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

[samiam1611]

Yes it is, inteligent design is the theorie that the big bang, evolution, ect. are the methods god used to create the universe and life. It does not in any way invoke the bible or genesis.

No, that is not what is meant by Intelligent Design. Intelligent design rejects evolution. Perhaps you are thinking of theistic evolution or the teleological argument?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[Vasilis92]

I would consider myself in this 46% (if I lived in U.S.) simply because there is no good reason to interpret Genesis as a symbolical myth.And,therefore,if we take Genesis as a real historical account,Earth was created 7,000 years ago.
Besides,we cannot trust the dating methods and this is fact.

God bless

 

[Hunter24]

No, that is not what is meant by Intelligent Design. Intelligent design rejects evolution. Perhaps you are thinking of theistic evolution or the teleological argument?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Sorry but your wrong, the inteligent design taught in US public schools IS theistic evolution. You will not find a public school anywhere were genesis is taught in science class. Not only because this would anger non Christians, but because there is not a scrap of scientific evidence supporting a literal genesis. You, like so many people, are mistaken on what is actualy being taught when a teacher says “inteligent design”.

 

[buffalo]

. The funniest thing though is when fundamentalists push so hard for inteligent design, I don’t think many of them realize inteligent design is still evolution.

.

Huh? Please explain.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So both you and him seem to think free will is essentially what makes us human so I would like to know if you think pre-humans or archaic homo sapiens did not have free will? Free will could only have come about with God instantly infusing free will (a soul) into bodies that look like humans but were not humans?

That is correct, yes. As i point out in my article, an immaterial soul that can explain free will cannot be the result of emergent complexity, for the reasons stated. Thus, in fact my article is addressing naturalism, the idea that the physical world is all there is.

Also do you disagree with the quotes above from the CCC and JPII?

No, I agree with both. The CCC quote goes:

“Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

Communion with God is only possible by recognition of God, which rational humans can accomplish, but animals cannot. It also requires love of God, which in turn requires free will. Love is not just an instinct and and affection, but an act of commitment of the free will. One of the reason why so many marriages go sour these days is probably because people only appreciate the former, but not to the latter. Thus, once the chemical attraction wears off, they think the love is necessarily over.

 

[vz71]

Sorry but your wrong, the inteligent design taught in US public schools IS theistic evolution.

So you are claiming there is theism taught in public schools?

 

[samiam1611]

That is correct, yes. As i point out in my article, an immaterial soul that can explain free will cannot be the result of emergent complexity, for the reasons stated. Thus, in fact my article is addressing naturalism, the idea that the physical world is all there is.

Ok I suppose so. Upon rereading it, I think my position differs slightly from the one you’re arguing against. This is not an argument though, just musings.

I say I am a naturalist bc I don’t believe in the supernatural. When I say supernatural, I mean anti-natural. Like “I can’t believe my eyes, this is physically impossible, I must be hallucinating” type of thing. I am not particularly opposed to a force or essence that just happens to be outside the realm of science/nature. Though if it’s undetectable and immaterial can it really be said that such a thing exists?

These circuits were shaped by evolution – yet evolution is of no help to reliably arrive at the claim that naturalism is true. Already Darwin recognized the problem that natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind’s capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought – evolution selects only for physical adaptation and behavior, not for correctness of beliefs *). When evolutionary scientists claim that religion was selected for its behavioral survival advantage, they in fact concede, if they adhere to a naturalistic worldview, that evolution can indirectly select for an allegedly false belief

This entire paragraph is a-okay with me. I think they have conceded that.

So there is no use in saying that, in terms of frameworks of beliefs, evolution probably has endowed us with a reliable ability to see that naturalism – an exceedingly abstract concept far beyond everyday sensory experiences – is true, and therefore we ‘ought’ to see the truth of naturalism even under determinism.

The statement not within the dashes is okay. But how do you figure naturalism is abstract? Exceedingly abstract no less! Maybe I am an extra-dumb naturalist but there is nothing abstract about my beliefs. They are very straightforward and based on reality, on my everyday sensory experiences. I see water, and know it can’t turn into wine with a snap of fingers or a blink of an eye. Magical things happening - that’s what supernatural is to me, and that is what I reject. As the usually lame but occasionally apt saying goes, “It is what it is.” That barely even qualifies as a concept, let alone an abstract concept, let alone an exceedingly abstract concept.

Humans have **imaginations ** and this could’ve come about naturally, (not necessarily related specificially to evolution aka natural selection), it just…happened. You can’t have religion without imagination.

When I said,
“I would like to know if you think pre-humans or archaic homo sapiens did not have free will? Free will could only have come about with God instantly infusing free will (a soul) into bodies that look like humans but were not humans?”,

I felt like it could lead to interesting discussion but all you said was yes lol. I disagree with that so strongly. I think free will is semi-quantitative. I have more free will right now then I do when there is a pan of brownies in front of me. I think this orangutan has more free will than severely mentally disabled people. I think archaic humans or pre-humans had more free will than that orangutan. There is nothing instant about free will. There’s nothing anti-natural about it either.

I see humans as animals whose intelligence just skyrocketed compared to other animals. I see nothing supernatural about that, or any of the attributes and talents that result from our superior intelligence.

No, I agree with both. The CCC quote goes:“Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

Why. Why do you think that humans’ free will is supernatural but animals’ is not, or do you not think animals have free will at all? And why instant, why not believe God added increasing amounts of free will to his favorites, perhaps superceding natural laws, but not breaking them?

 

[grannymh]

Very small comment.
The human will itself which, at times, is able to freely choose/act is not quantitative. It is the will’s choices/acts which can be considered quantitative.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Vz71,

Hunter24 is right about this. Intellegent Design is referring to the Master Designer - God.

So, any school that would be teaching evolution as an expession of Intellegent Design would be teaching that God brought everything into existence and took billions of years to do it.

Do you think such an approach is a problem? If so, there is at least one federal judge who shares this opinion. Here is a link from 2005: msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/

Anything more current?

God bless

So you are claiming there is theism taught in public schools?

 

[grannymh]

Why. Why do you think that humans’ free will is supernatural but animals’ is not, or do you not think animals have free will at all? And why instant, why not believe God added increasing amounts of free will to his favorites, perhaps superceding natural laws, but not breaking them?

Very small comment.
The human will itself which, at times, is able to freely choose/act is not quantitative.
It is the will’s choices/acts which can be considered quantitative.

 

[samiam1611]

Given what I said in post 866, “Since I personally place human origin, Adam and Eve, around the time of the last Neandertals, there is the possibility of imitation by human-like beings.” I would say that there were some living Neanderthals or similar while Adam’s family was growing and growing and growing.

“humans” is that word used by scientists which does not match the specifications of human nature. In other words, the “humans” in scientific research papers are missing the spiritual soul which is what makes a lump of material matter a real human.

As for the real Adam and Eve, they were in some cozy love nest while their children and grandchildren took off to see the world.

This is my personal opinion. Adam and Eve had the same capabilities that distinguished them from human-like beings. They kept those capabilities after Original Sin with the difference that now their human nature was more susceptible to sin and dumb errors due to the difference between Eden and the rest of the universe. Since the capabilities of rational thought and willful decisions are part of human nature, they would be instant with the creation of Adam and Eve. What would have evolved or developed or whatever, would be knowledge.
Maybe I am a closet creationist ?

:yup: Maybe. That sounded like a whole lot of faith-based stuff. Catholicism has a tight grip on you granny.

Here is a thought I have been thinking. Koko is closely related to humans because theoretically, we both descended from a common ancestor population of random mating beings which at the beginning of the homo/pan divergence were neither human nor animal. With natural selection and the theory of genetics assumed to be operating back then as they do today, there is no reason why eventually some of the chimps, apes, etc., would not carry the material gene for rational thought. After all, part of the free-sex population did turn into humans with rational thought. Why not the other part?

Theoretically I don’t think it’s impossible, however I think humans destroying their habitats and other negative influences we have on the earth will not allow it to happen. I think it would be awesome if we could selectively breed some chimps or whatever and recreate a neanderthal or a homo erectus type of creature. Would we put them in zoos? If we found some neanderthals in some remote part of the world, how cool would that be? What would we do with them? They seem too human for zoos but not human enough to be like, tax-paying citizens.

 

[vz71]

Hi, Vz71,

Hunter24 is right about this. Intellegent Design is referring to the Master Designer - God.

Perhaps you believe it so, but the ID I am familiar with simply says there is an order there, that a plan is apparent.

You may call it God, the basic theory though leaves that open to interpretation.

That there is a public school stating that God is behind it all I would find astonishing.

 

[Hunter24]

Perhaps you believe it so, but the ID I am familiar with simply says there is an order there, that a plan is apparent.

You may call it God, the basic theory though leaves that open to interpretation.

That there is a public school stating that God is behind it all I would find astonishing.

There is. Thanks to religiouse lobbying. However they just teach an ultimate reality, not the Christian god in particular. It could be Ahla, Odin, Ra, or anything else.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

I think that would be a very interesting thought exercise.
That God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

nonsense. uncharitable much?
It is a perfectly respectable position that the Church has held for thousands of years.

If the Church has not condemned it, then why must you condemn it as foolishness.
but if thou callst me a fool…

 

[grannymh]

:yup: Maybe. That sounded like a whole lot of faith-based stuff. Catholicism has a tight grip on you granny.

Better yet. Granny has a tight grip on reality.

 

[gcharles]

When speaking of evolution would you PLEASE distinguish if you’re speaking of adaptive evolution or species evolution. If you’re saying species evolution please give proof. It isn’t even a theory it is only a postulate as admitted by Richard Dawkins. Catholic doctrine says the Bible is the Word of God. Some say God was incorrect in his description of Genesis. It took our scientists to straighten it out. Of course there is adaptive evolution. God gave you a brain! USE IT!

 

[vz71]

There is. Thanks to religiouse lobbying. However they just teach an ultimate reality, not the Christian god in particular. It could be Ahla, Odin, Ra, or anything else.

You are not making sense here.
An ‘Ultimate Reality’ is not the same as a specific god or God.

 

[vz71]

When speaking of evolution would you PLEASE distinguish if you’re speaking of adaptive evolution or species evolution. If you’re saying species evolution please give proof. It isn’t even a theory it is only a postulate as admitted by Richard Dawkins. Catholic doctrine says the Bible is the Word of God. Some say God was incorrect in his description of Genesis. It took our scientists to straighten it out. Of course there is adaptive evolution. God gave you a brain! USE IT!

If you are speaking the difference between Macro- and Micro- evolution, we have.
Much earlier in the thread.

 

[Hunter24]

You are not making sense here.
An ‘Ultimate Reality’ is not the same as a specific god or God.

Exactly, the ID they teach in school is generic. They don’t specify what the Designer is, just that he/she/it/they guided and assisted the development of life and the universe.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hunter24,

OK, now isn’t that position better (more in keeping with Faith) then the position that claims we are here simply through random events that just happened to unite in a truly unique way - and here we are?

God bless

Exactly, the ID they teach in school is generic. They don’t specify what the Designer is, just that he/she/it/they guided and assisted the development of life and the universe.