One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[edwest2]

Thank you for that. I may have difficulty explaining myself, but I do agree with the article. I don’t see evolution as the only explanation for everything that exists, but I certainly do see it as part of the explanation. I find it impossible to see evolution apart from Creator who set it in motion, and I have no idea how far reaching are its consequences or how far it can go to explain all things the way they currently exist. But I do find that any argument that excludes it entirely is not owning up to the evidence that exists. Why can’t we have evolution within the notion of intelligent design? I see them as compatible, complimentary, not contrary to each other, unless you push either to the absurd. Evolution cannot exclude God, norcan intelligent design exclude evolution. Does this make sense to you?

In a way. But I hope it is obvious to you that there are underlying agendas that, to me at least, are abundantly clear here. First, why does anyone care one bit that one-third of Americans reject evolution? What are the practical implications? I have read nothing convincing here as to a bad outcome. A scientist who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, asked others working in biology if it would make any difference to their work if it was shown evolution was not true. The consistent reply was no. It certainly didn’t help him in his own work.

So,

1. Science is silent about what it cannot study, right? Not so here. The implication is that God dropped souls into two almost humans and here we are. There is no - zero - scientific example that shows that the two ideas can be connected. It would violate the infinitely thick wall of separation between science and religion. Since this is true, anyone who states such a thing as true is not making a scientific statement.
2. Blind unguided chance put all life together. Can a person drive a car with a blindfold and with his hands off the steering wheel? Pope Benedict:

"Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.” [5]

“What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.”

1. Evolution as taught is the greatest tool anti-theists have. Just ask Richard Dawkins.
2. We must realize that those who wish Catholics to accept the Biology textbook as a standalone explanation, requiring ABSOLUTELY NO (name removed by moderator)UT on our part are purposely avoiding the rest of the story. In other words, Biology explains all and rejects ALL attempts to tie itself to anything supernatural. It has most of the answers and religion and God are just superstition and mythology.

Understanding that and knowing that universal acceptance is the goal, I have every reason to suspect a non-scientific motive in threads like this. Science is not, and cannot, be dogma in this case.

Peace,
Ed

 

[HansTrappist]

Thank you for that. I may have difficulty explaining myself, but I do agree with the article. I don’t see evolution as the only explanation for everything that exists, but I certainly do see it as part of the explanation. I find it impossible to see evolution apart from Creator who set it in motion, and I have no idea how far reaching are its consequences or how far it can go to explain all things the way they currently exist. But I do find that any argument that excludes it entirely is not owning up to the evidence that exists. Why can’t we have evolution within the notion of intelligent design? I see them as compatible, complimentary, not contrary to each other, unless you push either to the absurd. Evolution cannot exclude God, norcan intelligent design exclude evolution. Does this make sense to you?

Excellent point!

Anyone who has looked at the molecular nanotechnology present in the cell could easily and rightly conclude that these molecular machines were designed (even a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins believes that biology is filled with structures that appear to be designed). Since humans are supremely adept at detecting design, and since even staunch Materialists like Dawkins concede that the molecular building blocks of Life appear to be designed, and since there is no evidence that the molecular building blocks of Life were not designed, then it is certainly reasonable and scientific to conclude they were designed until someone can prove they were not.

Catholic biochemist Michael Behe has concluded that although Darwinian evolution can explain some interesting features of Life (adaptation, drug resistance, etc.) it cannot answer the most important questions of Biology. Behe has argued that the studies of HIV and Malaria conducted over the past fifty years and the more recent study of E.coli conducted by Richard Lenski provide scientists with the best data on what Random Evolution can or cannot do. Behe says that these studies demonstrate that Darwin’s mechanism - Random Mutation and Natural Selection - doesn’t “evolve” much of anything. Behe argues that there is in fact a statistical limit to what Random processes can achieve in Nature where it counts. Beyond that Limit, Behe argues that Non-Random (i.e. Intelligent ) processes are required.

The fact that Intelligent Design extends into Biology should not come as a shock to anyone ( except maybe the Atheists) given that we know that the Universe had a definite beginning and Physical Constants and Properties that reek of Intelligent Dedign.