"Darwinism"

[Admiral]

My observation is that in Canada and the US, probably the majority of anti-evolutionists are Catholics.

Actually, according to a Gallup study:

belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest "among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and ... Catholics," and weakest among "those with the least education, older Americans ..., frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans."

That agrees with my impression- that Protestants are more anti-evolution than Catholics.

 

[blutoski]

Actually, according to a Gallup study:



That agrees with my impression- that Protestants are more anti-evolution than Catholics.

I think we're in agreement, and there was a misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that Catholics are more likely to be creationists: I was saying that in Canada and the US, the majority of creationists are Catholics. This is because the majority of religious people in these countries are Catholics. (Something like 70% of Canadians who are Christians are Catholic, in the US it's about 55%, last count)

So, the small percentage differences between denominations do not have much impact on the overall problem that materializes in a dioces when a bishop makes his opinion known.

Also: I have a feeling that your quotation is specifically in regards to the US. I think by 'West', they mean the Western US, not "The West". What I'm saying is that outside the US, Catholics would be as (un)educated as their peers, and most live in countries that don't have biology classes. It's not even a choice, since they haven't even heard of a creation/evolution controversy. It's all creation out there.


ETA example: http://www.cathnews.com/news/605/120.php

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not completely versed in the others, except for Baptists, as my wife is one. Baptists do not have an authority (aside from the bible) - they are ministry-focused - so it is impossible to say what 'Baptists' should believe regarding evolution. My observation, though, is that they are mostly creationists. Something like 95%.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest association of Baptists in the US, and it is extremely hostile to evolution. The largest Baptist ministry in the world is led by Jerry Falwell, and joined the SBC after years of criticism, when it was completely taken over by biblical literalists a few years ago.

The other two largest ministries in the SBC are Billy Graham and Pat Roberston.

I'm really reluctant to call this organization "evolution-friendly".

Yes, but we have some Baptists, which makes it harder for other Baptists to play the "no true Christian" card.

 

[Mojo]

Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[blutoski]

Yes, but we have some Baptists, which makes it harder for other Baptists to play the "no true Christian" card.

In the words of ALF: "You'd think..."

 

[I less than three logic]

I'm not sure why you introduced physicalism into this.

I believe his goal to systematically introduce it into every thread on this forum.

 

[Upchurch]

I believe his goal to systematically introduce it into every thread on this forum.

with the intent of provoking a reaction. There is a term for this, as well.

 

[hammegk]

with the intent of provoking a reaction. There is a term for this, as well.

Uppie, why are you, an admin, post-whoring via personal attack?

Got topic?

 

[hammegk]

I believe his goal is to systematically introduce it into every thread on this forum.

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here.

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.

 

[Upchurch]

Uppie, why are you, an admin, post-whoring via personal attack?

What personal attack?

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary article of faith for the great majority of posters here.

Which has nothing to do with the topic. Do you "Got topic?"

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here.

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.

Why are you unable to argue with the opinions that people actually express?

 

[Upchurch]

Why are you unable to argue with the opinions that people actually express?

That isn't his purpose here, or so he says.

 

[hammegk]

Why are you unable to argue with the opinions that people actually express?

I do. I just cut to the chase pointing out that your initial bias to accept physicalism as True (or at least pretend so) makes argument at the level you seem to think appropriate irrelevant.

If I agree physicalism/atheism is the correct worldview there's usually nothing to argue about.

What personal attack?

Which has nothing to do with the topic. Do you "Got topic?"

A helluva lot more than you do .... an admin/troll/post-whore ... interesting, huh?

 

[drkitten]

I do.

This is another of hammegk's lies.

But what do you expect from a self-admitted troll and liar?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I do. I just cut to the chase pointing out that your initial bias to accept physicalism as True (or at least pretend so) ...

Why are you lying to me about my opinions instead of debating my actual opinions?

 

[jj]

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here.

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.

Could you be more specific? Other than reject the concept of tautological solipcism (i.e. the idea that we are all figments of Hammegk's (for instance) mind), what question of faith is required to CONCLUDE that beings external to the self exist. Once we establish that, then we can use those external beings to help confirm the nature of our surroundings, and so on.

 

[hammegk]

... personal attack deleted ...

Perception is the closest to reality we'll ever get. That's true. And you are of course free to provide your opinion of me.

Feel better now?

Why are you lying to me about my opinions instead of debating my actual opinions?

Point out the lie, please. You cannot.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Point out the lie, please.

The lie would be the false statement you made which I just pointed out. As follows:

I do. I just cut to the chase pointing out that your initial bias to accept physicalism as True (or at least pretend so) ...

Why are you lying to me about my opinions instead of debating my actual opinions?

You cannot.

It's pathetic that you should pretend that I cannot do something which I did in my last post.

 

[Upchurch]

hammegk, you've derailed the thread nicely.

Based on the accusations you've made against me elsewhere, I can only assume that you did this because you feel you cannot argue the actual topic and are, thus, trying to shift it to a different target. Well done.

 

[drkitten]

Could you be more specific? Other than reject the concept of tautological solipcism (i.e. the idea that we are all figments of Hammegk's (for instance) mind), what question of faith is required to CONCLUDE that beings external to the self exist. Once we establish that, then we can use those external beings to help confirm the nature of our surroundings, and so on.

No, don't. This is a deliberate attempt by hammegk to shift the discussion away from something that might be useful, and as usual, he's resorting to lies, misrepresentation, and fraud.

Let's instead ignore him for the lying troll that he has stated himself to be -- and return to the thread itself and whether there's a relationship between "Darwinism" and atheism and the rest of the Homeric catalog of social ills.