I looked in the GSS on the number of children and age when first child born for evolution related questions. The number of children and age when first child is born should determine the rate of natural increase of a population (balanced with deaths).
| # of children | Age when first child born | |
| Humans Evolved From Animals | ||
| Definitely True | 1.40 | 26.37 |
| Probably True | 1.75 | 23.72 |
| Probably Not True | 1.85 | 23.31 |
| Definitely Not True | 2.12 | 23.00 |
| Origin and Development of Man | ||
| God Created Man | 2.14 | 23.60 |
| Man Has Evolved, But God Guided | 1.56 | 25.13 |
| Man Has Evolved | 1.62 | 26.22 |
| Human Beings Developed From Animals | ||
| True | 1.39 | 25.68 |
| False | 2.09 | 23.04 |
More like this
I'm incredibly busy right now adjusting to my new job and my new commute, which is leaving me less time than usual for blogging. So I'm going to raid the archives, and bring back some interesting things that appeared on the old Blogger blog, but were never posted here.
I haven't written a basics post in a while, because for the most part, that well has run dry, but once
in a while, one still pops up. I got an email recently asking about proofs by contradiction and
The liar paradox is the statement:
The use of the word "Darwinist" is to catch the attention of Creationists, normally I'm not too warm to its usage in a scientific (as opposed to philosophical or historical) context.
I've wondered about this before, and it looks to have turned out about as a person might have reasonable expected. What kind of suprises me is the "moderate" position in the origin of man category is in fact the lowest. Weird.
Well it's a good thing that education and dogmatic beliefs are not strictly inherited.
I'm not really a scientist, so I don't understand what your results really mean. would you be able to explain them a little more please?
iz: People who do not believe in evolution have more kids and have kids earlier.