.

i was just saying that the name lucifer is misapplied to the devil.

C.bronco
12-03-2007, 11:51 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN2922875820071129
The statistics show an overlap. I am Catholic, and I see no reasonable explanation why one can not believe in both. Divine Design in theory makes sense to me; I gather that it's long been the general understanding of those who do take Genesis literally, but I wouldn't suggest teaching it in public schools because that would be unconstitutional.

Candice Olsen always does a great job on her show. http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/dc_design_kitchen/article/0,,HGTV_3375_3696969,00.html

rugcat
12-04-2007, 12:00 AM
Divine Design in theory makes sense to me; I gather that it's long been the general understanding of those who do take Genesis literally, but I wouldn't suggest teaching it in public schools because that would be unconstitutional.Nova (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/) had an interesting documentary on this recently. I'm sure they'll replay it.

Of course, Nova often leans "left," but the trial they cover really put to rest the notion that intelligent design is a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.

Imo, of course.

aruna
12-04-2007, 10:32 AM
The statistics show an overlap. I am Catholic, and I see no reasonable explanation why one can not believe in both. Divine Design in theory makes sense to me; I gather that it's long been the general understanding of those who do take Genesis literally, but I wouldn't suggest teaching it in public schools because that would be unconstitutional.

,00.html (http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/dc_design_kitchen/article/0,,HGTV_3375_3696969,00.html)


I find it preoopsterous that the expression Intelligent Design seems to have been usurped by the Creationists. Because I do see intelligent design everywhere on this incredible earth. I mean, just loook at the way everything in nature is in symbiosis! Look at the beauty of an orchid or the intricacy of a leaf! The mystery of conception, a foetus forming out of cells, the intelligence behind it all. Could that really all be random?

But to me the Genesis being literally true is utterly preposterous.

For me, the entity people speak of as "God" is the very source of all the amazing things science is slowly discovering. And science will always be light years behind THAT entity, without ever discovering it. That to me is the greatest cosmic joke of all-- the notion that science could ever prove "God", when "God" invented science! It's as if one of my novel characters could ever prove my existence.