One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So if the weak link is science, then IDvolution is NOT science, wouldn’t you agree? Further, if science is the weak link, then of what value is the fact that science supports the conclusion?
Human reasoning is always the weak link. We reason science. We must be sure the reasoning of the observations/data is correct.
 
Faith and reason cannot be opposed as our Pope said. Is your claim there exists no area where both are true?
The Pope also never said that Evolution is dead. The Church takes no position, but it doesn’t call the Faithful to reject Evolution.

My Faith and My Reason can coexist in peace.
My Faith trust God and the Bible.
My Reason trust Scientists and Science.
My Reasoning does not consider your ID true science, but merely an opinion that holds
that some things are so complex in appearance, then someone must have gone done it.
My Reason and My Faith come to
grips and say, “Yes, there is a God,
and by the evidence, God used the
process of evolution.”
Then ID goes, No No, it’s by design, no evolution!
Suddenly then All Reason goes out the window.
 
What would happen to me if I choose to reject the theory of evolution? I’m not saying what if I reject all of science. This question is limited to rejection of the theory of evolution.
Some people will call you ignorant, uneducated and foolish. They may even be on this forum. Go onto youtube and be plug your ears err I mean eyes. They will call you every name in the book.
So, if I chose to reject the theory of evolution I would get socially punished for not being a conformist. That’s pretty ironic.
 
What would happen to me if I choose to reject the theory of evolution? I’m not saying what if I reject all of science. This question is limited to rejection of the theory of evolution.
If you reject Evolution, simply because you don’t understand it or can’t believe it,
that’s fine, go and stick to what God gave to the ancients for their understanding
that it was God who did it all.

BUT, don’t then try to prove things like Genesis 1-11 and treat it all as science.
 
Human reasoning is always the weak link. We reason science. We must be sure the reasoning of the observations/data is correct.
It appears you have not answered either of my questions. The ID theory seemed better to me before you presented the flow chart. Now it seems to be a philosophical, theologically-driven theory, which is all right but hardly scientific according to the very criteria of observation, hypothesis, and hypothesis-testing mentioned earlier.
 
Here’s a question. If we have evolved so much, why do we still have the same moral problems today that they had in B.C. Old Testament times? And actually those problems have gotten worse. For example, today we have to worry that humans will destroy the whole world with nuclear war. They didn’t have that problem in the B.C. times.
 
The Pope also never said that Evolution is dead. The Church takes no position, but it doesn’t call the Faithful to reject Evolution.

My Faith and My Reason can coexist in peace.
My Faith trust God and the Bible.
My Reason trust Scientists and Science.
My Reasoning does not consider your ID true science, but merely an opinion that holds
that some things are so complex in appearance, then someone must have gone done it.
My Reason and My Faith come to
grips and say, “Yes, there is a God,
and by the evidence, God used the
process of evolution.”
Then ID goes, No No, it’s by design, no evolution!
Suddenly then All Reason goes out the window.
Actually, the reasoning of the science raw data (supporting resources page) support the conclusion of ID the philosophy.

You did not answer the question though. Yes or no - Is your claim there exists no area where both are true? (faith and reason that is)
 
Imagine, if you will an alien species originating in a much denser galaxy and planet than the earth we find ourselves upon. Owing to the incredibly dense environment of their home planet, this species evolved senses and developed scientific equipment suited only to the observation, detection and analysis of only very dense materials.

Further imagine that this species travelled away from their planet and happened upon the planet Earth. With the particular senses which were part of their physiological makeup and the scientific equipment geared only to observation and analysis of the denser materials on the Earth such as iron, other metals, glass, concrete and a variety of inorganic minerals, these creatures became intrigued by the movements of certain entities on the surface of the Earth. Organic, carbon based beings such as plants, animals and humans completely escaped their detection.

These aliens became transfixed upon the cars, trucks, airplanes, ships, trains, etc. that moved about on the surface, air and waters of the Earth. Convinced as they were by the regular movements and somewhat predictable behaviours of the mechanical vehicles on the Earth, these aliens began to develop a theory of the evolution of the “life forms” on the planet.

The top scientists theorized that metallic based life forms on the earth evolved into more sophisticated forms based upon increments in speed, rather than survival. The higher evolved forms, such as airplanes, rockets and certain land based vehicles achieved extraordinary speeds - given their primitive mechanical structure - depending upon their efficient use of certain fossil based fuels which they sucked from underground or above ground metallic capsules, tubules or other stationary metallic lifeforms the aliens called “plants” because these did not move. The metallic animated forms would consume and be lubricated by undetectable compounds - it was speculated - which were extracted from underground by the stationary life forms, since these stationary forma often extended long tubules down into the crust of the earth into the hollow pockets that were found there…

Migration patterns of the mobile Earth life forms along certain asphalt or metallic pathways were tracked by the alienscientists over time. Certain patterns of behaviour were documented and generalized theories of how red colours affected these creatures by causing them to stop and green colours made them resume motion were published. The scientists generally agreed that Earth’s life forms were primitive metal based organisms that acted quite predictably, but had evolved based upon natural selection for speed. Faster organisms were more successful because they moved away from crowded conditions into the air or less trafficked trackways.

The existence of animals, plants and human beings completely escaped their attention. Anomalies such as why collisions between organisms occurred were explained by metallurgical defects in the less fit specimens. Since collisions occurred less frequently with the airborne forms, these were deemed more advanced.

Nowhere in their theorizing did these alien scientists suggest that the life forms on Earth had evolved even a semblance of intelligence, since the behaviour of Earth’s metal based inhabitants was quite predictable and “mechanical” in cause.
These scientist were convinced by the nature of their own sensory apparatus and of the equipment in their arsenal that intelligent life was not present on Earth. No where was there evidence of intentional planning, anticipation, creative or spontaneous behaviours that could be taken as signs of intelligence. The asphalt roadways and metal trackways grew “crystal-like” in the environment and the vehicular inhabitants took advantage of the pathways to bump up their speed.

More complex vehicles capable of higher speeds could survive whereas slower outmoded vehicles less capable of speed increases were naturally culled by increments in speed. They simply could not keep up so they meandered away from trackways into solitary existence where they gradually decomposed as a result of natural chemical processes such as rusting.

What these scientists had failed to notice, because of the limitations of their “scientific” gear and empirical faculties was that even though the mechanical motions of the devices used by the undetectable - to the aliens - biological and intelligent life forms (humans) on the earth, these movements were - to the aliens - predictable and explicable by cause-effect analysis. The biological forms, that had escaped their attention, were actually piloting the mechanical devices and furthermore were engaged in a myriad of activities like writing books, doing scientific analysis, developing technology, etc. which were the intelligent underpinnings of the metal based devices that escaped alien detection. What the aliens mistook as primitive and unintelligent behaviours of mechanical vehicles was, in reality, the metallic “wake” of the more meaningful behaviours of the undetectable intelligent beings piloting the vehicles. Furthermore, the aliens missed completely the fact that the vehicles on the Earth did not evolve but were the calculated result of careful design and crafting by the intelligent soft life form that had completely escaped their attention.

Continued…
 
… From last

Since our understanding of the natural is limited by our sensory data and tools developed to analyze it, there could very well be an entire “sphere” of reality we are missing because, like the alien scientists, we assume there can be nothing else that warrants our attention - that our faculties and technology provide the complete picture, when they, in fact, do not. It is not the wisest position to believe we have a complete picture, then call everything else unscientific and ridiculous, then promptly dismiss it.

Furthermore, the alien scientists could very well have cited Occam’s razor as a reason to not pursue any further the possibility of intelligence underpinning the movements and evolution of the Earth’s vehicular contraptions, since the “normal” patterns of behaviour were very well explained by cause-effect physics and “natural” selection. No need to invoke “spooky” ghosts inside the machines when simple general rules could explain the patterns of behaviour observed by the aliens.

Yet, these scientists missed an entire intelligible world because they weren’t looking for it and hastily dismissed as “unscientific” any signs that pointed at entities controlling the vehicles that may have better explained why these vehicles behaved unpredictably at times. Since the incidence of unpredictable movements was relatively small, these were easily explained away as anomalies rather than as critical pieces of data.
 
Who are Lawrence Krauss, Francisco Ayala, and Kenneth Miller?

Are they members of the Magisterium?
Lawrence Krauss is a bit of an anti-theist. He is somewhat famous among some religious circles for his statement “We believe the universe came from nothing, but we have changed what we mean by something and nothing”. Ken Miller is actually a devout Catholic. I have never heard of the other guy, though.
 
It appears you have not answered either of my questions. The ID theory seemed better to me before you presented the flow chart. Now it seems to be a philosophical, theologically-driven theory, which is all right but hardly scientific according to the very criteria of observation, hypothesis, and hypothesis-testing mentioned earlier.
It is working in the intersection where faith and reason both are true. Follow the arrows.

God (name removed by moderator)uts the information. He (name removed by moderator)uts Revelation and the workings of the universe. We reason our observations (raw data —> conclusions) . IDvolution considers the data the scientific community is providing. In the area if intersection both must be true by definition.

We have findings that can be put into the intersecting area.
 
**25] **
**26] **Dembski’s idea of “complex specified information” is nonsense
**27] **The Information in Complex Specified Information (CSI) Cannot Be Quantified
**28] ** ? Isn’t it just a “pet idea” of some dubious commenters at UD?
**29] **The ID explanatory filter cannot rule out chance or unknown laws!
**30] **William Dembski “dispensed with” the Explanatory Filter (EF) and thus Intelligent Design cannot work
**31] **Intelligent Design Tries To Claim That Everything is Designed Where We Obviously See Necessity and Chance
**32] **What types of life are Irreducibly Complex? Or which life is not Irreducibly Complex?
33] In the Flagellum Behe Ignores that this Organization of Proteins has Verifiable Functions when Particular Proteins are Omitted, i.e. in its simplest form, a protein pump
**34] **Behe is Jumping to Conclusions on P. falciparum and his so-called edge of evolution. P. falciparum did not evolve because it did not need to evolve: it is so perfect already that it cannot improve upon itself
35] What About the spreading of antibiotic resistance?
**36] **ID Proponents Talk a Lot About Front-Loading But Never Explain What It Means
37] ID Proponents use a lot of other buzz-words like Intelligence, Design, Complexity, etc, but never clearly and convincingly explain what they mean
38] Does Quantum Theory contradict and disprove the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)?
39] ID is Nothing More Than a “God of the Gaps” Hypothesis
40]
Why are you Intelligent Design Creationists always so busy quote-mining what scientists have to say about Evolution?
40 sources. Yet, when challenged, you couldn’t explain a required component of Dembski’s idea that a large portion of this list possible.
 
It is working in the intersection where faith and reason both are true. Follow the arrows.

God (name removed by moderator)uts the information. He (name removed by moderator)uts Revelation and the workings of the universe. We reason our observations (raw data —> conclusions) . IDvolution considers the data the scientific community is providing. In the area if intersection both must be true by definition.

We have findings that can be put into the intersecting area.
What does faith have to do with science? And whose faith?
 
I would just like to see evolution observed, repeated and predicted in a lab? Do you have an experiment link?
This is a ridiculous standard. Why do believe that something that happened over millions of years, possibly by chance, must happen in the lifetime of a human being, otherwise it isn’t true.

Do you apply such a standard to your faith? If not, your using a double standard.
 
Actually, the reasoning of the science raw data (supporting resources page) support the conclusion of ID the philosophy.
ID is either a philosophy or a science, it can’t be both.
You did not answer the question though. Yes or no - Is your claim there exists no area where both are true? (faith and reason that is)
Faith and “ID ‘science’ Reasoning”, NO.
 
What is “real” science, then?
“Real science” is simply observing and describing. And there is not much of that in this thread.

Example: The discussion regarding chance. Some accept those numbers as truth. Well, if those numbers don’t reflect reality, a true scientist goes back to the drawing board and reworks the theory until it fits reality. Those that simply dismiss everything wholesale because the number may not fit reality are neither scientists nor interested in anything other than their own personal opinion of what “truth” is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top