Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?
One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 16 Next »
Every thing in our world is in a state of Entropy – complexity breaking down. It’s one of the most basic laws of nature. So, beyond my religious beliefs, this the best scientific evidence for me that nature could not, and would not, become more complex only in the area of evolution. An outside force would have to insert energy into the system in a way to elvove a sea dwelling creature into one that can breathe and travel on land, with absolutely no survival reason or pressure to do so. And that type of process would have to take place over and over and over again, as many of the evolutionary steps put force in evolutionary THEORY have no evidence of NEED.
Anyways, my 2 cents without specifically attacking anybody :) . I do find it interesting that more people believe in hell than in the devil.
PastorJon on December 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Boredom. I would go mad.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Yes, but I would view locking someone up for a victimless crime just a abhorrent as having my things taken. The only victim in a victimless crime is the person charged.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM
I’m aware.
I’m aware of this as well. That doesn’t dispute my point. Machiavelli didn’t have evangelicals and yet it didn’t prevent him from becoming who he was.
The same is true of other leaders who had no religion.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Yes, but I would view locking someone up for a victimless crime just a abhorrent as having my things taken. The only victim in a victimless crime is the person charged [and the taxpayer].
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Had to fix it up.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Funny how objective people want to be, but when it is pointed out that a theory was built upon a fallacy, it is all of a sudden “I don’t care”.
It is not a point of being a saint, it is what truth are they seeking?
If you embrace evolution, then you have to take the good with the bad…evolution states we came from apes, a true evolutionist believes “Negroes” are closer to apes then Caucasians, if you don’t believe that, then you are modifying a theory without any facts, and you are using your faith and personal objections to change a scientific theory that is widely accepted.
Interesting for a group of people who look down on the faithful.
Therefore you are either accepting evolution on faith, you don’t accept it, or you embrace it.
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I’m lacramose intolerant, which is why I hate the sound of atheists promoting their cause.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM
And the leopard got it’s spots from the Ethiopians figer tips. Both theories are equally scientific.
kcewa on December 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM
It was a song, by the Rolling Stones. Are you by chance referring to the Stand?
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:34 PM
1. The convict isn’t a victim. That person is merely getting the consequence of his/her actions.
2. What does this have to do with the topic?
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM
One small problem – if there is no God, who added the proton to the carbon?
Jaibones on December 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
You are misunderstanding entropy a bit. You could say that the very essence of life is the act of decreasing your own entropy by increasing the entropy of your surroundings, all within the laws of thermodynamics.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Explain sexual reproduction from an atheistic model. Two independent yet mutually completely compatible sexes developed by chance, for millions of species.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 3:37 PM
In the basic sense, if we eat any meat, we may be cannibals?
Interesting…
The cow we are eating, may have been my distant cousin…which would explain things like Rosie O’D…
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Good point… I did think of that, and was hoping someone else would too.
RightWinged on December 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Well yes, leaders need to squash individuality because their goal is to brainwash. Religion is an easy fix, but there are other avenues. The communist manifesto might as well be called the communist bible, while not a religion it is like a religion.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM
MadisonConservative,
“what’s mine is mine” seems to be a common principle among animals regardless of species, or in the case of humans, religious affliation. Animals defend “their” territory, while humans almost univerally defend their possessions. The natural basis seems to be will to retain resources in order to survive and reproduce. Humans may have simply adapted to the fact that it’s easier for each individual to survive if these rules are generally follwed.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Heh. I’m going to use that in the future, if you don’t mind.
BadgerHawk on December 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM
The Rolling Stones song was used in the movie “Fallen” which has Denzel Washington.
mwdiver on December 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Sex evolved before the subsequent millions of species did.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM
The gap between the percentage who believe Jesus is the son of God and the percentage who believe there is a God at all strikes me as a tad suspect. Do atheist really outnumber non-Christian theists 2-1, or do we have another “theist atheist” problem, with about 10% believing there is no God but he does have a son.
Xrlq on December 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Um…that if that system wasn’t a standard part of the reproduction process, everything except for some microcellular organisms would be dead. That doesn’t prove anything except that over billions of years a mutation meant the different between survival and extinction.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Exactly! Although as someone else noted, we’re even cannibals for eating vegetables… if you believe in evolution anyway. And to elaborate, we’re slave drivers for owning animals of any type.
RightWinged on December 12, 2008 at 3:40 PM
We were discussing morality. I said that injuring people who did not injure others was immoral.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Hence the name…Theory of Evolution…it’s a theory folks, it takes faith to believe in it.
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Well in a sense, yes. That’s why scrapie in sheep can lead to mad cow disease in both cattle and humans, thanks to rendered carcasses infected with it being fed to livestock.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM
That’s only based on the threat of violence or death if they try to take it. Therefore, unless you’re planning to incapacitate or kill me, what’s stopping me from taking your television? It’s in my self-interest to take it, and in your self-interest to stop me. That doesn’t produce a contract, that’s merely a battle of wits that leads one of us to eliminate the other in order to further our self-interest.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Oh, come on. You know that without those that oppose you here, your enjoyment would go straight into the tank.
mwdiver on December 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM
RightWinged, don’t worry. Veggies are far enough separated from us that we can eat them without too much worry from an evolutionary standpoint.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
What in the world?
Science is not a faith. When something you theorize conflicts with observations, science discards it. There is no evidence for this “negro is closer than Caucasian to ape” theory, and considerable evidence against it, so we ignore it.
You seem to be treating Darwin as if he was some prophet, who is either all right or all wrong.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
It’s still a hot topic of investigation. I doubt few scientists will assert the question has been resolved. Potentially it could change or even undermine the theory of evolution.
That in itself should clarify the difference between religions and science: in science unresolved questions are allowed to exist. If resolving the issue requires a change or even abandonment of a theory that’s what will happen.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
FIFY.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM
A good leader could use anything to stir up the people. Feeding the poor and homeless. Stopping global warming. Fighting for freedom. And yes, because God said so.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I welcome those who oppose me, as long as they show me the same respect I show them. I value opposition, because otherwise we would have nothing to talk about. I just prefer it to be the pursuit of exploring the issue, rather than the conclusion that I’m flawed because I think the way I do.
“Flawed” being a very veiled term for the discourse you know I’m talking about.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Dude, don’t even bring that crap in here. Knock it off already.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM
No argument here. I have argued for quite some time that while religion has been in decay that the state has been assuming its place. They both have the same purpose, to keep the rabble obediant and in line in accordance with the wishes of the leaders. To establish nomos.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Stay on topic or you’re banned. The other thread is closed.
Allahpundit on December 12, 2008 at 3:49 PM
There are unresolved questions aplenty in Christianity. How can God be sovereign, yet man have free will? How could Pharaoh be judged and condemned while God hardened his heart against Israel? Baptism: immersion of effusion?
Christians live with more theological tension and disagreement than non-Christians realize. When non-believers do realize the tension and mystery infusion Christianity, the often dismiss it based on these tensions and disagrement, while they allow for disagreement and skepticism among scientists. I’ve often been amused by this.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I was thinking of the movie Fallen, for which the Stones song is the theme. Terrific film.
BadgerHawk on December 12, 2008 at 3:49 PM
This is good news!
tom on December 12, 2008 at 3:49 PM
science is a joke. its a secular religion with darwin as its hairygod.
everyone has experienced evil, no one has observed or experienced evolution.
evolution is nothing more than a secular fairy tale. no evidence, just faith to support it.
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM
That’s why I’m so concerned that so many people think evolution is a proven scientific fact.
tom on December 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Hey… wait a sec…
2.5% of America is Jewish (according to Wiki)
3% if Moslem (according to suspect numbers… but hey.. there are some out there…)
Say 5% are non christians, who do go to church…
BUT 98% of those who attend religious services at least once a week believe in god… (which would include Jews, and Moslems…)
AND 98% of those who attend religious services at least once a week believe that Jesus is the son of God…
Jews and Moslems don’t attend religious services once a week or more???? HUH???
Numbers seem a bit weird to me….
Romeo13 on December 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Of hand, it looks like it evolved at least twice: once for chordates and once for arthropods (insects), as they have the opposite chromosomal arrangement (if I remember correctly).
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Hmmm. May have to check ‘er out.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM
That speaks against your own point.
From an atheist perspective that would be true.
But considering Christianity came about during a time when their leader was executed by the state and those who were left were similarly executed or exiled, I’d have to think that isn’t always the case.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM
You get the goods, I’ll get the wife.
Meet back here at 5.
Anyone aks, we bear false witness.
BKennedy on December 12, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I probably wouldn’t attempt to do more than incapacitate you if you tried to take my TV. Try to take my beer, death for one of us.
I believe (could be wrong) that humans already tried that mode of interaction, found it counter-productive and over time established rules for society. Those societies that failed to establish and abide by such rules killed themselves off.
If the law against committing theft comes from God, the Christian God is the same as the Mayan gods (among many examples) in this respect. Violent taking of other’s proptery within the same society is not condoned in any human group as far as I know. What’s considered other’s property seems to vary though.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM
evolution has the problem of Haldane’s dilemma on one hand, and on the other the degredation of our genome…a mutational meltdown.
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Sometimes I have to wonder if you are trying to make the Christians that post here look bad.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM
No, I only made a value judgement in one of those statements. Kind of like this:
Only Blue skies are good.
The sky is grey.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM
…after which I will take everything from you. Self-interest, baby. Law of the jungle. Axl said it best:
Best. Band. Ever.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Not surprised that you side with the evolutionists. I don’t know of many scientists who posit that life is billions of years old. I guess with enough time + energy + chance science fiction becomes reality.
That’s no more plausible for one species than for millions. Let’s allow that sexual differences and compatibility evolved independently. It would have to have happened in the same species at the same time, and the two beasts would have to have instincts telling them what to do, and not only the sex organs but the sperm and egg would have to have evolved, all at once, at them same time, then the two lovebirds would have to figure out what to do.
Not only that, they did meet and figure it all out.
Plausible? Nope.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Gray
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I already knew that most people are stupid and irrational…. Of course, with these sorts of polls, I imagine a lot of participants lied. Lots of people are uncomfortable letting others know that they may not buy into their stated beliefs as much as they’re supposed to. Even Mother Theresa had her doubts.
Sign of the Dollar on December 12, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I am just showing it takes faith to believe in a theory that has no real fact.
There has been no “transitional” species found…I see plenty of adaptations, but what species went extinct and was replaced by what?
I know theorist don’t like these questions, but they are important to define the difference between fact and theory.
People of biblical faith face these questions continuously, it is part of the faith…so must you embrace that part of your faith, your theory will be challenged because of the lack of facts.
Just be honest, and know that you have faith in believing in your theory…just like I stated the theory of relativity, I have faith (no proof), but faith the it is near correct…it is a belief.
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM
It’s always best to stay calm and rational, but sometimes people get riled up when dealing with things they feel strongly about. It would be best if we all tried to keep that in mind before we post.
mwdiver on December 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM
?
Straw man evolutionary path. More likely, it started with very simple organisms, like hydra, that were hermaphroditic. Once they had that down, they could move on to specializing into sexes.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Ah, yes, the coward LevStrauss, who sucker punches people and runs. Here he is again bashing the Christians, yet he offers no explanation for the origin of life himself. Like I said to you before you hateful little man, this might be hard to understand. But, since the world is here, there are only two choices. Somebody made it, or it made itself. So how about explaining for us what you believe for a change instead of hitting people from behind and hiding, which you seem pretty good at doing.
apacalyps on December 12, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I distance myself from this nutcase…
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I always think of GTA Vice city whenever I hear that song.
Value judgment based on an opinion on morality. If everything is relative, then so is harming another person.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 4:03 PM
what I said is true. if you think the truth makes people look bad, who cares?
evolution is a joke. a myth, nothing more, to further atheism.
link
ya got nothing…
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM
I’m not siding with anyone. I’m pointing out that mathematically and biologically it’s entirely possible. I’m not saying I believe that’s what happened, but as far as I’m concerned it’s not much less or more plausible than the idea of some ethereal being directing the design.
Don’t peg me with your own labels. You’ve proven not to know my politics, so claiming to know my beliefs will be even more beyond you.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM
You can have the wife, and some of the goods as compensation.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Akzed, the point is that sex evolved in the distant past, and that subsequent speciation from that common ancestor lead to the millions of species who current have that feature. There’s no need to allow for sex evolving for millions of species separately.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Somebody wants you to spend eternity with him, and his name is Satan.
apacalyps on December 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM
If you think that, then you don’t understand true faith…
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM
I’ve read your drivel before, people in glass houses, you know.
you can’t dispute what I say. all you darwiniac nut-jobs can do is call those who disagree names.
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 4:06 PM
“Transitional” species? Like the fossil records of whales? Or maybe you are being mislead by the way paleontologists label the fossils they find distinct species.
Otherwise, you seem to be projecting. A lot.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
2 Corinthians 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.
Satan’s most effective device is convincing people that he doesn’t exist.
labrat on December 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I was at a debate with Dr. Ayala on the UCI campus, the debate was on evolution…
But to say science is a joke? Please, don’t ever say you are a Christian, I don’t want you representing my faith…
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
As do all Christians. Believe it or not, we’re still people.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
right2bright, faith without doubt isn’t possible. You choose to have faith in things unseen because there is doubt about their existence to begin with.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
a statement of faith. as dawkins admits:
The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology
it takes a great deal of faith to think sex evolved…very convenient of evolution to know it needed a male and female at about the same time to keep the species going…
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
So insects, flowers, mammals, fish, fowl, reptiles and more all sprang from two single cell beings, who accidentally developed the organs methods and means to reproduce sexually, then successfully did so. Or, the same random mutuation began in each kingdom and somehow it worked.
How did flowers pollinate without bees? Just think of the odds against this. Of course, evolutionists can speculate till the cows come home, shamelessly, because that’s the standard. “Maybe this happened… maybe that… who knows? But it happened somehow because evolution is true.”
A better word than evolution for this theory would be tautology.
And atheists think that theists are gullible.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 4:09 PM
So the question was, why was it found to be counter-productive? Was it on the basis of the idea that combining forces creates more satisfaction of self-interest? If that’s the case, the system falls apart the instant needs become limited or thin. Therefore, some irrational reason would have to be applied for the rules of community to be justified.
It’s certainly not condemned in the animal kingdom. Again, self-interest. I would also point out that there isn’t a human group on the planet that I am aware of that does not hold some sort of religious belief, or else was not brought up with some sort of moral values system. You would need to create an experiment with humans born tabula rasa, and left entirely to their own devices, in order to go with pure instinct and eliminate the variable of established moral codes.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Impossible. He’s the only “true” Christian here. Anyone who disagrees with him isn’t really a Christian. Haven’t you heard?
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM
yeah because science has become a religion. thanks to people like Ayala, dawkins, Mayr etc.
science or atheistic faith??
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM
That’s not true.
(see what I did there?)
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Very true. But the fact that there are millions of species of plants and animals that reproduce via sex doesn’t require that every single species had to have evolved it separately.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
anybody who picks and chooses what they think is the word of God from the bible is not christian, rather their own litle god. you have a god in your own image.
in addition to be insufferably full of yourself.
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
what does faith have to do with evidence you dig up from the ground? People used to have faith in Prestor John but that didn’t work out so well either.
I think I’ll base my opinions on things i can touch and feel instead of the scientific opinions of lay preachers or heck even real preachers trying to make the world match their understanding of the bible. If you want to do something enlightening, go over to the muslim sites where they are trying to prove that god created the earth the way the koran spells it out, and every time you thing they are pulling something out of their ass realize you sound the same way when you tell people your version of your creation myths.
Zekecorlain on December 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
If I find I don’t find it sexy and can’t reproduce with it, it might as well be food.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Whatever. But he’s no True Scotsman!
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Did you think your song and dance and your superstition would help you, Eli? I am the Third Revelation! I am who the Lord has chosen! Because I’m smarter than you! I’m older, I’m not a false prophet, you sniveling boy. I am the Third Revelation! I am the Third Revelation! I told you I would eat you! I told you I would eat you up!
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I would agree, except I do not think sex evolved at all. how could it? just common sense tells you that once a species starts evolving towards sex, it needs to have a concurrent evolution of male and female, and how does an undirected, unguided process accomplish that??
what advantage does it give you if you evolve a male, and no female is evolved?
right4life on December 12, 2008 at 4:13 PM
That’s right2bright, totally different, more rational poster who is worth your time to respond to.
BKennedy on December 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Don’t be coy, you know exactly what I meant (the intermediary)…which shows how weak your argument is.
You point me to the proof that one species can turn into another (without a genome implant)…
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
“I know you are, but what am I?”
So you eat ugly men?
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
*face to palm*
I am going to try to write this without being insulting. Please become informed about these topics, so that you can engage in conversation on them.
Count to 10 on December 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM
God wants us to seek Him and many believers do that in a scientific way. Science is used by un-believers to disprove God (Satan at work). Honest scientists know that molecular biology disproves evolution and only those that are hanging on to information that is decades old are still holding out. Oh, and an Airbus 300 can fly without feathers and it was not evolution that brought that about but design.
thomasaur on December 12, 2008 at 4:15 PM
One problem with your idea: there is absolutely no proof that sexual reproduction was an accident of nature. Mutations are never beneficial, and are often monstrous. They never make their victim more likely to survive in a world red tooth and claw. You’re begging the question.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM
If early beings were able to reproduce with themselves, what would be the point of evolving away from that? It seems like it would be more difficult to pass on your genes if you had to use energy to make it happen, as opposed to just mating with yourself.
BadgerHawk on December 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Go ahead, hah.
An interesting conversation, but too much to follow in a comments thread.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM
You did not evolve from a bacteria. “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish” (James 3:15). Why! Why!! I shout out, banging my fist on my desk. Oh, I feel sorry for those whom the Devil has deceived into believing his lies.
apacalyps on December 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Well there is definitly nuance, absolutes are insane which I have asserted from the start, for example self defense is acceptable because that person is attempting to harm you.
Then what is the alternative? People assert without religion there is anarchy and when you show objective standards that 99.9% can agree on and that religion would not be necessary, the religonist says, “no you cannot say that there is only anarchy without religion”. Not everything operates on a boolean. I am not even a relativist with regards to other peoples actions, people on here can see I make many value judgements about various things, but the point to where I want the state to intervene is where relativism comes into play, just because I think something is right or I think this makes me a better person doesn’t apply to everyone else because we are individuals. If I can find no victim I can find no infraction.
Perpetrator + Victim = Crime
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM
right4life, think of it not as a question of separate male and female bits, but as an exchange of genetic material. In fact, some bacteria do just that even though there are no male of female bacterium. From such a fairly simple beginning, descent with modification led to variations in how said genetic material was exchanged, eventually leading to the evolution of said male and female bits.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM
You could have at least partially refuted me with as many words as it took to say nothing.
Akzed on December 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM
But that is what you do…do you find slavery objectionable?
right2bright on December 12, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 16 Next »