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

[exnihilo]

When I read about evolution, what I read are *stories. *

Precisely. And they can never be anything more because we can’t go back in time and observe what we claim happened. This is obviously a tremendous problem with any historical knowledge for which we do not have narratives.

Because the alternative violates every scientific law and principle that has already been established (and may I add that these were speculations once too). The creation story is rife with fantastical elements that are more common in ancient mythology than anything resembling our reality.

Science is not the only way of having knowledge. In fact it is not even the best means. The ancients ranked knowledge Theology, Philosophy, and Science. Modern man, even churchmen, reverse that and many aren’t even sure anything but Science should be on the list. I’ll tell you what is fantastic, the idea of Professor Stephen Hawking that a vaccuum is nothing and that this nothing has creative powers which can bring about the universe that we can observe.

I’d need to know what laws and principles you claim would be violated. If you believe in the supernatural, and I do, then the story of creation as I understand it from Genesis is perfectly believable. I don’t need nor want to hinder God’s power.

Look, it’s either you believe our world was governed and is ruled by science or magic. You either take the absurd literalist perspective or start climbing up the slope of scientific understanding. What you fail to realize is that everything taught in schools about evolution has ties to other scientific disciplines. These in turn have principles that are just plain inviolable.

I believe our world is governed and ruled by God the creator of it. Science is His creation. Science is not the eternal uncaused creator.

I don’t know exactly what they teach in schools. From what I read they can hardly teach the basics that my grandfather, who only had eight years of school, learned. I do know that most people I encounter are almost completely lacking in any philosophical and logic skills. Many of these people are very well educated and are sure they know that evolution is true.

If there are scientific errors in the bible please identify them. If there are historical errors in the bible please identify them. The bible is more than a book of hope. The church must get over the Galileo paranoia. There is nothing in the bible that say the earth is in th the center of the universe. If the bible is not a history book how can you confirm the historical event that Jesus rose from the dead.

I agree. Many people want to limit the scope of the Bible. This is dangerous if the Holy Scriptures are in fact inspired by God. And from having studied the claims of the scientific issues that supposedly destroy the Bible’s authority in matters of science and history I find that the critics have poor and totally unconvincing arguments. I’d also note that having studied in a very amateur way the claims of modern physics and cosmology I see no reason to have to abandon geocentrism. Besides, the atheists used to claim that the Universe was eternal and thus no God was needed. They acknowledged the Universe having a beginning would point to God. The atheists of old were better at logic. But now that the Big Bang concept is accepted by science, it was rejected at first (in part because it pointed to God), they do not feel compelled to believe in God. When some of your chief authorities of modern cosmology make such ridiculous statements as Stephen Hawking I have doubts about the whole operation.

 

[buffalo]

Well, it appears that it’s been awhile since I dipped in these particular waters. That article and the several others it led me to are some heavy food for thought. It WOULD appear that most “junk” DNA isn’t junk. Interesting.

There has been much added info in the last decade or two:

1. Junk DNA - gone
2. Epigenetics
3. Rapid Adaptation
4. Natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one
5. Complexity and machinery of the cell
6. The Language of DNA
7. Convergent evolution - common design
8. Facilitated variation
9. Genetic Entropy
10. DNA actively fights through several iterations against mutations
11. ATP Synthase motor
12. Cell membrane complexity
13. Human Chimp similarities - less than 70%
14. Bacteria have latent antibiotic capabilities
15. Horizontal Gene Transfer and now “theft”
16. Tree of Life has fallen
17. Protein folding

These are off the top of my head.

See IDvolution.org for the details.

 

[Blacksword]

Because the alternative violates every scientific law and principle that has already been established (and may I add that these were speculations once too). The creation story is rife with fantastical elements that are more common in ancient mythology than anything resembling our reality.

Look, it’s either you believe our world was governed and is ruled by science or magic. You either take the absurd literalist perspective or start climbing up the slope of scientific understanding. What you fail to realize is that everything taught in schools about evolution has ties to other scientific disciplines. These in turn have principles that are just plain inviolable.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down there. Grandma? Wrong term. Primordial ancestor would be a better one.

And honestly, you don’t need to be a scientist to read Genesis (followed by several more books) and realize that the stories are drenched beyond redemption in too many mythological tropes. Better to understand the basic, spiritual, and moral truths in these stories (which was really the main purpose of myths even amongst pagans) than take them literally.

The world is not 6000 years old.
Dinosaurs did not live alongside man.
There is no such thing as a fire-breathing sea-monster named Leviathan.
There is no such thing as a giant lizard-beast called Behemoth.
Egyptian ‘sorcery’ cannot turn water into blood, summon a horde of frogs, or transform staves into snakes.

If you’re really not a Young Earth creationist, you should be prepared to actually accept any of the above (and more). However, once you do that, you’ll be hard-pressed to start reconciling and that’s where you have to face uncomfortable truths.

I repeat. You’re either a literalist or you’re not.

This. Excellent post, and an under appreciated point about the way in which early societies and pagan peoples would have understood these stories. They themselves were not so concerned with “historical fact” or anthropological origins, and the creation accounts of Genesis should therefore not be read with the modern sensibilities for such things in mind. The writers of such creation myths, and their intended audience, were telling stories to convey spiritual and theological meaning, the story was the vehicle for these truths, very much like Jesus’ parables. No one asked, and no one should care, if the “man with two sons” was a real guy or not; it’s the message in the story that is important.

 

[buffalo]

This. Excellent post, and an under appreciated point about the way in which early societies and pagan peoples would have understood these stories. They themselves were not so concerned with “historical fact” or anthropological origins, and the creation accounts of Genesis should therefore not be read with the modern sensibilities for such things in mind. The writers of such creation myths, and their intended audience, were telling stories to convey spiritual and theological meaning, the story was the vehicle for these truths, very much like Jesus’ parables. No one asked, and no one should care, if the “man with two sons” was a real guy or not; it’s the message in the story that is important.

Very interesting:

The quest for dragons Documentary part 1

 

[exnihilo]

This. Excellent post, and an under appreciated point about the way in which early societies and pagan peoples would have understood these stories. They themselves were not so concerned with “historical fact” or anthropological origins, and the creation accounts of Genesis should therefore not be read with the modern sensibilities for such things in mind. The writers of such creation myths, and their intended audience, were telling stories to convey spiritual and theological meaning, the story was the vehicle for these truths, very much like Jesus’ parables. No one asked, and no one should care, if the “man with two sons” was a real guy or not; it’s the message in the story that is important.

How do you know how societies and pagan people understood stories? Maybe you are right. But what argument do you have for your position? It seems to me the argument is slightly better than the other common one, which is that people in the past were stupid while we moderns are all geniuses. In that case the ancients are supposed to have believed the ridiculous stories out of their stupidity. In both cases the stories are considered fantastic and unbelievable. But you at least include the ancients in the group of not so stupid as to believe the stories in the Holy Scriptures in any literal sense. But it nonetheless bothers me that you are so sure you know what people many thousands of years ago intended. I don’t know what anyone besides myself intended and I’m not even always so sure of what I intend.

It seems to me your belief starts with the idea that no one could ever believe these stories because they are fantastic. But how do we know they are fantastic? Because modern science tells us. The ancients did not have modern science. So your assumption seems unwarranted. Personally I find it much harder to believe that something came from nothing, which is the basis of most modern notions of the creation of the universe. That defies basic logic. And yet people will believe this.

 

[CaptFun]

46% + 33% +15% = 94%

I wonder if the remaining 6% were Solipsists*.

• Solipsism ( /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist.

I’m a free-thinking Solipsist (not). I know my hands exist or I wouldn’t have been able to type this. And from there pretty much everything else exists too.

Well … not leprechauns. Except in dreams and fables. < But … THEY exist!

I hate philosophy.

(Are not the 33% that believe that God used - or may have used - “evolution” (here and there or all the time) - considered “Creationists” since they believe in God as the first cause)?

I haven’t been that interested in this beyond the “Yes, there is a God!” stage. :yawn: But it does sometimes seem a subject which causes (needless?) fighting, even among believers. :slapfight:

On one hand, I believe in God as creator (and the rest of the Nicene Creed’s teachings about Him). On the other hand (or IS IT the other hand?), “evolution” can be seen in the conception, formation, fetal development, and process and people which mother us from floating in amniotic fluid to being born and breathing air.

The greatest matter before me as an American is that some zealous members of the non-God 15% seem to have mandated that only the THEORIES of Charles Darwin and the like MAY be taught in our public schools.

Ben Stein’s recent documentary movie “Expelled” addresses that subject.

The idea that believers’ taxes must support a Government mandate (for what they believe to be a lie) seems almost “un-American,” < to revisit an old term. Some object due to the point of “believing they are being coerced into jeopardizing the eternal salvation of many souls” by that taxation.

If we are to call colleges “Universities,” then academic freedom should hold sway, PARTICULARLY when the problem is a feverish commitment to one unproven THEORY and the banning of any and all counter-THEORIES. The Truth will out. We need not artificially prop up an idea that will not stand on its own. :ballspin:

Add to this the fact that Atheism IS a religious position and in some places the “state religion;” and so should not be evangelized at taxpayer expense; preached to captive audiences (students) who must then dutifully regurgitate the proper teachings to obtain a grade or degree which will lead to work later on. <To pay off the years of debt accrued by their “student loans,” which not even bankruptcy can escape repayment of!

Having given a paragraph to evolution (albeit GOD using “evolutions” in His Creation) in my fetal development comments - it’s only right to note that no “missing link” from monkey to man has been found even in fossil records.

And we do not today see fish turning to lizards; lizards to dogs; dogs to horses and monkeys, and monkeys to humans. So the great talented non-being that accidentally bumbled into spontaneously generating our random universe and US … (is a poor substitute for the real God - and is possibly the worst idea ever).

This 46% figure trumpeted in the headline will be read by many as “Most people don’t believe that silly GOD stuff anymore.” < In my opinion.

 

[RACJ]

"Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down there. Grandma? Wrong term. Primordial ancestor would be a better one.

And honestly, you don’t need to be a scientist to read Genesis (followed by several more books) and realize that the stories are drenched beyond redemption in too many mythological tropes. Better to understand the basic, spiritual, and moral truths in these stories (which was really the main purpose of myths even amongst pagans) than take them literally." from Lost Wanderer

 I'll accept "primordial ancestor" if it makes people more comfortable. The point is that I believe that it is irrational to think that humans, or any organism, evolved from a single-celled organism. This defies common sense, but that doesn't stop millions of people who like to think themselves wise from believing that COUNTLESS life forms slithered into existence via modification through descent. Of course, this bizarre life-plan cannot be proved, not even the first step. 
 Later in your text you present a dizzying list of straw man arguments that I do not or would not make. Blessings, Rob :D

 

[ringil]

 I'll accept "primordial ancestor" if it makes people more comfortable. The point is that I believe that it is irrational to think that humans, or any organism, evolved from a single-celled organism. This defies common sense, but that doesn't stop millions of people who like to think themselves wise from believing that COUNTLESS life forms slithered into existence via modification through descent. Of course, this bizarre life-plan cannot be proved, not even the first step. 
 Later in your text you present a dizzying list of straw man arguments that I do not or would not make. Blessings, Rob :D

Defies your “common sense”.

 

[samiam1611]

It is so obvious to me that evolution is true. Natural selection. Common descent. Clearly my dog and I have a common ancestor. We both have a head with 2 eyes a nose and mouth with teeth and a tongue, and we both have a heart, rib cage, 2 lungs, 2 ears, we both have remarkably similar digestive systems and reproductive systems, we both love eating and sleeping. Why would dogs and cats have a common ancestor but not dogs and humans? Just cuz we are smarter and more complex than them doesn’t mean we didn’t develop by the same mechanisms. And apes? Please! youtube.com/watch?v=u0WsmOhm2Qc They have hands for pete’s sake! How can anyone deny that evolution is the perfect explanation for our similarities?
youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=kva_HlMk498&feature=endscreen

 

[Hokomai]

It is so obvious to me that evolution is true. Natural selection. Common descent. Clearly my dog and I have a common ancestor. We both have a head with 2 eyes a nose and mouth with teeth and a tongue, and we both have a heart, rib cage, 2 lungs, 2 ears, we both have remarkably similar digestive systems and reproductive systems, we both love eating and sleeping. Why would dogs and cats have a common ancestor but not dogs and humans? Just cuz we are smarter and more complex than them doesn’t mean we didn’t develop by the same mechanisms. And apes? Please! youtube.com/watch?v=u0WsmOhm2Qc They have hands for pete’s sake! How can anyone deny that evolution is the perfect explanation for our similarities?
youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=kva_HlMk498&feature=endscreen

A most excellent post; among a number of excellent posts in this thread. But on re-reading it, I come to understand why threads on evolution are banned in some places. Surely those who want to reject science would at least read a couple of Wikipedia articles?

 

[St_Francis]

Because the alternative violates every scientific law and principle that has already been established (and may I add that these were speculations once too).

The materialist theory of evolution also violates science and plain old common sense. Entropy shows us that things fall apart, and yet the theory of evolution is precisely the opposite.

The creation story is rife with fantastical elements that are more common in ancient mythology than anything resembling our reality.

What fantastical elements?

Look, it’s either you believe our world was governed and is ruled by science or magic…

There is a third alternative, and that is that God exists.

…And honestly, you don’t need to be a scientist to read Genesis (followed by several more books) and realize that the stories are drenched beyond redemption in too many mythological tropes. Better to understand the basic, spiritual, and moral truths in these stories (which was really the main purpose of myths even amongst pagans) than take them literally.

If you take God out of the picture, then yes, but if you take God out of the picture, whence morality? What need is there for spirituality?

Every day we hear about fantastical stories… like that offspring of one species emerge a different species; like that everything came out of nothing; like that in all areas of existence order must be maintained but that when it comes to existence itself, the order just *is; *like that there are bookcases’ full of information in *one *tiny cell, but that this just comes about through random chance;…

If you’re really not a Young Earth creationist, you should be prepared to actually accept any of the above (and more). However, once you do that, you’ll be hard-pressed to start reconciling and that’s where you have to face uncomfortable truths.

I repeat. You’re either a literalist or you’re not.

I am not any particular type of creationist: i simply believe that God created the world, that He created however He wanted to, and that we don’t know and won’t find out in this life how He did it. It may have been through His guided evolution; it may have been exactly as recounted in Sacred Scripture; what does it matter?

However, the fact that we cannot wrap our minds around that does not disprove God’s existence.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

In this thread it seems that biblical exegesis is very crudely represented. May I reccomend Joseph Ratzinger’s Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration ?

If you really think you can pick up the inspired word of God and read it like you would a textbook I think you really miss the point of the whole road to Emmaus. If you haven’t seriously applied yourself to a theological consideration of the sacred text, you should probably suspend your judgement about what it says about creation in depth and get that knowledge before weighing in on the biblical creation account.

If you doubt me, buy that book and be surprised.

 

[ringil]

I’ve never met a Catholic who doesn’t acknowledge the basic tenets of evolution.

I have never met a Catholic who believes that man walked with dinosaurs.

I have never met a Catholic who believes the world is 6000 years old.

Frankly, it’s embarrassing.

 

[edwest2]

This. Excellent post, and an under appreciated point about the way in which early societies and pagan peoples would have understood these stories. They themselves were not so concerned with “historical fact” or anthropological origins, and the creation accounts of Genesis should therefore not be read with the modern sensibilities for such things in mind. The writers of such creation myths, and their intended audience, were telling stories to convey spiritual and theological meaning, the story was the vehicle for these truths, very much like Jesus’ parables. No one asked, and no one should care, if the “man with two sons” was a real guy or not; it’s the message in the story that is important.

That’s baloney.

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”

Source: Catholic Answers Archive

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is so obvious to me that evolution is true. Natural selection. Common descent. Clearly my dog and I have a common ancestor. We both have a head with 2 eyes a nose and mouth with teeth and a tongue, and we both have a heart, rib cage, 2 lungs, 2 ears, we both have remarkably similar digestive systems and reproductive systems, we both love eating and sleeping. Why would dogs and cats have a common ancestor but not dogs and humans? Just cuz we are smarter and more complex than them doesn’t mean we didn’t develop by the same mechanisms. And apes? Please! youtube.com/watch?v=u0WsmOhm2Qc They have hands for pete’s sake! How can anyone deny that evolution is the perfect explanation for our similarities?
youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=kva_HlMk498&feature=endscreen

Nope. Not valid. As a designer, I would use the same instructions to build similar creatures with similar body plans. No common ancestor, just a designer. I suggest you read how after millions of years, something that was not necessary, existed. It’s all about switches, not pathways.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

All the data was loaded in the beginning.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Nope. I don’t believe in a God that has zero God-like capabilities, i.e. can create something from nothing - literally.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ringil]

Nope. I don’t believe in a God that has zero God-like capabilities, i.e. can create something from nothing - literally.

Peace,
Ed

“God-like”

What’s “God-like”?

 

[RACJ]

Defies your “common sense”.

No Ringil, the belief that we all evolved or improved through billions of positive mutations that can’t be observed in real life is folly. As you know, virtually all mutations are deleterious to an organism’s chances for survival or neutral. Yet you believe that something called “natural selection” somehow brought humans and millions of other life-forms billions of wondrous survival tools that we can’t replicate even using all our intelligence. I say rubbish! Rob
P.S I know many Catholics who regard the theory of evolution as a pernicious joke.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’d need to know what laws and principles you claim would be violated. If you believe in the supernatural, and I do, then the story of creation as I understand it from Genesis is perfectly believable. I don’t need nor want to hinder God’s power.

Belief in the supernatural is one thing. Believing our world is something out of a cliched, Christian Fantasy RPG is another. And on that note, much of the Pentateuch violates everything from the laws of physics to chemistry.

Wake me up when you can turn a staff into a snake.

 

[buffalo]

It is so obvious to me that evolution is true. Natural selection. Common descent. Clearly my dog and I have a common ancestor. We both have a head with 2 eyes a nose and mouth with teeth and a tongue, and we both have a heart, rib cage, 2 lungs, 2 ears, we both have remarkably similar digestive systems and reproductive systems, we both love eating and sleeping. Why would dogs and cats have a common ancestor but not dogs and humans? %between%

An excellent account of common design.