One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[SuperLuigi]

NONE of your ancestors were related grunting ape? HUMANS
are related grunting ape, chimpanzees sharing 98.8% genetic
commonalities. What are you then?

That 1.2% is still a big difference. Don’t be so wrapped up in that.

And Evolution doesn’t leave God out at all, it just say “GOD”!

Isn’t it like Creationists to put words in Science’s mouth?

Not especially if you’re talking about people who don’t think the world is 6000 years old, but even they’ve got some interesting conclusions to ponder.

 

[captainrick]

Like most educated people I believe in micro evolution, that is, species change over time to adapt to their environment. However, I do not believe in macro evolution, that is, species change into other species. If you really looked into the evidence, you would see there is no evidence that supports species completely change into other species. There are too many gaps in the fossil record.

Right! I think when people say they “do not believe in evolution,” they are referring to the macro variety.

 

[edwest2]

The theory of evolution still has a lot of explaining to do, if it’s not going to allow any possibility of intelligent design. The following link gives some details about the human eye. Granted it was written in 1986, but even back then the writer dealt with the atheists’ favourite complaint about the “retina being inside out.”

creationmoments.com/content/design-human-eye

When evolutionists can explain how the eye, along with all the necessary paraphernalia for us to interpret vision (spaces in the bone for nerve canals, cross over links to each hemisphere, the filtering out of “noise” by the retina, the immense number of calcuations that are required ie. information theory), came to be without any chance of intelligent design, then I’ll start believing them. As far as I’m concerned, they’re nowhere near the mark.

The writer does mention computer chips, which obviously have moved a long way since 1986. But they haven’t “evolved” either - every inch of progress has been the result of intelligent design, as is the case with every other bit of human progress.

We’re pretty keen on claiming credit for own intelligence (which is a gift when it’s all said and done, so we can’t boast anyway), but we’re loathe to credit God with having any intelligence.

The story of the Creation leaves God out. God becomes a God without any power whatsoever. The God who did nothing. Today, science has become a god for some.

God forbid,
Ed

 

[dshix]

Whoever told you that there is little or no physical, substantial, or empirical evidence for it lied to you.

No one told me. Science did. Or rather, the lack, thereof.

THEORY, not hypothesis. Creationism is a hypothesis,
one that has never been verified by real scientists. Evo-
lution is a theory, which is a well-substantiated explan–
ation of some aspect of the natural world, Creationism
is not. Why? Because it is a hypothesis based on the
literal interpretation of Genesis.

Theory? Perhaps you should refresh on what the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is.

Evolution is a possible explanation of the world. “A possible” explanation. There is no solid evidence for it. As it is, all these similarities and connections that seem to prove it are purely circumstantial evidence; there are many other explanations for them.

For you to speak of evolution with such faith is telling of how little you know of the “proof” for it. I use “proof” here to mean “empirical, visible, tangible evidence for a considered hypothesis”.

Show me. Prove to me that it is true. I am open minded. I have no prejudice. I also don’t believe blindly in it, however, like some (or many) others do, so you’ll just have to make your case.

 

[LovedMyAlydar]

How sad that on a “Catholic” site, those who believe that God created the world are treated like wacko’s and posters put silly faces to imply how “stupid” they are for believing what the bible says.

Well put me with those fools because I believe God created man and our world. To think that something so beautiful came about by happenstance is just not believable to me. When I see the beauty of this earth and all that is on it I see God.

God created man in His image, so is God a monkey? He sent His Son as a man, not as a ape. Man has an immortal soul, an animal does not. So when did that “evolve”? Or did a soul just decide to appear?

 

[edwest2]

How sad that on a “Catholic” site, those who believe that God created the world are treated like wacko’s and posters put silly faces to imply how “stupid” they are for believing what the bible says.

Well put me with those fools because I believe God created man and our world. To think that something so beautiful came about by happenstance is just not believable to me. When I see the beauty of this earth and all that is on it I see God.

God created man in His image, so is God a monkey? He sent His Son as a man, not as a ape. Man has an immortal soul, an animal does not. So when did that “evolve”? Or did a soul just decide to appear?

Exactly. Science cannot study what it can’t observe, so souls don’t and can’t exist.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RinoaHeartilly]

 

[estesbob]

Much of the current thinking in evolutionary theory takes into account the lack of “transitional forms,” and postulates more drastic transitions, if I’m not mistaken.

So absence of proof we have to take it on"faith" that these transitions occurred?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

(Shortening quotes for SPACE)

Of course it crosses God out of the picture, especially when science textbooks go beyond what science can say and into personal worldviews.

Alright, let’s check it out…

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

I’m sure that this is being taken out of context, because
Evolution is NOT random. It is the combination of (YES)
*random *mutation AND natural selection. Not Random.
Also, I don’t believe in randomness in Nature, as it is all
guided by God.

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

Just because some scientists say that humans
are an accident of nature, without any intention-
al design, does not mean that God didn’t have
a hand in Evolution.
Also, Science does not hold a position for
or against God, random scientists do.

“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.)

Darwin, a man who came up with Evolution, believed in
God, and did see the Hand of God at work in nature. I
don’t see where you’re going with this.

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence… **Darwinian evolution was **not only purposeless but also heartless… **humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us… 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.)

WHO IS THIS JOSEPH S. LEVINE?! NONE of that are
positions held by science and personally, this Joseph
sounds like a real non-objective, biased thinker.

“…evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ … evolution is not directed…"
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

That’s a lie too. The goal of Evolution in nature is for species to sur-
vive. Also, scientists can’t say without evidence that some invisible
God is behind evolution, but can only state what the evidence has
to say.

Joseph S. Levine “The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional… **it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

THAT IS A LIE!
Natural Selection is the OPPOSITE of “blind”!
I don’t know who these people are (except Dawkins),
but that is not a scientific claim at all (the blind part).
(I saw and answered this before the prior point and was outraged!)

…“[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

Again, without physical evidence of a God creating all things,
scientists and scientific sources cannot say " GOD DID IT! "
Of course God guided everything, what you put in a SCIEN-
TIFIC BOOK?!

“…we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)"

We say many things are random, but later on we find that maybe God was
behind all those seemingly random events in our life. Such is the case with
Evolution. Everything SEEMS all random, by chance, but God is working in
the background of all existence, guiding everything as he chooses.

You don’t have to be a creationist to notice the blatant bias.

There I will agree with you. Some scientists do take an atheistic position, others
will say things that seem atheistic when they don’t really mean to say there’s no
God, then you have the Creationists who do anything and everything, even if it is
lying, to defend their literal interpretations.

Science is about studying the physical world and all that the evidence says, not
to discuss God’s place in it all, but it never says that God doesn’t have a place.

You’re the one who is "X"ing God out of Evolution, desperately quote
mining for what I see is as merely a case of “He said - She said” etc.

 

[Seamus_L]

Not a miracle contained in the Bible or Sacred Tradition can be scientifically explained. Yet some people think we should subordinate the Word of God to ever evolving science.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Not a miracle contained in the Bible or Sacred Tradition can be scientifically explained. Yet some people think we should subordinate the Word of God to ever evolving science.

Yes, miracles in the Bible can’t really be explained, but I don’t believe in a God who would set up
the physical world in such a way so as to confuse us. What did Paul say to the Romans? Nature
Testifies of God. I can’t see why God would make the whole universe appear in such a way that a
Catholic priest would come to realize the Big Bang theory, nor do I see a God that would set Na-
ture up in such a way so that a Creationist like Darwin would come to understand that life evolves.
My God doesn’t play with people’s heads, but yours does I guess.

 

[Farsight001]

Of course it crosses God out of the picture, especially when science textbooks go beyond what science can say and into personal worldviews.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“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.)

“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.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)"

You don’t have to be a creationist to notice the blatant bias.

Peace,
Ed

We’ve been over these quotes before, Ed. none of them say “there is no God”, and all of them, as you freely admit, are in the context of a science book. And since science is the study of the natural world and God is supernatural, science can make no comment or assertion regarding God or his possible influence. They are not asserting that God does not exist or had no influence. They are merely unable, scientifically speaking, to comment on it or factor it into their scientific explanations.

 

[Farsight001]

Please give specifics.
I would like to review such proof for myself.

Of what? You were not specific enough for me to know what you are referring to.

 

[Farsight001]

The theory of evolution still has a lot of explaining to do, if it’s not going to allow any possibility of intelligent design. The following link gives some details about the human eye. Granted it was written in 1986, but even back then the writer dealt with the atheists’ favourite complaint about the “retina being inside out.”

creationmoments.com/content/design-human-eye

When evolutionists can explain how the eye, along with all the necessary paraphernalia for us to interpret vision (spaces in the bone for nerve canals, cross over links to each hemisphere, the filtering out of “noise” by the retina, the immense number of calcuations that are required ie. information theory), came to be without any chance of intelligent design, then I’ll start believing them. As far as I’m concerned, they’re nowhere near the mark.

The writer does mention computer chips, which obviously have moved a long way since 1986. But they haven’t “evolved” either - every inch of progress has been the result of intelligent design, as is the case with every other bit of human progress.

We’re pretty keen on claiming credit for own intelligence (which is a gift when it’s all said and done, so we can’t boast anyway), but we’re loathe to credit God with having any intelligence.

Scientific explanations for the evolution of the eye are nearly a century old. Just because a creationist source says the evidence doesn’t exist doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth.

As for the term “intelligent design”, i think you are using it improperly. You seem to be using it to refer to God-guided evolution. This is actually called “theistic evolution”. Intelligent Design is, quite literally, young earth creationism by another name. The only things that are different is that they say “intelligent designer” instead of “God” and “intelligent design” instead of “creation”.

 

[Farsight001]

That 1.2% is still a big difference. Don’t be so wrapped up in that.

And Evolution doesn’t leave God out at all, it just say “GOD”!

Not especially if you’re talking about people who don’t think the world is 6000 years old, but even they’ve got some interesting conclusions to ponder.

Not really. Preliminary estimates suggest that that is enough similarity to successfully mate and produce offspring. Thankfully, no one is willing to test this theory, and I’m sure everyone on both sides of the issue considers it a good idea to leave this issue unproved.

 

[Farsight001]

Right! I think when people say they “do not believe in evolution,” they are referring to the macro variety.

Do you remember science class in school? When they taught you the metric system? “macro” and “micro” are two prefixes for different scales. A macrometer is just a lot of micrometers put together. If you have enough micros, you WILL get to a macro eventually. There is logically no way to stop this from happening. It is the same way with evolution - micro and macro are not different kinds of evolution. Their difference is one of scale. Lots of micros add up to a macro EVERY TIME. That’s just math.

 

[Farsight001]

No one told me. Science did. Or rather, the lack, thereof.

It definitely wasn’t science that told you that. i’ve found proof myself. heck, proof of evolution is literally built into the walls of my house. It is everywhere you look and i bet you see it every day even. You just have to know what you’re looking at.

Theory? Perhaps you should refresh on what the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is.

A theory is a body of evidence that explains how and why something is a fact. Evolution has been directly observed occurring. Therefore, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the body of evidence that helps explain how and why the fact happens.

Evolution is a possible explanation of the world. “A possible” explanation. There is no solid evidence for it. As it is, all these similarities and connections that seem to prove it are purely circumstantial evidence; there are many other explanations for them.

Completely and utterly incorrect.

For you to speak of evolution with such faith is telling of how little you know of the “proof” for it. I use “proof” here to mean “empirical, visible, tangible evidence for a considered hypothesis”.

Its not faith. That you assume it is only goes to show how little you know about it.

Show me. Prove to me that it is true. I am open minded. I have no prejudice. I also don’t believe blindly in it, however, like some (or many) others do, so you’ll just have to make your case.

sorry, but it is patently obvious that you do have a prejudice by your term usage and your very standard creationist talking points.

 

[Farsight001]

How sad that on a “Catholic” site, those who believe that God created the world are treated like wacko’s and posters put silly faces to imply how “stupid” they are for believing what the bible says.

Well put me with those fools because I believe God created man and our world. To think that something so beautiful came about by happenstance is just not believable to me. When I see the beauty of this earth and all that is on it I see God.

God created man in His image, so is God a monkey? He sent His Son as a man, not as a ape. Man has an immortal soul, an animal does not. So when did that “evolve”? Or did a soul just decide to appear?

I don’t see a single person here denying that God created the world.

 

[SeannyM]

I feel like this is an appropriate place to share this little tidbit of comedy… a true testament to our educational system:

huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/america-2014-years-old_n_4520508.html

 

[dshix]

As for the term “intelligent design”, i think you are using it improperly. You seem to be using it to refer to God-guided evolution. This is actually called “theistic evolution”. Intelligent Design is, quite literally, young earth creationism by another name. The only things that are different is that they say “intelligent designer” instead of “God” and “intelligent design” instead of “creation”.

You think he is using it improperly? Well, you’re mistaken. ID is not in any way restricted to creationism. I am not a creationist, yet I use the term all the time.

“Intelligent Design” can be used perfectly in the context of theistic evolution. If evolution is true, which I have seen little proof to suggest, then I believe in theistic evolution.

Do you remember science class in school? When they taught you the metric system? “macro” and “micro” are two prefixes for different scales. A macrometer is just a lot of micrometers put together. If you have enough micros, you WILL get to a macro eventually. There is logically no way to stop this from happening. It is the same way with evolution - micro and macro are not different kinds of evolution. Their difference is one of scale. Lots of micros add up to a macro EVERY TIME. That’s just math.

The bolded is your problem. No, micro does not always add up to macro. As a matter of fact, when the prefixes are applied to words to signify a large or a small scale, they do not have a strictly mathematical meaning in the same sense that they do when used as prefixes for numbers.

No number of microscopes will add up to a telescope.

So, your contention that since evolution happens on a microscale means it MUST happen on a macroscale is unproveable. I won’t say it is false, because it may not be, but you can’t simply make that assertion without some kind of evidence, of which you have none.