Why *ARE* Americans still debating evolution?

Here's why:


image503542.gif
Section Front
transp.gif





bug_mail.gif
E-mail This Story
bug_print.gif
Printable Version





Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

NEW YORK, Nov. 22, 2004
black.gif

transp.gif

tab_cbsnews_video.gif

bug_video.gif
Adam And Eve Vs. Darwin

(Photo: CBS/AP)

tab_quote.gif


Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.


gray.gif

(CBS) Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form
All Americans
blue.gif
55%
Kerry voters
blue.gif
47%
Bush voters
blue.gif
67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
blue.gif
27%
Kerry voters
blue.gif
28%
Bush voters
blue.gif
22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
blue.gif
13%
Kerry voters
blue.gif
21%
Bush voters
blue.gif
6%

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution
All Americans
blue.gif
65%
Kerry voters
blue.gif
56%
Bush voters
blue.gif
71%

Creationism instead of evolution
All Americans
blue.gif
37%
Kerry voters
blue.gif
24%
Bush voters
blue.gif
45%

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.


This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.



Sorry, this is almost a year old. But it probably won't be that different now.
 
:eek2: OMG, fossten has just stepped in his own pile of stinking doo-doo!

Not only has he quoted from his nemesis CBS, which he has so heartily bashed time and time again here on this board for not having a shred of credibility (in his eyes of course). But he also is quoting POLL DATA, which he has also roundly bashed for not proving anything.

SO WHICH IS IT? You can't have it BOTH WAYS!! Make up your mind!



:give
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fossten said:
But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.


Note that you didn't highlight that part of the article conveniently...

Also the teaching of creationism in school is NOT a matter of popular vote or public consensus. As the second book points out it is a matter of church and state.

If you want to tell your kids God created Adam and Eve out of dirt go ahead and do so at home. Federally funded and mandated public schools and federally decided public school curriculums CAN NOT by LAW include creationism.
 
I don't understand how creationalism could be taught in schools. Short of spending 30 seconds saying "God created earth and man",there's not a whole lot to teach.Its a pretty straight forward theory.As far a God having a divine hand in the process of evolution, all you would do is teach the theory of evolution and at the end say "God controls all of this".
There are 2 problems I see with this.
#1: All of these are THEORYS. Religious people tend to want creationalism or inteligent design seen as facts.The fact is that none of it can be 100% proven beyond a doubt and to teach any of the three as fact is a mistake.Personnally I don't see why all three can't be presented as options for students to consider.
#2: There are many religions in the world and they all have ideas about how the earth and man was created.The problem is that religious people tend to want THEIR ideas taught with refrence to THEIR god, whoever it may be.If we are to teach creationalism in schools it needs to be taught as an idea that can be applied to any religion,or creationalism as it applies to many different religions needs to be discussed.In this case the curriculum would begin to make it more of a class about religion than science.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
:eek2: OMG, fossten has just stepped in his own pile of stinking doo-doo!

Not only has he quoted from his nemesis CBS, which he has so heartily bashed time and time again here on this board for not having a shred of credibility (in his eyes of course). But he also is quoting POLL DATA, which he has also roundly bashed for not proving anything.

SO WHICH IS IT? You can't have it BOTH WAYS!! Make up your mind!

Edit:

:give

Johnny, please refrain from your personal attacks. They don't help you make your point, and they are against the rules of this forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Professor: Evolution cannot fully explain biology

Monday, October 17, 2005; Posted: 1:38 p.m. EDT (17:38 GMT)

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone cannot explain complex biological processes, and he believes God is behind them.

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class.

Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether it can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."

Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.

The intelligent design theory does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic, testified he personally believes it to be God.

"I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors," he said.

The school board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Behe contributed to "Of Pandas and People," writing a section about blood-clotting. He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."

Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory rather than providing evidence for design.

Behe, who was expected to remain on the stand throughout the day Monday, compared the outcry over intelligent design to the early criticism of the big-bang theory some 70 years ago. "Many people thought it had philosophical and even theological implications that they did not like," he said.

Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He became a proponent after earning tenure, which lets him express his views without the threat of losing his job.

The trial began September 26 and is expected to last up to five weeks.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press
 
The whole process can be made simple.. I agree you can simply say here are your options...

As a Christian and a teacher of Science I can easily see how everything fits together...

If you follow the geologic history of the earth and follow the 6 days of creation they fit together. All things basically happened in the same order.

The only issue is time... Whether a day as described in the Bible is a 24 hour period or whether a day was one era of time..

Hadean era 4.5 billion yag to 3.8 billion yag - formation of the earth... the earth was with out form and void...

Archean era - 3.8 billion yag to 2.5 billion yag - Begins with the earth's crust forming then trapped gasses fill the atmosphere - then oceans form - no land.. about midway through bacteria appears...

Proterozoic era - 2.5 billion yag to 544 million yag - Atmosphere to 15% oxygen continents form - at the end Sea Life starts to populate the oceans.

Paleozoic era - 544 mill yag to 245 million yag - Earth’s continents start to populate with most species of life..

Mesozoic era - 245 million yag to 65 million yag - time of dinosaurs - life on land take a strong hold plus birds of the air.

Cenozoic era - 65 million yag to present - Humans and on the 6th day God creates man...

God does not describe how he did it in the Bible but science explains Gods work.

Now this is very vague but I have not found any where in the Bible where it tells me that I need to believe that the time line for creation is 6 24 hour days for my salvation or that if I believe that God took about 4.5 billion years to get the earth the way he wanted it to meet our needs that that would condemn me to everlasting torment.

To me it's not even a discussion - We need to teach our childern our religious views at home or in church or a church sponsored school.

Public school is for all - and for the children of all faiths.. We cannot teach Christianity in the schools..
 
mespock said:
The whole process can be made simple.. I agree you can simply say here are your options...

As a Christian and a teacher of Science I can easily see how everything fits together...

If you follow the geologic history of the earth and follow the 6 days of creation they fit together. All things basically happened in the same order.

The only issue is time... Whether a day as described in the Bible is a 24 hour period or whether a day was one era of time..

Hadean era 4.5 billion yag to 3.8 billion yag - formation of the earth... the earth was with out form and void...

Archean era - 3.8 billion yag to 2.5 billion yag - Begins with the earth's crust forming then trapped gasses fill the atmosphere - then oceans form - no land.. about midway through bacteria appears...

Proterozoic era - 2.5 billion yag to 544 million yag - Atmosphere to 15% oxygen continents form - at the end Sea Life starts to populate the oceans.

Paleozoic era - 544 mill yag to 245 million yag - Earth’s continents start to populate with most species of life..

Mesozoic era - 245 million yag to 65 million yag - time of dinosaurs - life on land take a strong hold plus birds of the air.

Cenozoic era - 65 million yag to present - Humans and on the 6th day God creates man...

God does not describe how he did it in the Bible but science explains Gods work.

Now this is very vague but I have not found any where in the Bible where it tells me that I need to believe that the time line for creation is 6 24 hour days for my salvation or that if I believe that God took about 4.5 billion years to get the earth the way he wanted it to meet our needs that that would condemn me to everlasting torment.

To me it's not even a discussion - We need to teach our childern our religious views at home or in church or a church sponsored school.

Public school is for all - and for the children of all faiths.. We cannot teach Christianity in the schools..


:iconcur:
 
mespock said:
To me it's not even a discussion - We need to teach our childern our religious views at home or in church or a church sponsored school.

Public school is for all - and for the children of all faiths.. We cannot teach Christianity in the schools..

This is the part that most proponents of creationism fail to recognize. I'm all for letting you believe in whatever you want to believe in, but we can't teach it in school. It's just like my assertion that parents need to do more parenting and stop relying on government ratings systems to figure out what their kids should and shouldn't watch or play. If you have beliefs and morals that you feel aren't being fleshed out by the school, then teach them to your kids. I'm sure you don't rely on school to teach your children how to do everything...this is one of those things that is not, and should not be covered in school.
 
raVeneyes said:
This is the part that most proponents of creationism fail to recognize. I'm all for letting you believe in whatever you want to believe in, but we can't teach it in school. It's just like my assertion that parents need to do more parenting and stop relying on government ratings systems to figure out what their kids should and shouldn't watch or play. If you have beliefs and morals that you feel aren't being fleshed out by the school, then teach them to your kids. I'm sure you don't rely on school to teach your children how to do everything...this is one of those things that is not, and should not be covered in school.

One of the biggest problems we are having in schools today is that parents are relying on schools to raise their children.. My personal feeling is they do this so they have someone to blame for their fear of raising children.

Also too many parents are to concerned about their careers and their own activities that they have no time for their children... Kids are only $%^& trophies..

If you have spend time in a school you would see why children are the way they are today.

You wouldn't believe the behavior and language of many Kindergarteners today.. It is scary..

A school is designed to educate students not raise them..


It gets fustrating as a teacher to hear all the trash about how bad our schools are. The American Public School system is not a bad as people try to make it out to be. The statistics do not give a accurate picture of what is happening in a school. Teaching is secondary in may schools as there are so many other problems that exsist that have to be delt with before teaching can begin. And No Child Left Behind does not deal with the problems.

What everyone needs to understand is that everyday teachers need to deal with 20 to 30 students many who do not want to be in school. To get a student to want to learn is difficult and many times not promoted by parents.. In many cases the responce from parents is hey it's not my problem your the teacher. Without parent support the student is lost and all the teacher is, is a over paid baby sitter.( but people pay baby sitters more than they pay teachers). I wish I could get paid what a day care gets for watching kids.

I can go on and on on this issue and expect to get ripped as there are so many people who just don't get it and understand what goes on in a school..
 
mespock said:
Without parent support the student is lost and all the teacher is, is a over paid baby sitter.
*owned*

My wife and I have been looking for a baby-sitter. Rich, what are you doing this weekend?:bowrofl:
 
The first day of Biology class in the year 2015

by David Menton, AiG–USA

January 2, 2006

The following article written by David Menton, Ph.D. (cell biology), Associate Professor (retired) of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000), is really a spoof on the current situation regarding the creation/evolution battle in the secular school system. However, at the same time, what Dr. Menton has written could become reality if the secularization of this culture continues. You may smile as you read this article—but be warned: much of what Dr. Menton portrays is only an extension of what is happening right now in this culture. We print this as a wake up call to God’s people concerning the state of the nation and its future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to your federally mandated biology class—“The Evolution of You by Way of the Zoo.” I am Miss Lead, I have a B.S. degree in “Evolutionary Indoctrination” and I will be your learning facilitator.

I especially want to welcome you students who are new to our Federal schools. I know that this has been a trying year for many of you and your families, but as you know, the Supreme Court has declared that homeschooling and all explicitly Christian schools are prohibited by law and that you must now attend a federally controlled school. I thank you for your willing cooperation. It is regrettable that some children had to be forcibly taken away from their uncooperative parents, but the Court has decreed that it is the State, not the parents, who are primarily responsible for their education.

It is required by law that we spend our first class period advising you of the legal rules and regulations governing both the definition of science and impermissible thoughts in the science classroom. As your facilitator, I myself must follow these regulations to remain on the federal payroll, and you must follow them to avoid being sent for mental deprogramming. So listen up! It is no fun having your memory banks reset to that of an artichoke.

First we will consider the legally mandated definition of science: The Supreme Court has declared that “Science is the study of everything in the cosmos that is real and involves the effort to explain the origin of all real things in exclusively materialistic terms.” The Court has defined the “cosmos” (i.e., material universe) in terms of Sagan’s law—“The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.” Please note that the Court has left the entire realm of things that are unreal to the exclusive domain of the church. In this way that impregnable “wall of separation” between church and state, so wisely mandated by the framers of our Constitution, is not breached.

Next we must consider the two laws of “Unthinkable Thought” which prohibit certain thoughts and speech in the science classroom. To enforce these laws, the courts require that all classroom instruction and discussion in science be recorded for analysis on videotape and that all teachers and students submit to lie detector questioning by Federal Thought Police. Those failing such tests will be given one more chance to abandon their unthinkable thoughts before being subjected to deprogramming.

In the “First Law of Unthinkable Thought,” the courts have declared that “no student or teacher will be permitted to think, much less articulate, any thought that dares to question the dictates of evolutionary dogma.” While critical thinking and a questioning mind are essential to all fields of empirical science, such is not the case for evolutionism. The courts have found that atheists and “skeptics” never question the fact of evolution, while most criticisms of evolution, no matter how valid or scientific they might be, come from suspected “stealth” religionists and thus constitute the teaching of religion.

The “Second Law of Unthinkable Thought” (best known as the “Anti-Intelligence law”) declares that “no teacher or student will be permitted to think, much less articulate, any thought that something in nature is too complex and integrated to have been formed by random chance processes and to suggest instead that it reflects intelligent design or, God forbid, a divine Creator.” Educators have found that most students tend to think of the possibility of intelligent design when teachers give insightful, substantive and enthusiastic lectures on complex biological systems. Thus the law now requires that biology teachers must give superficial and boring lectures laced with evolutionary speculation on organs such as the eye, lest students be led astray by their intuitive recognition of intelligent design.

But why you might ask (but dare not) have the courts passed such draconian laws governing our very thoughts in the science classroom? The answer is really quite obvious. For years evolutionary dogma has been taught extensively in almost every class from first grade on, but surveys have shown that most students still fail to believe in evolutionism. Professional educators are amazed that even further increasing the quantity and intensity of evolutionary indoctrination has proven unsuccessful in producing true believers! Even worse, these unbelievers seem to have no difficulty in feeding back to us the required correct answers to evolutionary questions on examinations—indeed they seem to perform better than the true believers!

Surely you can see that it was time for the courts to intervene and require actual belief in evolutionism and not just indoctrination. The very survival of America, indeed the survival of the world as we know it, depends on it! After all, Dobzhansky’s law declares that “nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.” If students do not truly believe in evolutionism, it is a proven fact that they will be totally incapable of pursuing any field requiring scientific understanding. Thus they will be completely unsuitable as teachers, researchers, physicians, nurses, engineers, geologists, astronomers, farmers, lawyers, parents, news reporters, talk show hosts and popular entertainers.

Finally I will remind you that a federally mandated sticker known as the “revised Cobb County sticker” has been permanently affixed on the inside cover of your biology textbook declaring:

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material must be approached with a closed mind, studied superficially, and uncritically accepted.”

You are required by law to memorize this sticker and repeat it as a confession of faith before meals and each time you open and close the book.

Rest assured that all these laws forbidding unthinkable thoughts and requiring unquestioning belief in crass materialism and evolutionism have received the enthusiastic support of almost all the professional educational, legal and human rights organizations as well as from distinguished people of faith from nearly all of the major Christian denominations and seminary schools. Now, if we are all willing to comply (and of course, you are), let's get started!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0102year2015.asp?vPrint=1
 
fossten said:
The first day of Biology class in the year 2015

by David Menton, AiG–USA

January 2, 2006

The following article written by David Menton, Ph.D. (cell biology), Associate Professor (retired) of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000), is really a spoof on the current situation regarding the creation/evolution battle in the secular school system. However, at the same time, what Dr. Menton has written could become reality if the secularization of this culture continues. You may smile as you read this article—but be warned: much of what Dr. Menton portrays is only an extension of what is happening right now in this culture. We print this as a wake up call to God’s people concerning the state of the nation and its future.


Thanks for the article, was worth several laughs even though it was filled with hatred, spoof or otherwise. But if the right wing religious wacko's had their way, anyone even questioning the story of creation would be burned at the stake. How's that for a Democracy.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Thanks for the article, was worth several laughs even though it was filled with hatred, spoof or otherwise. But if the right wing religious wacko's had their way, anyone even questioning the story of creation would be burned at the stake. How's that for a Democracy.

Ummm...you're referring, I assume, to the Catholic Inquisition of the Dark Ages. That wasn't in a Democratic country.

Sorry. Wrong century and transparent hyperbole.
 
fossten said:
Ummm...you're referring, I assume, to the Catholic Inquisition of the Dark Ages. That wasn't in a Democratic country.

Sorry. Wrong century and transparent hyperbole.

No, I'm referring to what would happen now, if the right wing religious wacko's had their way. Just as your article spoofs on what may come to pass if evolutionist have their way in the future. Same thing.

How is what I said hyperbole and your article isn't? Did you read your entire article?
 
95DevilleNS said:
No, I'm referring to what would happen now, if the right wing religious wacko's had their way. Just as your article spoofs on what may come to pass if evolutionist have their way in the future. Same thing.

How is what I said hyperbole and your article isn't? Did you read your entire article?

Because you are characterizing Christians as being people who evidently burn unbelievers at the stake. You must have no knowledge of Christianity or you are confusing Christians with Islamo-fascists.

Where is your evidence that Christians burn people at the stake?
 
fossten said:
Because you are characterizing Christians as being people who evidently burn unbelievers at the stake. You must have no knowledge of Christianity or you are confusing Christians with Islamo-fascists.

Where is your evidence that Christians burn people at the stake?

I didn't say ALL Christians, I said "right wing religious wackos"..... Big difference there.

The Salem Witch Trials, sure they were Puritans, but where do Puritans stem from.
 
95DevilleNS said:
I didn't say ALL Christians, I said "right wing religious wackos"..... Big difference there.

The Salem Witch Trials, sure they were Puritans, but where do Puritans stem from.

These people were wackos that separated from the Christian church. By the way, NO MENTION of evolution in the Salem witch trials.

Sorry. Wrong again.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/salem.html

[snip]

II. Puritanism is a Christian faith which originated in England during the early seventeenth century. The ideals which separate Puritans from other Christians include their strict belief in predestination. This term refers to the idea that God has previously chosen those who will be saved, and an individual can do nothing to change this status. The Puritan Covenant of Grace calls for all Puritans to be actively faithful. The Covenant of Works is the belief that those who follow God's moral codes will be blessed with eternal life.

The Puritans split from the Church of England in 1633. When William Laud became the new Archbishop of Canterbury, the new beliefs he brought were unacceptable to those members who sought to "purify" the Church. These new beliefs included emphasis on individual acceptance or rejection of God's grace, toleration for a variety of religious beliefs, and the incorporation of "high church" symbols.1 The Puritans wished to rid their religion of all Catholic influence.2

Early in the seventeenth century, groups of Puritans began leaving Europe to travel to the American colonies. The New England region became the center for Puritans, but the group was spread throughout the area north of Virginia. The main goal of these immigrants was to form a religious community in which their "pure" ideals could be central. The radical beliefs of the Puritans flourished in the New World. By keeping a strong connection between Church and State, the Puritans were able to control most of the colonies' activity until the end of the seventeenth century.3

The Puritans held five basic beliefs.

* Total Depravity: By virtue of the original sin of Adam, when one is born, he has no right to salvation.

* Unconditional Election: Some are chosen for salvation, some are not. There is nothing one can do to change his status.

* Limited Atonement: The extent to which one can please God with acts is limited.

* Irresistable Grace: God showers one with a quality of grace, and one cannot resist it.

* Perseverance: Once one has been saved, nothing he does will change that fact.

These central beliefs, along with an extreme emphasis on preaching and the laws contained within the Bible itself formed the strict ideals of American Puritanism.

III. Background on Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts

Like all Puritans, the residents of Salem Village believed in witches and in witchcraft. They believed that witchcraft was "entering into a compact with the devil in exchange for certain powers to do evil."4 Witchcraft was considered both a sin and a crime, since it used the devil's power to perform cruel acts against others. Because of the severity of the accusation of witchcraft, each case involving suspected witchcraft had to be carefully and thoroughly investigated.

Early in 1692, the witch hunt hysteria began in Salem, Massachusetts. Reverend Samuel Parris' daughter and Abigail Williams started having fits of convulsion, screaming, and hallucination. A doctor examined the girls and decided that the only explanation for these wild spells was witchcraft. The girls then pointed their fingers at Tituba (a Parris family slave), Sarah Good, and Sarah Osborne as the witches who had afflicted them. Cotton Mather had recently published his Memorable Providences. This book detailed witchcraft and the symptoms of the afflicted. Since Betty Parris' fits were much like those described in Mather's book, the Puritans of Salem were very accepting of the doctor's conclusion and the resulting accusations.

Magistrates John Hawthorne and Jonathan Corwin inherited the responsibility of examining the three accused women. On March 1, 1692 the two began questioning the women. They asked each woman the same questions: Are you a witch? Have you seen the devil? How do you explain the afflictions of these girls? Based on this line of questioning, it is clear that the magistrates and all of Salem had already judged the three women guilty.5 After initially maintaining her innocence, Tituba eventually confessed to being a witch and claimed that she, Good, and Osborne had all made pacts with the devil and had even flown through the air on poles. Tituba's confession showed Salem that their suspicions were valid. For the next year the villagers, fueled by their paranoia and hysteria, searched for witches amongst themselves tirelessly.

In the following months, many more were accused of witchcraft. Martha Corey, Bridget Williams, Rebecca Nurse, Sarah Cloyce, and Mary Eastick all faced charges of witchery. Overloaded with all the new trials, Governor William Phips created a special court to hear the witch cases. The court was known as the Court of Oyer and Terminer. The trials quickly spiraled out of control, and a number of suspected witches were convicted and hanged. Bridget Bishop, Rebecca Nurse, and John Proctor all died as convicted witches. Those who stood trial for the crime of witchcraft could be convicted based on gossip or hearsay. Practically the only way to avoid execution was to admit to being a witch. During 1692, nineteen people refused to confess and died as a result.

While the specific trials of 1692 are important to America's history, the impact of the Salem Witch Trials is deeper than the simple chronology of events. The hysteria that snowballed in Salem reveals how deep the belief in the supernatural ran in colonial America. David Hall noted that "The religion of the colonists was infused with ancient attitudes and practices, some indeed so old as to antedate the rise of Christianity."6 In the quest for spiritual perfection and religious purity, there was no place for magic. The Puritans were so focused on the goal of a pure, religious commonwealth, that they reacted harshly against anything that threatened that goal. Richard Godbeer agrees. "Magic had no place in their vision of New England and so they were appalled to discover that colonists were using magical techniques."
 

Members online

Back
Top