• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolution and its effects.

Lon

Well-known member
Barbarian observes:
Spoiler

On the other hand, there is also an inverse correlation between the number of Americans who accept evolution, and violence. An increase in acceptance of evolution over the last few decades has happened as violence has declined strongly.



Sure. Gallup has been asking the same evolution question for decades:
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
zuvfbnyfpeuurje1d5octg.png


of1nju2kgeah3c20wrbdca.png


As acceptance of evolution grew, so did violent behavior fall. The rise in violent behavior in the 60 was primarily due to the rise of the boomers to young adulthood (when violence is most likely)and the marked decline since the 80s has been largely due to the aging of boomers.

By decade’s end, the homicide rate plunged 42 percent nationwide. Violent crime decreased by one-third. What turned into a precipitous decline started later in some areas and took longer in others. But it happened everywhere: in each region of the country, in cities large and small, in rural and urban areas alike. In the Northeast, which reaped the largest benefits, the homicide rate was halved. Murders plummeted by 75 percent in New York City alone as the city entered the new millennium.

The trend kept ticking downward from there, more slowly and with some fluctuations, to the present day. By virtually any metric, Americans now live in one of the least violent times in the nation’s history.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/



There's been a small uptick lately, for reasons that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

However, the small increase is dwarfed by the huge drop in violence since the 80s.

reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990.jpg




Sorry, that excuse won't fly. My daughter prayed with her friends in school daily. And it's perfectly legal. If you don't do a good job of teaching your child about God, government is the last entity you want to do it for you.

The good old days when many public schools taught the dominant religion in each community? Let's take a look...

Violence-Stylized-2-1024x702.png


Not very good, was it? No Lon, it wasn't so good. As Madison wrote:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
James Madison, Against Religious Assessments

As you now realize, in the day when the First Amendment was routinely violated in public schools, violence was much greater than it is today.
Greatly whitewashed. There is not a 'slight' uptake but a violence rate that is the same as the highest on record these past two years.

It 'seems' your data is off. Further? We had violence 'among' people, not random acts of violence. I don't mind of you use data, but if you aren't willing to look at the converse, then the one-sided is just confirmation bias.

:doh:

lon - please don't feed the troll
My eternal optimism that someone will read and observe statistics correctly is to blame :(
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Greatly whitewashed. There is not a 'slight' uptake but a violence rate that is the same as the highest on record these past two years.

It 'seems' your data is off. Further? We had violence 'among' people, not random acts of violence. I don't mind of you use data, but if you aren't willing to look at the converse, then the one-sided is just confirmation bias.


My eternal optimism that someone will read and observe statistics correctly is to blame :(

Lon, you know as well as I do that any accusations of trolling where it comes to Barb are simply born out of dishonesty, dislike or personal malice. I agree with him on the whole over this and you and I probably disagree on things for the most part but I respect your integrity even then because it's honest.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Lon, you know as well as I do that any accusations of trolling where it comes to Barb are simply born out of dishonesty, dislike or personal malice. I agree with him on the whole over this and you and I probably disagree on things for the most part but I respect your integrity even then because it's honest.

gee, one troll standing up for another troll

whooda thunk it
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Lon, you know as well as I do that any accusations of trolling where it comes to Barb are simply born out of dishonesty, dislike or personal malice. I agree with him on the whole over this and you and I probably disagree on things for the most part but I respect your integrity even then because it's honest.
Thank you. While there are times I do tire (and I know you grasp this) of repeated conversation where you can't seem to get through, I'm not generally bothered by such and don't find the obtuse-ion (is obtusion a word?) trollish.

Data on this particular is difficult. With Barbarian, I agree there is a whole lot of corollary. Tying those to the data is the difficult part.

The data from the center of Disease control does, however correlate with the removal of prayer and bible from the classroom. In the end, it has to do so: The government removed moral teaching in the name of promoting faith by government but it didn't replace moral teaching at that point. It was gone.

Some will argue 'government' doesn't do that but I contest that if it takes a village, and the government has them for 6 hours, they (court and classroom) then are remiss at an essential time of social interaction, from doing what is right. A system of simple correction doesn't do it. Morals are lost AND the data, as far as I'm looking, suggests this strongly as being the case.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Uh, it really isn't akin to saying anything of the like at all. Cancer is a killer disease, fact. Without treatment that's all it does, is kill. Cancer can hit anybody, from atheist to fundamentalist, from a baby to the elderly. Cancer doesn't care what your beliefs are or anything else. It's a killer disease full stop.

if someone survives cancer that does not mean cancer is not a killer
if someone believes evolution & does not kill them self or commit violence
violence and suicide are still acceptable in evolution


Evolution is simply the process of how life (as the term implies) evolves, that's it. Repeating some silly and ignorant mantra doesn't make it true. You can accept established science and have a belief in God without any cognitive dissonance going on. If you want to remain attached to blinkered fundamentalist beliefs that don't allow that then that's your prerogative but it sure doesn't apply to everyone else.

evolution is simply a lie in which violence and suicide are acceptable.

Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
if someone survives cancer that does not mean cancer is not a killer
if someone believes evolution & does not kill them self or commit violence
violence and suicide are still acceptable in evolution

Uh, I already stated that cancer is a killer full stop. You can repeat the same ignorant mantra all that you want it isn't going to make any more sense.


evolution is simply a lie in which violence and suicide are acceptable.

Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive

Garbage on the first and the second, so "way to go" I suppose.

Otherwise, plenty of Christians have no hang up with it.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Since evolution is completely consistent with scripture, there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity. There is a conflict between science and YE creationism, but creationism is not Christianity, even if some Christians are creationists. There are more Muslims who are YE creationists than there are YE creationists who are Christians.

Originally, YE creationism, with it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine was also contrary to scripture, but many YE creationists have now rejected that doctrine.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Evolution is completely consistent with scripture.

:rotfl:

"In six days" God created the heavens and the Earth and all that is in them.

Your modern invention is laughably stupid.

There is no conflict between evolution and Christianity.
"In the beginning" He created people male and female.

Your modern invention is laughably stupid.

There is a conflict between science and YE creationism.

Show us that. We know all you have is obfuscation and misrepresentation.

There are more Muslims who are YE creationists than there are YE creationists who are Christians.

Darwinists love talking about who believes what and how popular an idea is. They think it's evidence. :chuckle:

Originally, YE creationism, with it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine was also contrary to scripture, but many YE creationists have now rejected that doctrine.

Nope. God created the universe from nothing.

Want to learn why that must be true oh I forgot you hate rational dialogue.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Greatly whitewashed. There is not a 'slight' uptake but a violence rate that is the same as the highest on record these past two years.

The highest on record is over double what it is now. Did you not look at the data I showed you? And the uptick after Trump's election was tiny, less than a 5% increase. C'mon. Look at the graph. It's right in front of you.

It 'seems' your data is off.

It's FBI data. Do you have something more accurate? Show us, with your evidence that it is more accurate.

We had violence 'among' people, not random acts of violence.

All violence is among people. That's how it works. And yes, in the past there were lots of cases of random killings. Would you like some examples?

I don't mind of you use data, but if you aren't willing to look at the converse, then the one-sided is just confirmation bias.

So far, you haven't shown us your source that refutes FBI data. I can't look at it, if you don't show it to us.
 

chair

Well-known member
This whole discussion is based on a false premise, i.e. that "Darwanism" is a kind of religion. It isn't. There is another assumption here as well: that religions should be judged based on how violent or suicidal their adherents are. I think anyone who wants to claim that should look in a mirror and a history book first.
 

Lon

Well-known member
The highest on record is over double what it is now. Did you not look at the data I showed you? And the uptick after Trump's election was tiny, less than a 5% increase. C'mon. Look at the graph. It's right in front of you.



It's FBI data. Do you have something more accurate? Show us, with your evidence that it is more accurate.



All violence is among people. That's how it works. And yes, in the past there were lots of cases of random killings. Would you like some examples?



So far, you haven't shown us your source that refutes FBI data. I can't look at it, if you don't show it to us.
I understand your data was from the FBI.

The CDC is at-a-glance so easy to look at.

Random violence vs domestic (did you not pick up on that?).

Your Gallup poll coincides well with the CDC statistics.

Your second chart isn't linked, but doesn't coincide with CDC. Perhaps just crimes the FBI itself has dealt with is going down (I'd need the link)

Your third chart is dated so is incomplete. The CDC is the current one.
 

chair

Well-known member
Then engage sensibly over the evidence. You know: Science.

this thread is about the "effects" of evolution. Not the science. I would be glad to to have a sensible discussion of Evolution with honest sensible people who know some science.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I understand your data was from the FBI.

It works pretty well, because the previous decades you're talking about were also FBI stats, based on the same criteria. Apples to apples.

The CDC is at-a-glance so easy to look at.

Oranges. Which means you can't compare them with decades past.

Random violence vs domestic (did you not pick up on that?).

There was, as I said, random violence in the past as well. Would you like some examples? It's not a new thing.

Like so many other positivistic inquiries in social science, such “measurement” jars our sense of proportion by setting down with mathematical exactitude data that have in actuality little of the precision apparently conveyed by the figures in which they are reported. It is a bit hard to understand what we are being told when we learn that the “magnitude of civil strife” in Venezuela for the troubled five-year period 1961–5 was 20.3 while that of France was 12.1, and that of the United States for the five years 1963–8 was 13.8. The fact that the estimated casualties for the United States per hundred thousand were five, whereas those for France were four, may not tell us quite what we want to know about the comparative importance of violence in the polities of the two countries. There were more casualties in the local encounter over the “People’s Park” in Berkeley in May 1969 than in the convulsive upheaval throughout France a year earlier.

Nonetheless, the figures compiled by the National Commission’s experts constitute the only check we have thus far against arbitrary impressions, and they confirm our sense that the United States is far from being the most peaceful among the Western or other industrial nations with which comparison seems most appropriate. These experts find in the United States of recent years a magnitude of civil strife that compares very unfavorably with most other nations of a high level of economic development, and somewhat unfavorably even with some nations of a medium level of economic development. This country has been, for example, less strife-ridden than Indonesia, Algeria, Rhodesia or Venezuela, about as strife-ridden as France, India, and Ecuador, and far more so than the United Kingdom, West Germany, the USSR, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, and the Scandinavian countries, to choose more or less at random from a large number of countries with less domestic violence than our own.

There is another respect in which such data should be looked at carefully: the level of civil strife has no consistent relation to political freedom. The United States in the 1960s showed a relatively high level of freedom and permissiveness in its policies toward domestic protest at a time when it had profoundly divisive domestic problems and a simultaneous unsuccessful and unpopular foreign war. This reads like a prescription for violent disturbances. By contrast, nations governed by dictators or firmly installed authoritarian systems—Portugal and Spain, the USSR, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Rumania, as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic—all stand well below the United States in the dimensions of their civil strife. Yet the internal peace enjoyed by some polities rather resembles that of the graveyard, and here invidious comparisons with American violence would have little meaning. One might well prefer to endure occasional and limited violence if the only alternative is a state of almost unlimited repression. . . .
https://thebaffler.com/ancestors/reflections-violence-united-states

Your Gallup poll coincides well with the CDC statistics.

Over the decades, it does. The marked decline in violence since the 1980s is correlated with an increasing acceptance of evolution by the American people. But correlation is not necessarily causation. Could be that education has affected both. Or something else; the mere correlation of lower violence with increasing acceptance of evolution by the American people during the same time does not, in itself, prove anything.


Your second chart isn't linked, but doesn't coincide with CDC.

Notice it says "FBI 2019." Go to:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45236.pdf

Page 2. Same data. The uptick in the violent crime rate has occurred mostly in cities, and not in all of them. You can ask what happened in America since 2015, but I don't know that anyone has shown a cause as of yet. The point remains; the dramatic decrease in violent crime over the last few decades is correlated with an increasing acceptance of evolution. Which pretty much demolishes the OP.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
this thread is about the "effects" of evolution. Not the science. I would be glad to to have a sensible discussion of Evolution with honest sensible people who know some science.

There is science involved in the question of violence. As the data show, the great decrease in violent crime over the past few decades is most likely due to the aging of the boomers; as the number of young adults decreases, so does violence. For reasons everyone should understand.

The fact that this decrease is correlated with increasing public acceptance of evolution is interesting, but does not prove that acceptance of evolution causes a decrease in violent crime. It does demolish the argument that acceptance of evolution causes violence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
Top