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

[Blacksword]

Did God look as God planned?

? Sorry I’m not understanding the question.

 

[epan]

You are the second person to mention the Nobel prize. Perhaps I should start the nomination process.

Evo doesn’t explain much at all. It is philosophy since it does not meet the empirical test, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Here are some side by side predictions of Intelligent Design (IDvolution is philosophy vs Intelligent Design, the science.)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=11701

If it is not repeatable and observable, how do you explain my pet poodle?

 

[St_Francis]

Yes it is repeatable and observable, and has been shown as such in lab tests with fruit flies and such. The trouble then is that the goal posts are moved by creationists to draw a false distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution.

Can you explain the fruit fly experiment to which you are referring?

And the difference between micro and macro is *huge. *Micro-evolution, breeding, relates to genetics *within *a species. Macro-evolution is the idea that one species *turns into another *speicies. This is not a “false distinction;” micro-evolution was noticed and used hundreds of years before Darwin.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

For most of its history, the Church existed before we had discovered that the sun anchors our solar system, and only very recently have we understood what we do now about evolution and natural selection.

Creationism does not glorify God? How could it, it is untrue, if it means that evolution has not occurred. Or would you say that God designed things like DNA just to trick us? How do you explain the number of types of dog, or the success of the HIV retrovirus, if evolution does not exist?

microevolution vs macroevolution. the varieties of dog come from selective breeding, and they are all of the species canis familiars. All can mate and create fertile offspring with each other. The dog didn’t become a horse.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

From the survey:

Those With Postgraduate Education Least Likely to Believe in Creationist Explanation

um. . . . .

DUH!

Thank you for being charitable with your opinions

 

[Not_Sure_1]

that is why eugenics is necesary. since random mutations depend totally on the environment, we humans must make sure that preferable genetic traits are passed down so thet evolution will take a positive direction. one of the downsides of our sedantary decadent lifestyles is that we dont use our bodies and minds anymore since machines do it for us. this is the problem that can be remedied by selective breeding. therefore evolution is positive or negative depending on the environment.
and LOL please stop quoting that creationist website, its full of errors.

Eugenics cannot be supported by any Catholic.
Do you believe in the inferiority of people?
Have you not heard that Christ is not a respecter of persons?

 

[epan]

microevolution vs macroevolution. the varieties of dog come from selective breeding, and they are all of the species canis familiars. All can mate and create fertile offspring with each other. The dog didn’t become a horse.

In other words, you agree that evolution does occur. You just don’t see how a simpler organism can evolve into a variety of more complex organisms which results in species differentiation? Is that what you disagree with?

Would you also claim that a stem cell does not differentiate into different types of cells?

I don’t quite understand why you object to the theory of Natural Selection.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Sure I think it was “directed”, is that what you wanted to hear? I just don’t think God directed it like a cosmic tinkerer. He planned and ordered it “from the beginning” such to unfold and such that He didn’t need to actively or overtly direct or force things along.

Watchmaker hypothesis…?
(It is evil to believe that…)
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. – Ibid.
(cf. Syllabus of Errors)

 

[Not_Sure_1]

In other words, you agree that evolution does occur. You just don’t see how a simpler organism can evolve into a variety of more complex organisms which results in species differentiation? Is that what you disagree with?

Would you also claim that a stem cell does not differentiate into different types of cells?

I don’t quite understand why you object to the theory of Natural Selection.

explain how natural selection turns a dinosaur into a bird.
Small changes, do not necessarily turn into large changes.

The stem cells still remain human cells. THey do not turn to bird or anything else.

The mutations allowed in any species are quite small, any big change and things stop working. Most mutations are undesirable, and lead to earlier deaths.

Not to mention that Natural Selection does not increase complexity, it decreases it. The undesirable traits are eliminated. Natural selection does not add desirable traits.

 

[epan]

explain how natural selection turns a dinosaur into a bird.
Small changes, do not necessarily turn into large changes.

The stem cells still remain human cells. THey do not turn to bird or anything else.

The mutations allowed in any species are quite small, any big change and things stop working. Most mutations are undesirable, and lead to earlier deaths.

Not to mention that Natural Selection does not increase complexity, it decreases it. The undesirable traits are eliminated. Natural selection does not add desirable traits.

Actually, yes they do. There is only a small number of genetic differences between species. Remarkably small. You can google it, if you don’t believe me.

 

[Blacksword]

Watchmaker hypothesis…?
(It is evil to believe that…)
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. – Ibid.
(cf. Syllabus of Errors)

No it’s not the watch maker hypothesis, it’s the simple undeniable truth about the nature of the Creator: if God is truly "that than which nothing greater can be conceived, then this necessarily follows. A God who does not need to tinker in the process because He ordered it to unfold according to His will perfectly from the start is necessarily greater than a God who does need to tinker. What’s evil about that?

 

[St_Francis]

No it’s not the watch maker hypothesis, it’s the simple undeniable truth about the nature of the Creator: if God is truly "that than which nothing greater can be conceived, then this necessarily follows. A God who does not need to tinker in the process because He ordered it to unfold according to His will perfectly from the start is necessarily greater than a God who does need to tinker. What’s evil about that?

God could have created everything however He wanted. Why would one way be “better” than another? Why does making it your way indicate that God is greater than if He made it as described in the Bible? It’s not like the Bible described Him as “tinkering;” the Bible describes the process of creation as God’s power: He said, Let it be, and it was so.

(I am not arguing *for *the way described in the Bible; I just don’t understand why people make the argument you are making, which a previous poster made earlier in the thread.)

 

[samiam1611]

explain how natural selection turns a dinosaur into a bird.
Small changes, do not necessarily turn into large changes.

The stem cells still remain human cells. THey do not turn to bird or anything else.

The mutations allowed in any species are quite small, any big change and things stop working. Most mutations are undesirable, and lead to earlier deaths.

Not to mention that Natural Selection does not increase complexity, it decreases it. The undesirable traits are eliminated. Natural selection does not add desirable traits.

Individual organisms don’t evolve. Populations do. Repeat that in your head once more. You seem to have a somewhat flawed understanding of evolution.

Here is a very brief FAQ that I would like to suggest you read.
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

 

[epan]

explain how natural selection turns a dinosaur into a bird.
Small changes, do not necessarily turn into large changes.

The stem cells still remain human cells. THey do not turn to bird or anything else.

The mutations allowed in any species are quite small, any big change and things stop working. Most mutations are undesirable, and lead to earlier deaths.

Not to mention that Natural Selection does not increase complexity, it decreases it. The undesirable traits are eliminated. Natural selection does not add desirable traits.

You are correct that most mutations are rejected. You are incorrect in your understanding of Natural Selection.

 

[gcharles]

I am not an evolutionist but they will tell you even gravity is a theory, and we know it to be true. The difference with the evolutionary model is that it can not be demonstrated. Where I still don’t find the logic in the evolutionist mindset is right at the start. They will always acknowledge that “elements” came together and started the process of life. And, no matter how you want to re-word it, those elements somehow arranged themselves into complexity.

If one can believe in “infinite elements”, because that is what those elements would have to be, why take a hard core approach towards denying something else could be infinite? That “something else” being a spirit, God. I am not speaking of theistic evolutionists who at least see an intelligence behind it all, but the non deist scientist (or citizen) that embraces random chance complexity. To the theistic (Christian) evolutionist, I also find a strange melding of ideas. With all the works of Jesus contradicting natural laws and science, why jump on board the evolution train?

Adaptation is not evolution in the traditional sense, don’t confuse the two. I’m a creationist and believe adaptation plays a clear role on earth. Also remember many pre- geologists, physicists, biologists enter into academia having to accept evolution as a must. Dissenting from your peers is not an easy thing to do in that environment, and some hold back even after seeing the big leaps made by their comrades to preserve the “faith”.

I’m not surprised that “46%” hold creationist views of human origins, it is most likely higher. Is it supposed to be a shock? The catholic church does not mandate that you believe in theistic evolution. In fact many in the church had long believed otherwise.

Dissenting from God’s God is not an easy thing to do. I believe you’re saying you believe in horizontal evoution and not vertical evoution. The apostolic Catholic church certainly believed in Genesis. I am an apostolic Christian attending the Catholic church. Glad you clarified.

 

[gcharles]

I weary of these debates. The Bible is not a book, it is a library, a collection of many different books and different genres of literature. Genesis is NOT the same genre as the gospel of Matthew or the letters of St. Paul!

And to the creationists: do you realize that at this point evolutionary biology is the underpinning of nearly EVERY natural science? Without it our understanding of Virology, Kinetics, physiology, developmental psychology, and dozens of other fields falls apart? Evolutionary biology explains WHOLLY the natural phenomena we see in geologic strata of fossil placement, genetics, anatomy and physiology, and other major areas of research and study, without a single instance of contradictory data. Think about this for a minute: all you need to disprove evolutionary biology is to find ONE example of, say, a Labrador retriever fossil buried in the same layer as a triceratops…and yet this has never happened, not even once…don’t you think that is pretty strong evidence?

And to those who love the reference to the early fathers or Christian teachings, St. Augustine not only did NOT interpret the Genesis creation account in literalist fashion, he urged Christians to be knowledgable about subjects they discuss and to abandon positions that are plainly false to avoid making the faith appear ridiculous to others. Origen also said unequivocally that Genesis was not a literal historical account of creation.

But I’ll say this: if you reject science, be consistent about it at least. Don’t reject the foundation and then get vaccines, the reasons they would purport to have prophylactic benefit are based on Evolutionary biology! Medicines or treatments that were tested on animals first also must go: the only reason testing on, say, chimps, is of benefit for human application is under the assumption a priori that human and chimp biology is closely related by Evolution. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it too. Live like the Amish: at least they are consistent.

I reject science when it is contradictorary to God’s word. If you’re saying that you believe that lower forms of life evolve into higher forms of life that’s a problem. If you believe that give me the empirical evidence. When you find there isn’t any then that evoution isn’t even a theory it is only based on a postulate. The wisdom of man is foolishness to God.

 

[gcharles]

It’s also interesting that Genesis is not the same genre as Matthew. Genesis is absolutely as accurate as Matthew. I would refer you to Maimonides, who is onne of the great philosophers of Judaism. I would also say that if the original church fathers woulld have thought Genesis had errors it would not have been included the Bible which was determined by the Original Church. That church is the Catholic Church. Maimonides said that God dictated the Torah as someone would take dictation. Maimonides also says if you reject one word of the Torah you have rejected the entire Torah- which is the first five books of the New Testament. We have evolved from God’s word to ‘maybe’ God’s word. With God maybe isn’t good enough. Always remember the wisdom of men-even brilliant scientists-is foolishness to God.

 

[johnnyjones]

You can debate the “scientific” nuances of evolution but do not neglect how important the people of the bible are to the creation account. After all this is a theological issue. Adam, Eve, Abel, Noah are NOT referenced in a mythical way in the NT. In fact they are spoken of next to other “more recent” real people including Jesus. Abel’s blood is compared to the real blood of Jesus. Did Abel die in some fake land? Some suscribing to theistic evolution will often say they don’t deny Adam, Eve etc., but strangely they deny their origins, their environment, their family, reducing them to having evolved through a possible simian chain.

 

[vz71]

Yes it is repeatable and observable, and has been shown as such in lab tests with fruit flies and such. The trouble then is that the goal posts are moved by creationists to draw a false distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution.

Source?

If this is the same that I am familiar with, the work was later determined to be the result of lab contamination.

 

[buffalo]

Yes it is repeatable and observable, and has been shown as such in lab tests with fruit flies and such. The trouble then is that the goal posts are moved by creationists to draw a false distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution.

Deformed fruit flies, that is your case?

Absolutely there is a difference between adaptation and macro-evolution. No one argues adaptation.