Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,910
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: − ==Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus== − Roughly 47% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago (which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism) and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years. <ref>http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html</ref> A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that man developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.</ref> − According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref> − This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the macroevolutionary position to a creationist position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists. − − Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/5d.html</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgement was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy." <ref>http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm</ref> − Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts, <ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref><ref>http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos</ref> the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument. − − In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970's the scientific communities consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm</ref> Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.<ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct. <ref>http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists believe that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>
→Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus: avoiding duplicate content penalty in regards to search engines
Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]</ref> Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>
Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]</ref> Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>
== Adherents and Opponents of Creationism ==
== Adherents and Opponents of Creationism ==