Thursday, July 20, 2006 | 
Posted by
Plaid
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(125)
-
▼
July
(47)
- Reasonably Accommodating an Unreasonable Disease
- Whoa!
- Picture secret XIX
- Picture secret XVIII
- Picture secret XVII
- Picture secret XVI
- Picture secret XV
- Picture secret XIV
- The Silver Lining in the Fiscal Crisis
- Quickest path to a dirty draft?
- Picture secret XIII
- but it's my party...
- Picture secret XII
- Gidget Goes to Grad School?
- Picture secret XI
- Picture secret X
- Transitions.
- Picture secret IX
- Picture secrets logistics
- Make it Stop!
- it would also be nice if they then bought me ice c...
- Has anyone seen my motivation?
- Our true colors
- 150 and counting
- Picture secret VIII
- FAQ: Wouldn't It Be Great If We Had Recent Comment...
- On getting tenure
- Picture secret VII
- Picture secret VI
- Paralyzed by task list
- Picture secret V
- Invasion
- Honor Roll
- Picture secret IV
- We love to rock your world
- Picture secret III
- Advice needed: RA productivity problems
- Picture secret II
- Picture secret I
- Picture secrets
- Law and the Natural Order
- The dangers of blogging too much nononymously
- We Needed a Slogan. Now We Have Many.
- get your own pemmican, buster
- Pet peeve: “helpful” mailing list responses
- Crushing on My Advisor...Again
- We Need a Slogan
-
▼
July
(47)
6 comments:
Is that pie chart from a representative poll? If so, I'm going to pack it in and move to a cave right now.
My understanding is that it's consistent with representative poll numbers, so you better get packing for that cave, Anon.
FSM, I hope that's not true. Maybe it was taken from a small sample size, somewhere in the bible belt? Please.
There was a truly alarming discussion at my school about how we should be kind and respectful of creationist ideas as we teach science. That part wasn't so alarming, because it was presented by people who wouldn't know any better. The alarming part was that there were academics in the room who either didn't understand that "theory" is a rigorous term in science or who didn't care, and were supportive of teaching creationism in science*. These were faculty. I'm not making this up!
*I'm all for it being discussed in meta-science or religion courses, etc., but not in science.
Using data collected in 2004 from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, I got slightly different numbers: 42% god created man; 42% man has evolved, but god guided; 12% man has evolved; 4% other.
Still just as many people believe god had something to do with who man is, but more note evolution in the response.
Well, given that we have no way to determine what caused evolution to be the mechanism, I'm not so upset by people wanting to think that it's a mechanism devised by some random deity. It's the decision that evolution couldn't possibly be the mechanism that gets me.
Also, there's the even more appalling necessary assumption that all the evidence support evolution must have been "planted" -- which is necessary if one wants to believe man was created from dust. So really, we're just like pets in a cage, or gold fish, and this is stuff put in there for us to play with. Not a wildly attractive concept to me.
I absolutely love the graphic design for this, btw.
Post a Comment