Greg Laden has the story. It's really not much of a story, but it's local, so we care—basically, a crazy Jesus lady is buying prime billboard space around the area to flaunt her opinion that evolution is bunk, and newspapers are writing about it. It's content-free noise, and we can only hope that all of our creationist opponents continue to be this shallow and stupid (and what do you know—they are!), but still, shallow and stupid seems to draw in the fan base. The article does mention some of her sponsors: if you're planning on having a home built in the Duluth area, scratch Legacy Custom Homes in Cloquet off your list of contractors.
The article also quotes John Goodge, a geology professor at UMD. I have nothing against the guy, and don't take this as a personal criticism, but he does echo the routine sentiment that most people, even most scientists, take, and I think it's part of our problem.
But while Goodge views creationism as faith and evolution as science, he's uncomfortable with portraying the issue as a battle.
"There is no conflict between science and religion, because one is a rational way of understanding the world. The other is a faith in something that binds people together," he said.
Look. Some wacky creationist has slapped together routine statements from creationist websites (especially Answers in Genesis) that declares a central scientific theory false, that accuses scientists of conspiracy to lie to students and citizens, that demands that you have to accept their religion and repudiate science or burn in hell forever, and we've got scientists shrugging their shoulders and saying there isn't a battle. One side is shooting at the other, and my side is in a state of denial. Of course there's a freaking conflict between science and religion. We're in the middle of a war right now where what is at stake is the minds of our children (and the creationists would agree with that statement), while too many of us pretend nothing is going on to be concerned about.
That statement that religion is "a faith in something that binds people together" is also a problem, even while it is entirely true. It does not mean it is a virtue, although everyone pretends it is—racism and homophobia and xenophobia and fear are also things that bind people together, effectively it seems, but that shouldn't imply that we should appreciate them. Wrong and wicked ideas seem to be awfully powerful for binding people together, and that's another reason to oppose them vigorously instead of pretending that they should be ignored.
- Log in to post comments
Hoary wrote:
Actually this past Christmas (let alone all year) more Christian organization did more humanitarian good than what atheists even dare to think about.
I think the proof is in the pudding.
Hen3ry wrote:
63% not religious... but it is not officially athiest, the Queen is the head of the Church and the state.
Well, you can blame your beloved Wikipedia for that. Even with the current statistics it is a long shot from claiming that England is an Atheist nation. Though I agree that they are heading down that road, I know personally that there are a wave of Christian missionaries that are pouring into the country doing what Christians do best.
Speedwell wrote:
Oh, and as far as "accepting" "studies" in ID... what studies would those be, exactly? Got any links to any grown-up peer-reviewed scientific articles? (Didn't think so.)
Yes we do but, somehow I think you probably will not be impressed. I have a strange suspicion that the only thing you will accept is that which promotes atheism.
It's not a question of "graciousness." It's a question of science, even of simple logic. The reason we equate ID to theology is because [not only is it obvious to a dead man who you think the Intelligent Designer is, but] the major proponents of ID can't seem to stop doing so.
I am sorry to say but what you propose as simple logic the majority of Americans reject. Simple logic dictates that if every time the "Big Bang" is mentioned it is discussed in the context of evolution, then simple logic suggests that the "Big Bang" has to do with evolution more than you would like to give credit. In fact, there is not one existing article about the "Big Bang" where evolution is not discussed.
The only reason you want to separate the "Big Bang Theory" from evolution during a debate (and conveniently only in a debate) is because it demonstrates the hypocrisy of rejecting ID because of the God Theory when the widely accepted "Big Bang Theory" is as much lacking, if not even more so, than the former. You do not want to explain the "Big Bang Theory" because you are ashamed of its utter ridiculousness and the lack of empirical evidence is just as lacking as it is in the existence of God.
That's my humble opinion.
Brent wrote:
ID in fact is but the criticisms are not about its explanations of origins, its about its lack of empirical proof of its most obvious claims - that there is some invisible designer.
Actually, as I said before, and as most ID scientists will argue, we do not seek to provide empirical evidence for a Designer but rather we demonstrate through the scientific method that there is design in the universe. In the same sense that you look at the universe and see randomness; we see orderly design. Just like the evolutionists presuppose a "Big Bang," we presuppose special creation.
Though you believe in the "Big Bang" there is no objective evidence of a Big Bang. Though we believe in God, there is no objective evidence for God. But inspite of this you can look at the universe around you and based on your presupositions argue that it points to the "Big Bang," and we can do the same and argue that the universe around us point to a Designer though the Designer itself cannot be examined through scientific means.
If you so hastily will rebuke those for equating evolution to cosmogony and are willing to accept that studies in evolution without considering the origin of the universe, then it would seem that you should be equally as gracious to not equate ID to theology and be willing to accept studies in ID without considering the origin of the universe as well.
It is easier for the evolutionists to throw up the smokescreen of Theology then to deal with what the ID scientists actually theorize.
Brent wrote:
The worst is your notion that the goal of science education ought to somehow limit itself to majority opinion.
Yes I do. That is why I am proud to be an American in a liberal democracy. I believe that the majority of Americans are well-educated Americans. If they believe that ID should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution then to not do so is to insult their intelligence (at the very least).
But if anything, your comment demonstrates the prevalent elitists attitude of atheists in thinking that they are the only smart ones and everyone else are unfortunately stupid.
Bobber said:
Ours is not a Christian, or even a religious, nation, in any official capacity. Rather, the United States is a Constitutional Nation. Plug in any religious group (or group of non-religionists), and as long as said group adheres to the Constitution, the body politic proceeds along as usual. That is, while the majority of people in the U.S. may be Christian, the country can still function if the majority were Muslim, or Buddhist, or atheist - as long as Constitutional principles continued to be followed.
I would agree with everything except the first statement. I think is a feeble attempt to ignore the obvious.
bPer:
And, to be fair to the slimeball, his point (lame as it was) to all the 'at church' counting was that he felt he had a better grasp of Christian (and thus - to him - American) opinion because of it. Arguably false and beside the point, of course.
I do not understand why you have to succumb to insult. I have not called you any names. I find it quite interesting that every time an atheist position is demonstrated to be bankrupt of any real research that they resort to what they know best--- mudslinging.
You seem to be backpedalling. And confused. I didn't deny that some of the founders expressed various forms of theist belief (though Jefferson was most certainly a desit, as were several others. And, as was noted, several of your quotes are false). That is neither here nor there. What is important is that they didn't express any of those beliefs in the documents that define America as a nation.
If your only contention is that America is comprised largley of Christians, I wouldn't argue with that (althouugh it is debatable to a certain degree--which denomination, etc.). It is, however, not a religious nation in the same way Iraq is, as Islam is the official state religion of Iraq, and Christianity is not the official state religion of the US.
If you want to argue that out of context quotes from the founders makes this a christian nation, then my Pat Robertson quotes go way past the standard for calling something anti-constituional.
You still haven't answered what you would consider to be anti-constitutional. Robertson explicitly stated, in his bid for the presisency, that he would have a religious requirement for office--which is absolutely unconstitutional. Opinion, or not, it is an anti-constitutional statement.
For God so loved atheists that he gave his only begotten son, that any atheist that believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life
Thank You Jesus for dying for a wretch like me.
Heck, no. Just because you're a loonytoon maroon is certainly no reason for calling you names.
Really? No evidence for the Big Bang? That's interesting. Perhaps you should take this up with the Nobel Prize committee who awarded one of their honors to a duo who recently took a picture of it.
Any pics of the "Intelligent Designer"? Since you claim there's so much evidence for him?
You have also clealry not spent muth time around any real biologists or cosmologists, as the Big Bang and evolution are rarely discussed together. You could (hypothetically) disprove the Big Bang tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect the study of evoltuion one bit.
Sadly, the majority of Americans are not that well educated (Thanks, No Child Left Behind!). My mother taught eigth grade to a group of kids who didn't believe kangaroos existed. Even after being shown photos. Should she just never mention Australia again?
I am not smart because I'm an atheist. I'm smart because I study. Anybody can do it. Elitism for everybody!
False.
Why would a benevolent God provide you with such pitiably clownish arguments?
AGCM said:
Yes I do. That is why I am proud to be an American in a liberal democracy. I believe that the majority of Americans are well-educated Americans. If they believe that ID should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution then to not do so is to insult their intelligence (at the very least).
Yes. To not do so is indeed to insult their intelligence. The insult is richly deserved, because in this instance their intelligence has completely failed to distinguish between fantasy (ID) and science (evolution).
Scientific inquiry isn't a democratic process. You don't get to vote on what you'd like to be true.
To 'AGCM', I've got to tell you as a person going through a painful deconversion I have to ask the following. You said earlier that
'Brent wrote:
The worst is your notion that the goal of science education ought to somehow limit itself to majority opinion.
Yes I do. '
I suspect that nobody here would have a problem with your comment if it was limited to a majority opinion of scientists in the field.
Would that be a problem for you?
For that matter, AGCM, neither is Christianity a democratic process. We don't get to vote on whether or not we approve of the good Lord's plans, but I don't see Christians up in arms about their lack of representation in the scheme of things. We accept it as a consequence of our belief, of course.
Similarly, science doesn't do things by a vote. There is an impersonal, largely objective process in place that favors existing institutions and the elites that occupy them. Scientists don't kick about that much, either; we accept it as a necessary consequence of scientific integrity.
I say, render unto Darwin the things which are Darwin's; render unto God the things which are God's. And, frankly, at this point I doubt that you know which is which. I'm a Christian and have no atheist ax to grind, you know, so I'll hope you know I have your best interests at heart when I tell you that you don't know enough to defend your beliefs in this forum.
You need a crash course in evolutionary biology at a bare minimum from someone who actually knows what it is. If you're interested in being more than a object of derision here, I can shoot you some info. If sincere, you can reach me at:
epigene13@hotmail.com
If you're not really interested in learning any science, don't bother, but (please) don't bother us who do.
"I find it quite interesting that every time an atheist position is demonstrated to be bankrupt of any real research"
Funny, I haven't seen that happen once on this thread. Evolution? The Big Bang? There are libaries full of real research on them, and in fact, I see some of the commenters are even pointing you towards some of that. I wonder if you'll read it? Or just continue to deny it exists?
If following the evidence is elitist, then yes, we are elitists. Thank heaven some people are, or we would never have come as far as a species as we have.
"that they resort to what they know best--- mudslinging."
Awww, is baby gonna cwy?
Focusing on the few who are getting fed up with you and castigating them for their un-nice-ness is an awfully cheap debating tactic, you know.
AGCM said:
I personally like the Queen Jane's Version better:
A Good Christian Man wrote:
If you had a toothache would you ask a group of non-medical people you met on the street to diagnose and treat the problem? Would you ask a plumber to get out his hammer and wrenches to carry out a little root canal work?
By the same token, would you ask a collection of lawyers, mathematicians, engineers, MDs, businessmen - and even dentists - to assess the strength of the theory of evolution or would you ask the group of people best qualified by years of education and research - the community of biologists - to pass judgement on the matter?
As the Catholic Church found to its cost - to take an example from history - attempting to enforce a geocentric model of the Universe because it was consistent with doctrine over the research of scientists like Copernicus and Galileo was ultimately doomed to failure. The Universe is the way it is or, if you prefer as a good Christian man, the way it was created to be. It is not what we would like it to be nor does it necessarily conform to one sect's or one denomination's interpretation of passages from Scripture.
As for Intelligent Design, more than sufficient evidence was presented during the Dover court case of the movement's religious roots and purposes. While some of its followers may believe that they are pursuing a purely scientific objective, the protestations of others - in light of their previous statements of belief - smack of rank hypocrisy. In fact, their words should remind good Christian men of nothing so much as Peter's denial of Christ.
Intelligent Design has never been - nor was it ever intended to be - a valid alternative to the theory of evolution as a naturalistic explanation of life on Earth. Attempts to present it as such in school science classrooms, while perhaps not child abuse in Richard Dawkins' sense, are certainly an abuse of education and, for a good Christian man, should be a clear breach of the ninth Commandment.
But if anything, your comment demonstrates the prevalent elitists attitude of atheists in thinking that they are the only smart ones and everyone else are unfortunately stupid.
Noone, not even the stupidest of the IDist is likely to make the argument that any belief should be taught because more people believe it. Noone would make that argument because it is a patently abdsurd and a direct contradiction of the entire scientific project which is to base knowledge not on opinion but on observable facts.
You have said a number of incorrect things on this post. In fact I don't know if you have said even one thing that even comes close to being correct this entire time. But the idea that any field of knowledge, let alone science, ought to be based upon opinion is, without a doubt, the dumbest thing I have ever seen someone try to argue. Again, I don't know if anyone, even the most obtuse of the creationists would agree with you on this. It is the very definition of anti-reason and you actually have the gall to be proud of it. Astonishing really.
Actually, as I said before, and as most ID scientists will argue, we do not seek to provide empirical evidence for a Designer but rather we demonstrate through the scientific method that there is design in the universe.
How does one apply the scientific method without seeking empirical evidence? The answer to that question is that one doesn't. Science is about empirical evidence. No empirical evidence. No science. This is something that one should learn by sixth grade. It is bothersome that you are apparently unaware of this fundamental understanding but it is incredibly annoying that despite your palpable ignorance of elementary school science, you continue to write about the subject as if you have even the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
Simple logic dictates that if every time the "Big Bang" is mentioned it is discussed in the context of evolution, then simple logic suggests that the "Big Bang" has to do with evolution more than you would like to give credit.
If there is nothing else that you gain from this discussion I hope that you will at least spend a moment thinking about this: You cannot reasonably argue an issue with people who actually know something about it when you do not. The statement that I quote above is a statement that can only be made from sheer ignorance. Only a person who has read very little (almost nothing) about this matter could make such a statement. There may be 1000 articles and papers published with respect to evidence of the big bang published a year. There maybe 3 times that many with respect to evolutionary biology and the evidence thereof. Very, very few of those papers will make reference to the other theory because as anyone who actually knows anything about the issue understands, they are two different topics. Your simple logic, which is another term which you seem to use without any understanding of its definition, is once again 100% incorrect. The fact that you are unaware of this indicates in the most glaring way, your appalling cluelessness regarding topics you have chosen to discuss today.
AGCM said:
"I would agree with everything except the first statement. I think [it] is a feeble attempt to ignore the obvious."
You are right that I ignored "the obvious", because for the purposes of the discussion - whether it be science curriculum or the governance of the nation - the fact that most Americans are self-professed Christians is irrelevant. You may as well have stated that America is a female country, (slight majority of the population is female) an overweight country, or a white country (although not for much longer). Thanks to our Constitution, though, each of those is ALSO an irrelevancy.
Still hasn't answered the simplest question...
Why so many churches and what form of christianity?
As for Thomas Jefferson, he didn't go to church, didn't believe in the virgin birth or in the resurrection. He agreed with Jesus' philosophies. Which alot of atheists don't necessarily agree with. Dawkins' doesn't. Deist does not equal christian.
Not only does AGCM not understand what a democracy is, he doesn't understand the constitution or what the founders had in mind.
The only reason the Big Bang and evolution get mentioned a lot is because fundies like AGCM love to change the subject in a pathetic attempt to get biology-focused people out of their element and into cosmology.
They set up an imaginary link for red herring purposes and repeat it over and over and over and over and over again, and then blame us for making the link we've been repeatedly denying.
Crap. I meant don't disagree with.
Anyone who conflates cosmology and biology is revealing their hand and that they don't know what game they're playing in.
Creationists see the creation of the universe and man as the same event that's why they don't understand the difference between the Big Bang and Evolution.
AGCM: The formation of the universe is a different event than that of the beginning of life on earth and they are seperated by BILLIONS of years. The Big Bang has been proven. Evolution has been proven.
It hadn't occurred to me before, but there is a self-correcting negative feedback loop. Semiconscious ID-clone Sharonic Trolls drive people out of Christianity.
"... "We may not be as obnoxious and flamboyant as the Religious Right, but we are here and active. Maybe if people would quit leaving the church in reaction to right wingers, the church would be a stronger force for change in our world...."
excerpt from:
Here Are the Christians!
By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Columnist
Friday 29 December 2006
I, for one, would be happy to watch religion drown in its own hateful, vomitous putrescence, while helping those who want out get out.
Those who would stay, of course, are free to do so.
the big bang is just the next back door they are trying. Hoping to convince people that the big bang is in line with both science and religion and then following on from that back to ID again. Wait for it...
Yes we do
Links and/or citations please? Remember, peer-reviewed in this contaxt doesn't mean your fellow clergy or nonqualified professionals, but scientists competent to decide whether your articles and "research" is scientifically valid. Since you claim ID is a science and everything.
but, somehow I think you probably will not be impressed.
Go ahead, impress me.
I have a strange suspicion that the only thing you will accept is that which promotes atheism.
The only thing I'll accept is a scientific argument. If that happens to support atheism rather than religion, tough luck to you. If it happens to support religion rather than atheism, you'll suddenly be the most popular science-writer in history.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
"I have a strange suspicion that the only thing you will accept is that which promotes atheism."
Coming from a guy who calls the us a Christain nation and supports ID and doesn't support the seperation of church and state. His delusions are completely derived from his religion. If it doesn't support it, it's not real.
@ AGCM
What is your definition of "Well-Educated"
What is your definition of "Well-Educated"
English: Can quote at length from the Bible.
Foreign Language: Can define several Greek and Latin words found in the Bible.
Mathematics: Can calculate how many times he's been to church in the past year over how many churches attended.
History: Can quote at length from the Bible.
Philosophy: Can hold up a Bible.
Science: Who needs it?
"A Good Christian Man" (ah, if only you realized how appropriate I find that handle) is out of here -- he started moving off to other threads, since the kitchen was a little too hot for the poor baby in here, under another pseudonym, so he's banned. Noisy cowards annoy me.
THE BIG BANG HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.
If you want to talk about either one, fine, but don't try to put them both together. That just makes you look completely ignorant. Thank you.
Bye
so he's banned.
Really. This seems a bit harsh. I mean his arguments were absurd but at least he attempted to make his arguments in a fairly coherent way. Its your site of course but I didn't see how he really crossed any major lines as far as blog decorum. Sharon on the other hand...
Apparently he took his sock puppets to other threads. That would be bannable manners. I would assume he was the wanker Peanut Gallery.
Apparently he took his sock puppets to other threads.
Really this seems like a pretty minor offense to me. I am sure I have used a name other than brent on this board. Probably allastair.
If he was engaged in sock puppetry, which I define as using different pseudonyms in the deliberate attempt make it seem that there is more support for one's argument than actually exists, then I can see as where that is starting to get close to the line. But even that seems forgivable to me as long as the person is still directly engaged in the debate as opposed to just randomly trolling.
But hey, like I said, its not my blog. Hell. I don't even have a blog. I would just hate to see this blog start getting any sort of reputation for pulling the trigger on dissenters.
Needless to say, I would hate just as much to see it become some fever swamp for right wing lunatics to cut and paste all their ill informed ideas. Washington Monthly/Political Animal has really deteriorated over the years to where the comments are almost unreadable. A lot of blogs have suffered in that way I guess.
How can I say this politely? brent/allastair, it's very likely you've never said anything flagrantly obnoxious in any of your incarnations, so very probably no one ever noticed you switching between names, and likely no one who did notice cared.
AGCM tried to escape the reputation he'd built up under that name. Either he was trolling (as in the actual definition of 'trolling' that so few use these days) or he wasn't willing to face the public reaction that his genuine opinions earned him. He deserved that banning, and I hope he stays gone.
How can I say this politely?
LOL. Well if you really feel the need to be impolite then have at it. I am not especially sensitive. I am not sure why my relatively mild comment should elicit such a reaction but please don't feel that you need to spare my feelings.
Mrs Tilton:
Thank you! It is also supportive since some commenters tend to criticize language when all else fails.
My secret is that I could never make the effort to learn grammar since I was proficient in my primary language early on. So I work according to "monkey see, monkey do". Another reason to hang around Pharyngula. :-)
(But old sins never dies. I was sick the first months of English class, and I still confuse third person singular and plural present form of "be" - nearly never when spoken, nearly always when writing.)
BTW; I think I misstated slightly. Perhaps it was the majority that wasn't religious after all. 60/40 % is numbers I associate with this, but I can't find the relevant statistics.
We have a perfect understanding here. :-)
AGCM:
Besides the argument between creationists and cosmologists about the description of the universe, you should realize that the site you looked at is neither science nor correct.
About is a commercial site with material from guides. "The success of About.com centers around our unique Guide System that features 24 content channels and promotes original content from more than 500 topical advisors or "Guides."" ( http://ourstory.about.com/ ) Nothing guarantees that the guide writes anything remotely correct.
Bigbang is an accepted theory because it makes reliable predictions that have been verified. "It is generally stated that there are three observational pillars that support the Big Bang theory of cosmology. These are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements. (See Big Bang nucleosynthesis.) Additionally, the observed correlation function of large-scale structure of the cosmos fits well with standard Big Bang theory." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang )
One could also add that the expansion explains why our sky isn't in thermal equilibrium with all stars and thus hot and bright as a suns surface. And adding inflation, which is nearly confirmed reliably enough from data, explains much more details.
You're next.
Greg Laden has the story.
Funny. Instead of reffering the reader to the original article, PZ reffers him to another atheist blog who still has problems with formatting his own blog and making use of spellcheck.
Look. Some wacky creationist has slapped together routine statements from creationist websites (especially Answers in Genesis) that declares a central scientific theory false, that accuses scientists of conspiracy to lie to students and citizens, that demands that you have to accept their religion and repudiate science or burn in hell forever...
I think PZ is reading some other billboard. Perhaps one from his nightmares.
From "Commentator" Greg Laden has the story.
Funny. Instead of reffering the reader to the original article, PZ reffers him to another atheist blog who still has problems with formatting his own blog and making use of spellcheck.
Ouch, oh, arrg, I'm bleeding all over the floor.... Oh man, I'm going to cry now.
My blog is not an atheist blog. It is a science blog. I appreciate the referral from Professor Myers.
But I assure you that my spell checking problems will never end. And my blog is standard WordPress, so I don't now what to do about the formatting problem you have. If you let me know what it is, I'd be happy to see what I can do.
Cheers!
(My guess is that I'm taling to Weapon of Mass Instruction. Am I right?)
Not to feed the trolls, but this was another point which is dead wrong.
Fortunately, this set the worst of it right:
Yes, while we in Sweden like to call the former state church protestantic, it is formally evangelical lutheran. It is another difference in language. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism_by_region )
Sweden is formerly secular now, but in practice it has been since the state ousted the catholic church. The protestantic church financed the king who did this in a deal to become the new but powerless state church.
We are still in the middle of the separation process. While no one is longer born into the church unless otherwise stated, adults have to actively leave the church. (The church fee is an incentive to do this, of course.)
Religion has still many privileges. The lutheran church was renamed the Church of Sweden as a compromise. Organizations that are seen as beneficial to society may get tax relief. Most churches are such, though not scientology for example. That is also a compromise, apart from a certain cultural importance.
In practice, while not many attend churches, IIRC more than half of the population has some private belief. So while it would be correct to (finally!) call Sweden secular, it is far from atheistic. Religion isn't much discussed because it isn't a powerful influence in the daily life, but that also means remaining problems is not dealt with. Homophobia delivered during sermons is a common enough problem, the christian democratic party's similar stance and avoidance to adcress its anti-science creationists, anti-abortionists and anti-stem cell supporters is another.
Which of course goes back to the post. It is a mistake to think that religion will not conflict with science and other good forces of society even in the best of circumstances. It is not bigotry to state such easily recognized facts, and it is also quite clear that creationism and some other anti-science attitudes are problems that religion specifically creates.
"Sweden is formerly secular now" - Sweden is formally secular now,
A few days of holiday, and the english is gone! A few others of the worst mistakes, to make it readable:
"The protestantic church financed the king who did this in a deal to become the new but powerless state church." - The protestantic church financed a king in a deal to become the new but powerless state church.
"While no one is longer born into the church"- While no longer anyone is born into the church
Mrs Tilton:
Thank you! It is also supportive since some commenters tend to criticize language when all else fails.
My secret is that I could never make the effort to learn grammar since I was proficient in my primary language early on. So I work according to "monkey see, monkey do". Another reason to hang around Pharyngula. :-)
(But old sins never dies. I was sick the first months of English class, and I still confuse third person singular and plural present form of "be" - nearly never when spoken, nearly always when writing.)
BTW; I think I misstated slightly. Perhaps it was the majority that wasn't religious after all. 60/40 % is numbers I associate with this, but I can't find the relevant statistics.
We have a perfect understanding here. :-)
AGCM:
Besides the argument between creationists and cosmologists about the description of the universe, you should realize that the site you looked at is neither science nor correct.
About is a commercial site with material from guides. "The success of About.com centers around our unique Guide System that features 24 content channels and promotes original content from more than 500 topical advisors or "Guides."" ( http://ourstory.about.com/ ) Nothing guarantees that the guide writes anything remotely correct.
Bigbang is an accepted theory because it makes reliable predictions that have been verified. "It is generally stated that there are three observational pillars that support the Big Bang theory of cosmology. These are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements. (See Big Bang nucleosynthesis.) Additionally, the observed correlation function of large-scale structure of the cosmos fits well with standard Big Bang theory." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang )
One could also add that the expansion explains why our sky isn't in thermal equilibrium with all stars and thus hot and bright as a suns surface. And adding inflation, which is nearly confirmed reliably enough from data, explains much more details.