In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

[edwest2]

Individuals don’t evolve, populations do.

Individuals don’t evolve, populations do.

One species never gives birth to another species. A land critter did not give birth to a dolphin. It’s gggggrrraaaaaaadddduuuaaalllll. Evolution describes what happens to populations.

pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

Gradual? That can’t be proven.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tomarin]

3rd

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

Where are you getting all these quotes from, Ed? Just curious.

 

[edwest2]

Where are you getting all these quotes from, Ed? Just curious.

The quotes were researched and provided by reggiem, a fairly regular poster on this board.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

So where did all of the different species come from?

The current theory seems to take for granted species to species tranformations.

The different species came about through speciation, which is species to species “transformation”. However, one species does not simply give birth to another.

Have you heard of the “species problem”? Basically, there are no real defined species with obviously drawn lines of difference. They are all blurred together via tiny changes from generation to generation. We give divisions and organize traits to help us understand and categorize, but they’re not truly there. It all just flows together.

 

[Farsight001]

3rd

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

You can see what? None of those quotes say God does not exist or that God is not behind it all guiding it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Did God perform zero miracles in the Old Testament?

Is God incapable of doing things science cannot do?

It’s not because God is incapable. Quite the opposite. It’s the way WE will interpret such miracles. And frankly, the literal take on the OT doesn’t paint a theologically flattering picture of Him. He’s essentially no different from all the other “Appease me and I shall do this and that” type of deity. Like I said, it reduces Him into just another participant in the Ancient War of the Gods.

Christ barely, if ever, exhibited this type of behavior.

 

[Jeffrey]

Global warming is a natural thing. IT IS NOT MAN MADE. And its not that big of a deal. Unless you depend on govrnment grants to keep your job that is.

This is just a fabrication of the professional (and criminal) denialist machine. There is absolutely nothing in those 1000s of emails spanning many many years that indicates global warming is a hoax or fabrication. For those who would like the correct story, read Mann’s THE HOCKEY STICK AND THE CLIMATE WARS. One main point is that even if all of that tree-ring data were false (and they are not), anthropogenic global warming rests on other rock-solid science, and is no longer in dispute among practicing climate scientists. Whether we decide to reduce our GHG emissions (and other concomitant pollution) so as to reduce harm to people and God’s creation, that is up to us.

Same with evolution. It’s been well accepted in science many decades, and the evidence is so strong now, that it would be a huge twist to try and deny it.

As an anthropologist who is sensitive to people’s religious beliefs, I used to tell students they didn’t have to believe in evolution, but just learn it for the test. I would also explain that I actually first learned about evolution in Presbyterian Sunday school in the 50s (I think they figured we’d be learning about it in school and wanted to give it religious meaning); and that I’ve never had any trouble believing in God, being a religious person, and accepting evolution, and how it in fact made me all the more full of awe of God.

But then I started thinking about how lying is a sin, and when the science is really in on something, it would be a lie to turn away and not accept the science. So I’ve added onto what I tell students, that as a Christian I’ve come to understand that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design and rejecting evolution is perhaps a sin, and is probably a great insult to God, that we see Him as some David Copperfield magician, far short of His greatness and majesty.

As a person who also teaches mythology, I understand that the ancients were trying to understand the world as best they could, they were doing their science (and theology combined), and it makes sense if we have no knowledge of modern science. I respect their insights within their time periods.

God inspired the Bible, and the writers/tellers of it did the best they could within their knowledge frameworks (maybe God even told them about evolution, but it was just so awesome they just didn’t have the framework to get it right).

But God wrote another Bible directly – creation, from which we can learn. And science is like exigesis. We should in humility respect what the scientists are telling us, even though their “truths” are subject to change and correction with better evidence and theories. God is Truth, and we do well not to turn away from science and knowledge we gain from our God-given abilities.

 

[edwest2]

So Jesus Christ did not -

Raise the dead.
Give sight to the blind.
Cleanse the lepers.
Turn water to wine.
Walk on water.

Or literally tell the wind and waves to be quiet and still?

God does not need science and God does not need to observe the laws of physics.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

So Jesus Christ did not -

Raise the dead.
Give sight to the blind.
Cleanse the lepers.
Turn water to wine.
Walk on water.

Or literally tell the wind and waves to be quiet and still?

You’re going off on a zany tangent, Ed. No one ever said anything like this, or got anywhere near to implying it.

 

[edwest2]

I disagree. To some, there is a book about the God of the Old Testament. It’s title: “The God Who Did Nothing - how natural, random forces created us.” And “Who Needs God? - how biology has eliminated the need for the supernatural.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

I disagree. To some, there is a book about the God of the Old Testament. It’s title: “The God Who Did Nothing - how natural, random forces created us.” And “Who Needs God? - how biology has eliminated the need for the supernatural.”

Peace,
Ed

You disagree with what? Which post is such a comment in? You’re going off on strange tangents again, talking about some random book’s perspective on the OT. Its not in any way relevant to this thread.

 

[buffalo]

Skeletons of Pakicetus, among others. If you want me to find out which paleontology departments own the fossils, I will try but can’t promise you it will be today.

You won’t find much because they don’t have much. The artistic renderings go much further than the actual evidence allows.

 

[buffalo]

Whether you’re right or not, it’s not me that’s allegedly making assumptions, it’s paleontologists. I don’t have any problem accepting the scientific consensus that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals but it appears that you and Buffalo do?

Are you saying we don’t know or can’t know anything about the evolutionary origins of whales? If not, why not? Why does this exist as a scientific discipline if that’s the case?

Please show the number of morphological changes necessary.

 

[Farsight001]

Gradual? That can’t be proven.

Peace,
Ed

Incorrect. Not only can it, but it has. We have observed gradual change in numerous species and guided and re-created it in laboratories for decades.

 

[Farsight001]

You won’t find much because they don’t have much. The artistic renderings go much further than the actual evidence allows.

In the future, you should at least do a google search before making such claims. I highly suggest you do it now and then put your foot firmly in your mouth.

Please show the number of morphological changes necessary.

Stop your game playing buffalo. He was asking questions. You don’t quote a question and make a demand. That’s your attempt to stay on the attack and avoid addressing the tough questions that we all know you can’t answer. You’re trying to divert and redirect the conversation, and mold it in the manner in which you want it to go. It doesn’t work like that, so quit trying. It’s deceptive and misleading at the very least.

 

[gcharles]

Hi, Gcharles,

It appears to me that you are simply rambling on rather then simply answering the questions I have given you. This is sometimes identified as evasion. If this is your intent, please, continue to ramble - but, note such posts are usually not helpful to a thread that seeks dialogue.

I await your response.

God bless

 

[exnihilo]

How is that deceptive to anyone? You want deceptive? Try supposedly creating the world in a fantasy fashion and then somewhere in the middle, we went from a land of saints and dragons to a land of urbanite stupidity. THAT is deceptive. What’s deceptive is making people think that real life, the reality I know a lot of people (including myself) scorn and despise, is indeed just some big, mystical cover-up by science while underneath, it’s actually an Evangelical version of Azeroth.

You wanna know what happens if somehow, God proves you people right? Guys like me would have a really BIG bone to pick with Him (as soon as I pick up some courses in spellcraft while I’m at it ). You would not like how guys like me feel forced to put up the mundane of daily life, only to realize we could’ve been living the real-life versions of our MMORPG characters.

If could be perceived as deceptive because it can be seen to obscure God. Of course if that is how God made the world then it would not be deceptive since He is not a deceiver. The point I’d really like to make is this issue is viewed through our own imaginations of how we think God should work and thus making ourselves God which is the root of sin.

Real life is not the banalities of everyday living. Real life is your mind with its awesome powers to imagine. Real life is knowing the Eternal God. God has His reasons for making the world as He did. The best thing to do is simply accept that.

You speak of Greek philosophers and scientists but you’re ignoring the fact that these are the same people who also questioned the existence of a bearded man upon on the mountain who threw thunderbolts, slept with their women, and fathered heroes of legend.

What next? You’re going to tell me the Chimera and the Hydra were real too?

I dont think Aristotle or Pythagoras wrote about those things but I have to admit I’m not familiar with either man’s entire body of work. Based on your objection modern science is just as worthless because some people in our culture also write fictional books. Just because a culture has fantasy, myth or just plain wacky elements does not mean some people in that culture are not very scientific in the modern sense.

 

[gcharles]

gcharles:
So quoting from the bible is rambling. As Solomon has askwed what’s new under the sun? This is what the chuirch fathers believed. Do you believe you evolved from a monkey? Do you even know what empirical evidence is? As I asked where is any empirical evidence that there is speciation evolution. Please inform us. I’m sure Richard Dawkins would appreciate it. List your questions one by one. I believe you need to get off the baby milk. Catholics are the ones who approved books to go into the bible. What else in the bible don’t you believe in? Tell me are you a Progressive Catholic?

 

[vz71]

Have you heard of the “species problem”? Basically, there are no real defined species with obviously drawn lines of difference. They are all blurred together via tiny changes from generation to generation. We give divisions and organize traits to help us understand and categorize, but they’re not truly there. It all just flows together.

No, I have not heard of this problem.

But it seems a big one. If we do not have a clear definition for ‘species’ then it would be very hard to explain how a different species came about.

 

[vz71]

You can see what? None of those quotes say God does not exist or that God is not behind it all guiding it.

Sure they do.
We have superfluous theology and spirituality:

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

And we have the denial of God’s plan…

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)