Most Americans Feel Religion Is 'Under Attack,' Poll Shows

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:56 pm

The polls prove it. Say what you want but most people want religion in America. Take that, Freedom from Religion Foundation!

Most Americans Feel Religion Is 'Under Attack,' Poll Shows
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 21, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A new survey shows the majority of Americans think religion is "under attack" and "losing its influence" in American life.

According to the poll, American Attitudes Toward Religion In the Public Square, 64 percent agreed with the statement that "religion is under attack" in America, and 80 percent of those who identify themselves as fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, were in agreement.

"The findings suggest that American public opinion is starkly divided when it comes to the role of religion in the public square, and that our nation's proud tradition of church-state separation is threatened as never before," said Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham H. Foxman.

The poll of 800 adults was conducted between Oct. 25 and 30 and released by the Anti-Defamation League.

"Unfortunately, too many people believe that religion is under attack in America, when in fact according to all measurements, religion is stronger in the United States than in any other Western country," said Foxman.

The poll also found 53 percent of respondents believe that religion is "losing" influence in American life, while 35 percent said it is "increasing influence." Among those who think religion is "losing" influence, 60 percent are evangelical/fundamental/charismatic Christians, while 33 percent of that same group said religion is "increasing" in influence.

As far as Ten Commandment cases go, 64 percent of those polled agreed with the statement that "it is important that religious symbols like the Ten Commandments be displayed in public buildings such as court housed. Eighty-nine percent of fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians agreed.

On the topic of intelligent design, the theory that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher being, 56 percent favor the teaching of intelligent design or creationism, alongside the theory of evolution in public schools.

Among fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians, 70 percent favor creationism, compared to 28 percent who opposed it.

And 57 percent said "the Bible" was "a more likely explanation for the origins of human life on earth" instead of Darwin, compared to 31 percent who believe Darwin is a more likely explanation. Eighty-seven percent of evangelical/fundamentalist/charismatic Christians favored the Bible over Darwin as a better explanation of the origins of human life.

SOURCE: CLICK HERE

mick · Post by **mick** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:18 pm

On the topic of intelligent design, the theory that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher being, 56 percent favor the teaching of intelligent design or creationism, alongside the theory of evolution in public schools.

What if 56 percent favor teaching astrology alongside astronomy?

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:23 pm

I agree, Mick.

Intelligent design, as much as I have read about it, is not based upon the scientific theory, but rather mathematical logic. Of the main players in this belief, I have yet to see a biologist or ecologist put forth a study supporting this claim. And yes, I realize a professional proponent (I forget who) is a biochemist... this is not synonymous with a biologist though.

There is nothing wrong with proving something using math or statistics. However, it is not scientific (meaning following the scientific theory of an observation, hypothesis, methods, results and discussion) and should not be taught in a science arena for that reason.

I also do not remember in my evolution classes being taught about how the universe was created. This is another reason that ID should not be taught in a science classroom along with evolution. Evolution says nothing of how the universe was created. Perhaps ID should be taught in astronomy classes? I doubt it would create such a fuss, however... It is easier to attack evolutionists.

I must note that I am not down-playing Intelligent Design as a belief itself. Based upon my background in both science and religion, I feel that Intelligent Design should be left outside the science classroom because it does not follow the scientific method, which is the basis of any science classroom.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:35 pm

I must note that I am not down-playing Intelligent Design as a belief itself. Based upon my background in both science and religion, I feel that Intelligent Design should be left outside the science classroom because it does not follow the scientific method, which is the basis of any science classroom.

How does it not follow the scientific method...do explain. And saying ID should be taught with astrology shows that you are indeed downplaying (to the point of stupid belief) ID.... Also, isn't evolution a belief? I mean, atheists need a naturalistic explanation for life and the universe, do they not?

also do not remember in my evolution classes being taught about how the universe was created. This is another reason that ID should not be taught in a science classroom along with evolution.

Non-sequitor. How does the fact that ID is also an argument based on astronomy and cosmology lead to the conclusion that ID shouldn't be taught in a science class?

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:59 pm

Kmart:

Kmart wrote:
How does the fact that ID is also an argument based on astronomy and cosmology lead to the conclusion that ID shouldn't be taught in a science class?

I was responding to the fact that ID should not be taught along side evolution. I feel that arguments as to how the earth or universe was created are better argued by astronomers, not life scientists.

I also already answered how it is not scientific: ID is based upon logic, which is not scientific. There can't be an argument there.

I cannot answer your question about whether aetheists need an explanation for how life evolved. I do not have the authority to do that, I am not aetheist.

I would also like to address your comment about how you seemingly feel that astrology is stupid. Why is astrology considered stupid and intelligent design not? Please explain using science and observations, not personal beliefs. I am not here to attack nor to argue any person's beliefs.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:36 pm

I would also like to address your comment about how you seemingly feel that astrology is stupid. Why is astrology considered stupid and intelligent design not? Please explain using science and observations, not personal beliefs. I am not here to attack nor to argue any person's beliefs.

Science has disproven the tenants of astrology, that's why. The zodiacs are not things to base one's life on...they are controlled by laws of the universe...

I cannot answer your question about whether aetheists need an explanation for how life evolved. I do not have the authority to do that, I am not aetheist.

Just think, that usually helps.

I also already answered how it is not scientific: ID is based upon logic, which is not scientific. There can't be an argument there.

Really...the logic have NOTHING to do with science? REALLY? So scientists are illogical then, since logic can't exist in science...And I must claim a non-sequitor, once again (it doesn't follow for all you noobs out there).

August · Post by **August** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:37 pm

Hey Cougar, why don't you give us the short version of what you believe ID theory states?

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:33 pm

I had replied to Kmart and August and it somehow made me sign in again and now I have to rewrite my response. Forgive me if this seems a little less thorough.

I understand that ID is based upon irreducible complexity (Behe, a biochemist) and specified complexity (Dembski, philosopher, mathematician). Systems had to have been designed because of these two reasons, they could not have evolved, according to ID. If you want me to elaborate, let me know. I have many criticisms of these theories and I think I can validly talk about my opinion of them not being scientific.

I did not say that scientists are illogical. When I say logic, I simply mean that logic is a system or mode of reasoning. Logical reasoning does not require the scientific method be followed. However, I did not mean to imply that scientists do not employ logic, they do. Logic allows scientists to create valid conclusions for their results and come up with parsimonous explanations. But it is the combination of logic and scientific methodology that makes something scientific.

Just as a little side not to your astrology comment: If zodiacs are controlled by the forces of the universe, and God controls the universe, then wouldn't someone who believes in astrology be believing in God? Based on A=B and B=C, therefore A=C. (I must note that this is the very logic I am referring to when I say it is unscientific!) This would disprove your statement that the zodiacs are not something by which someone should live one's life.

Finally, I am not going to answer the aetheist question because I do not have the authority to do so. I would not create a valid argument and I think we can all agree that there is no point in discussing something with no validity.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:42 pm

Just as a little side not to your astrology comment: If zodiacs are controlled by the forces of the universe, and God controls the universe, then wouldn't someone who believes in astrology be believing in God? Based on A=B and B=C, therefore A=C. (I must note that this is the very logic I am referring to when I say it is unscientific!) This would disprove your statement that the zodiacs are not something by which someone should live one's life.

Once again, your disdain for logic shines through....

First, it's A->B, not A=B...second of all, A, in your case, does not imply B, B does not imply C...

If this is the logic scientists use, the world is doomed...

I have many criticisms of these theories and I think I can validly talk about my opinion of them not being scientific.

What I don't understand, is if ID isn't scientific...why do scientists attack it with science....not all of them, of course, some just rant and rave it's creationism in disguise probably, but many guys attempt to use science.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:09 pm

Kmart:

Yeah, that is mathematical logic, just like the logic used by Dembski to attempt to prove an intelligent designer.

Regardless, I think you see my point.

Give me an example of what you are talking about when you say that scientists try to disprove ID with science. I am not sure I follow.

And I think you can keep your snide remarks to yourself, thank you.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:19 pm

Yeah, that is mathematical logic, just like the logic used by Dembski to attempt to prove an intelligent designe

Yes, I know which rule of logic you were using...you just didn't use it well...because A did not imply B, B did not imply C....

Give me an example of what you are talking about when you say that scientists try to disprove ID with science. I am not sure I follow.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefen ... ascade.htm

If you watch closely, you will notice that scientists, trying to use scientific research, are being refuted in their attack on irreducible complexity...it's somewhat old, but I don't have another handy online source....but, as anyone will quickly notice, typing in intelligent design in google gives you tons of "ID is creationism/not science" websites...

I think there's a more recent version...and I've heard more attacks on the blood clotting mechanism...the attacks plainly suck though....

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:12 am

Please explain how the attacks on blood clotting "suck"... you seem to have many opinions but nothing intelligent to say to back up your claims. So I would like you to elaborate on why these claims "suck.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:23 pm

Well...they're stupid? They aren't coherent? I mean, one idiot quoted a source that says because dolphins only have one blood clotting cascade (many organisms have two, and the one that dolphins don't have is the one where blood clotting is induced when a certain factor comes into contact with cells it shouldn't be, which indicate an injury), the blood clotting cascade is indeed reducible. But it was a non sequitor. The only thing required for the second cascade route was for a specific protein I believe to be present on the surface of such cells.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:24 pm

I still await an intelligent statement from yourself cougar...

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:53 pm

Kmart:

First off, do you think you could refrain from the qualitative names you give to anyone or any belief that does not agree with your own? I am quite certain that people on both sides of this argument have more intelligence than anyone here could imagine. I disagree with calling names and I think that scientists, theologians, opponents and proponents on either side of the argument should be given an equal amount of respect.

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes (Philosophy of Science, 1999). Also, scientists at Harvard have published a book this year describing how certain mutations can cause irreducible complexity. Because the physiology and processes now employed by certain proteins or amino acid chains have a certain function does not mean that the same proteins have always had the same function. It may be that currently, a system cannot work without it, however that does not mean that it NEVER worked without it. It's called evolution... oh no!

Not sure how to rebut your dolphin comment, I don't really understand what you are saying. If one is going to insult or rebut a claim, I would hope that there would be evidence and thought behind it.