Only in America??

So then you think you overstated the matter with this quote? or no?

If this country is significantly influenced by crazies, then we have an even worse scenario than Al Qaeda waiting for us in the future.

And by "crazies" I can only assume you mean people that believe in the YE theory or just creationists in general?

I am simply just trying to pin down your opinion.

One quick question: is it your belief that people that believe in a God created universe are unstable, dangerous people?

I think the more appropriate question is, "Do you believe that people who deny scientific evidence in favor of religous dogma are dangerous?".  Isn't the obvious answer "yes"?  At least if they have political power?  If Barack Obama believes the Earth is flat or the Holocaust is a hoax, wouldn't that give you pause regardless of his reasons?

I'm interested in what she thinks about regular people that believe God created the universe. Apparently I am not going to get a straight answer though *shrug*

With all due respect LE I believe you making a mockery of this belief, and that's just not right.

Those who reject scientific evidence in favour of mythology have clearly closed their minds to any other options.  If they do so when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then yes, we are entitled to call them 'crazy'.  If I believe that the earth is flat and refuse to change/moderate my belief with increasing evidence, then you are entitled to call me 'crazy'. I am demonstrating a clear lack of ability to analyse evidence and an unwillingness to consider that I might be wrong.

IF I have power and influence, with those attributes, then yes - I am dangerous.

I note you are not defending the creation myths of other cultures - just this particular one, because it is the one you grew up with and have therefore been molded to believe.  This does not make it any more valid than myths of other cultures.  Just provides an ethno-centric point of view.

Is that clear enough?

Not mockery - just placing it in a world context.

(Would you mock the Australian Aboriginal creation myth of the Rainbow Serpent?  Would you respect it and agree that it is a reasonable alternative hypothesis to evolution?  I believe you would consider deluded and in need of replacement.  Where is the difference?)

Creationism doesn't necessarily reject scientific evidence though, so I guess I'm not sure what it is you're talking about. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, and therefore cannot say with 100% certainty that a god did or did not create all things.

And you've assumed wrong, I give the Australian Aboriginals all the latitude in the world to believe what they want, and I would gladly and respectfully honor their choice to believe what they want. Regardless of how much it differences from my own belief (or from scientific proof)  I would never in a million years call them crazies.

Would you mock the Australian Aboriginal creation myth of the Rainbow Serpent?  Would you respect it and agree that it is a reasonable alternative hypothesis to evolution?  I believe you would consider it deluded and in need of replacement.  Where is the difference?

And so you would gladly have the leadership of a major nation in the hands of those who believe in the Rainbow Serpent, as reality?

I'm sorry - I wouldn't!  I want my leaders to be able to think rationally, analyse intelligently and make decisions based on evidence, not mythology and religious dogma. I want my leaders to be able to stand back and see the reality of the world around them, not fogged by dodgy science and competing myths. (Leaders being those with influence over education policies, state or federal, environment, economy and national and international relations)

Every person is totally entitled to believe as they wish - until their beliefs impinge on others.  And in the cases we are talking about, the beliefs do impinge on others and have the capacity to create major problems.

I don't think everyone who believes in some form of the creation myth -- any creation myth -- has necessarily rejected science. I can see where it might seem impossible to have it both ways, but I think part of being religious is accepting that there are mysteries in the world that can't be explained, and having faith. Most religions, not just Christianity, require a certain degree of faith. I think there are plenty of people out there who think that evolutuion and creation are not mutually exclusive.

People having their own beliefs, even if I might think those beliefs are off the wall, doesn't bother me. It is when those beliefs interfere with politics that I think many of us, religious and non-religious alike, get nervous. Of course, just based on my knowledge of US politics, I can say with some certainty that I'm probably not going to have a lot in common with the 6000 year old earth folk, and I wouldn't likely vote for one, but that isn't really because of that particular religious belief, it is because we are likely to disagree on policy issues like healthcare or education or foreign policy.

I think this is important because LE, even though we may see ourselves as non-believers being "right" and on the side of science and logic, there are a whole lot of people in the world, and not just extremists, who think not believing in god is sad at best, evil at worst. I would rather those people not take my lack of belief as evidence that I'm crazy without looking at the whole package, so I suppose I should do the same with others. I think the idea of a creation myth is crazy, that's why I don't believe it, but (all flippant remarks about wingnuts aside) it is a bit unfair to paint the believers themselves as crazy because of their religious belief.

And I think the difference between creation and "flat earth" or any other examples is that the belief in a flat earth is not required by any religion for salvation. There's no "reason" to have faith in a flat earth. Likewise, does anyone gain anything by denying the holocaust? But asking people to reject religion, even if science says they should, is asking them to give up something that is a part of their culture, their family, their community, and very often, is a belief system that gives their lives order and purpose. A reluctance to reject all of that outright doesn't seem crazy at all to me.

Those who reject scientific evidence in favour of mythology have clearly closed their minds to any other options.  If they do so when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then yes, we are entitled to call them 'crazy'.

I think 'crazy' is far too strong a word. You are implying a mental imbalance when I suggest you are really meaning flawed logic.

People can believe in evolution under the control, and therefore creation, of a higher being. This is a valid response which does not reject science. Not all creationists are 'crazy'. 

Respect it, yes. Consider it a reasonable alternative hypothesis to evolution? no. But that doesn't mean they are crazies, or dangerous.

I believe God created us, and he did it using all the standard methods that science has hypothesized and proven. I firmly believe that a big bang-like event happened and that God initiated it. These beliefs are wholly in line with science and are wholly in line with Christianity as well

As far as having a Christian leader goes all I can say is I feel much safer under the leadership of a person that believes they will be held to high standard of conduct by an ever-watchful God than I would under someone that claims to have high morals but has no underlying value system.

Folks,

At the end of the day, there is no answer to this and it's an issue that has been and will still be discussed and argued about ad-nausea for generations and generations! some saying about beatings and dead horses comes to mind

However, I do sense that the debate here is getting more intense with each post and even though it's the BS-wrestling pit, it's not giving me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

I will remind all of you to keep a modicum of civility and not get personal!

I found this poll which I thought was pretty interesting.

Results:  PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. Between 35% and 40% have agreed with the alternative explanation that humans evolved, but with God guiding the process, while 9% to 14% have chosen a pure secularist evolution perspective that humans evolved with no guidance by God.

The significantly higher percentage of Republicans who select the creationist view reflects in part the strong relationship between religion and views on the origin of humans. Republicans are significantly more likely to attend church weekly than are others, and Americans who attend church weekly are highly likely to select the creationist alternative for the origin of humans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

I found this poll which I thought was pretty interesting.

A new examination of Canadians who believe in God and those who do not has found that believers are more likely to place high value on traits such as kindness, politeness, and generosity. The old question, "Do people need God to be good?" may well have a more complex answer: "People who don't believe in God can be good. But people who believe in God are more likely to value being good, enhancing the chances that they will be good."

Bibby reports that Canadians who believe in God are consistently more likely than atheists to highly value a range of characteristics that includes courtesy, concern for others, forgiveness, and patience. God-believers are also more inclined than those who don't believe in God to place high value on friendship, family life, and being loved.

http://www.reginaldbibby.com/images/PC_10_BETTER_WITH_GOD_OCT0807.pdf

I don't think this discussion is going in a helpful direction. Let's head back towards the topic.

Once the topic has been covered I suggest we can leave it there.

Creationism doesn't necessarily reject scientific evidence...

But many Creationists do.  It's one thing to accept current scientifc evidence and believe that eventually science will uncover that the Christian creation myth was possible.  It's another thing to say that scientific evidence is invalid altogether.  

Folks, At the end of the day, there is no answer to this...

I think that's what makes it a great topic, albeit a dangerous one.  But to me the most significant part of these discussions is usually missed.  Like this one, they usually devolve into a science vs. faith discussion and the whole meaning of the religous stories gets lost in the minutia.  Does it really matter, for example, if Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin or not?  The intent of the allegory is to exemplify the spiritual birth of humans as opposed to the merely physical birth.  The same for the myth of The Buddha being born from his mother's side, (at the level of the heart).  But instead we usually turn it into a scientific/biological discussion and squeeze out the entire meaning.