One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Peter_Plato]

Of course that happens. When you’ve tested something enough already, there becomes little need to continue testing. No one has performed “falling apple” experiments for centuries now. Why? Because there is simply no need. We already know gravity works.

If you want to compare apples to apples. True we already know that gravity works. Just as it is true that adaptive change happens.

But the fact that adaptive change happens does not prove that natural selection acting on random mutations is the definitive cause of adaptive change. At the moment natural selection acting on random mutations functions as an explanation for adaptive change. We do not have an explanation for gravity. If someone came along and claimed gravity was caused by some “random” reason, surely we would question whether that was the real explanation for gravity.

It is incumbent upon scientists to show what the explanation(s) for adaptive change actually is(are.). At the moment there is one - natural selection acting on random mutations. We have not established it is the only one.

There’s the problem with your comparison.

 

[Farsight001]

No, and here’s why.

The argument is an ad hominem because even if “they” were “trying to invade schools and push science out,” their “pet religious idea” might still be true; so it doesn’t follow that their ideas need to be fought against merely because of an ill-conceived plot by some to impose them.

First of all, its not an ad hominem. this is something else we’ve been over before. I really wish you guys would pay attention. An ad hominem is when you suggest that a person’s argument is false due to a trait of the one making the argument, as in “you are asian, therefore you are wrong.”

Second of all, no, that does not make their ideas false. But since they are intrinsically religious and they are trying to remove real science from the science classroom to put these religious ideas in their place* in a science classroom*, where religious ideas don’t belong no matter how true they are, it should be resisted. The scientific community has actually been saying for years that they have no problem with this subject being in school, provided it is in the religion classroom, not the science one.

What if SOME theist evolutionists concocted a plot to push their (your?) ideas into the schools, would that mean their (and your, possibly true) ideas should be fought against?

In religion class? No problem. But again, if they were trying to push non-scientific concepts into the science class, then yes, their ideas should be fought against.

 

[Farsight001]

If you want to compare apples to apples. True we already know that gravity works. Just as it is true that adaptive change happens.

But the fact that adaptive change happens does not prove that natural selection acting on random mutations is the definitive cause of adaptive change.

No it doesn’t. Our testing and observations prove it. I would also point out that since adaptive change IS evolution, no matter how it happens, whether by random mutation and natural selection, or by some other method, evolution remains true. The how may change, but the fact that evolution is true does not and cannot.

At the moment natural selection acting on random mutations functions as an explanation for adaptive change. We do not have an explanation for gravity. If someone came along and claimed gravity was caused by some “random” reason, surely we would question whether that was the real explanation for gravity.

We have the higgs boson now, unless you were thinking of something else.

It is incumbent upon scientists to show what the explanation(s) for adaptive change actually is(are.). At the moment there is one - natural selection acting on random mutations. We have not established it is the only one.

Wait, why is it so necessary? As you said, we don’t have an explanation for why gravity works, and yet we know it works. If we didn’t have an explanation for why evolution works, we can still know it works.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No, and here’s why.

The argument is an ad hominem because even if “they” were “trying to invade schools and push science out,” their “pet religious idea” might still be true; so it doesn’t follow that their ideas need to be fought against merely because of an ill-conceived plot by some to impose them.

No, an ad hominem is attacking their character as evidence that they are wrong.
Like if I said “this guy’s a liar and knows nothing 'cause he doesn’t shower,” that
is closer to an ad hominem argument.

What if SOME theist evolutionists concocted a plot to push their (your?) ideas into the schools, would that mean their (and your, possibly true) ideas should be fought against?

Theistic Evolution is not a science, but a religious position that agrees with real science but never-
theless believes in a Creator. If someone tried to make Theistic Evolution into a science and force
it into classrooms, it MOST DEFINITELY ought to be driven underground by real science, but this
is of course under the premise that Theistic Evolution is called a science and should be treated as
such, so your point is invalid.

Fanatical pro-lifers have killed or bombed abortion clinics. Does that mean a pro-life position should be rejected and abortion supported because of what these individuals have done?

If that were the case, the easiest way to nullify and falsify every good idea is to do something nefarious in support of it to turn everyone (well, at least shallow thinkers) against it.

This is the strategy of the gay lobby, by the way. Show that gay individuals are persecuted by bad people so their “gay” status MUST ipso facto be the good and right one.

Bad logic breeds bad results.

No, and that is so not a fair comparison because real scientists in the real world
do not attack or kill IDists, but use real science to attack their position. [kookoo
whistle] Can we stick with reality please? We don’t want this thread deleted for
wacky violent comparisons like that to be brought up. Let’s stay respectful.

Please avoid non-sequiturs and red-herrings.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, but I know a guy who is lying about his beliefs when I see one.

Its got nothing to do with internal mental states and everything to do with him having had to admit it under oath.

You, likewise, believe God designed and created the universe. Does that make you a closet “Creationist” who is lying because you also hold “scientific” beliefs? We do have your testimony concerning your religious beliefs, so there is no need to put YOU under oath.

Behe has religious beliefs. Does that automatically make him “unscientific?” If it did, you would also be guilty of the same charge.

Pot and kettle…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You, likewise, believe God designed and created the universe. Does that make you a closet “Creationist” who is lying because you also hold “scientific” beliefs? We do have your testimony concerning your religious beliefs, so there is no need to put YOU under oath.

Behe has religious beliefs. Does that automatically make him “unscientific?” If it did, you would also be guilty of the same charge.

Pot and kettle…

Believing in a Creator is not the same as being a Creationist. A Creationist opposes current scientific
explanations for the physical universe in ways that vary. Some Creationists are oppose the Big Bang
Theory, others combat Evolution, still others do both, and so forth. Some may yield to scientific theor-
ies, but then try to force God into the scientific explanations, and still others will simply reject science
all together. I don’t believe Farsight001 fits in any of these categories.

Now to Behe, he holds a nonscientific idea, though try as he might to use scientific jardon.
No one shuns Behe for holding religious beliefs, but rather he is shunned for his attempt to
make his religious beliefs a scientific endeavor.

 

[Farsight001]

You, likewise, believe God designed and created the universe. Does that make you a closet “Creationist” who is lying because you also hold “scientific” beliefs? We do have your testimony concerning your religious beliefs, so there is no need to put YOU under oath.

No. Because creationism is, in part, the belief that all life was created as is and did not evolve. Hence I am not a creationist. I qualify as believing in theistic evolution.

Behe has religious beliefs. Does that automatically make him “unscientific?” If it did, you would also be guilty of the same charge.

No. It makes him a liar when he tells his followers that he accepts some aspects of evolution when in real life he does not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. Because creationism is, in part, the belief that all life was created as is and did not evolve. Hence I am not a creationist. I qualify as believing in theistic evolution.

No. It makes him a liar when he tells his followers that he accepts some aspects of evolution when in real life he does not.

I would say that you are inventing a false dichotomy. A creationist is someone who claims the universe was/is created by God. That leaves wide open the means by which God may have done or is doing so. Whether he did/does it magically by waving a hand and “poof” it came to be, or whether he sat/sits at a drafting table and uses tools or instruments to “craft” it, or whether he left/leaves it to random means to play themselves out, are all, more or less, essentially “creationist” ideas, none of which may even be correct.

To say one brand of “creationism” is better than others because it endorses a dubious “scientific” mechanism - natural selection acting on random mutation - because that is the only one currently proposed by science - doesn’t make that flavour of creationism any less creationist, in principle.

In fact, it exposes the entire idea of God creating the universe to a rather “chancy” proposition - that random changes can be orchestrated by an unguided and blind process to create highly complex and conscious life forms, when such a proposition hasn’t been demonstrated except as an assumption of inherently materialistic bias.

No, random mutation filtered by natural selection has not been shown to be THE necessary and sufficient means by which life has evolved to where it has. That is as much an article of faith as any brand of creationism.

When the complete explanation is arrived at, science will have done its job satisfactorily. When it proposes one alternative as the default one and all others anathema merely because they are alternative views, science has NOT done its due diligence.

That will only be accomplished when all other possible explanations for adaptive changes have been allowed a hearing and definitively ruled out. THAT has not been done, except by fiat.

 

[edwest2]

I would say that you are inventing a false dichotomy. A creationist is someone who claimed the universe was created by God. That leaves wide open the means by which God may have done so. Whether he did it magically by waving a hand and “poof” it came to be, or whether he sat at a drafting table and used tools or instruments to “craft” it, or whether he left it to random means to play themselves out, are all, more or less, essentially “creationist” ideas, nine of which may even be correct.

To say one brand of “creationism” is better than others because it endorses a dubious “scientific” mechanism - natural selection acting on random mutation - because that is the only one currently proposed by science - doesn’t make that flavour of creationism any less creationist, in principle.

In fact, it exposes the entire idea of God creating the universe to a rather “chancy” proposition - that random changes can be orchestrated by an unguided and blind process to create highly complex and conscious life forms, when such a proposition hasn’t been demonstrated except as an assumption of inherently materialistic bias.

No, random mutation filtered by natural selection has not been shown to be THE necessary and sufficient means by which life has evolved to where it has. That is as much an article of faith as any brand of creationism.

When the complete explanation is arrived at, science will have done its job satisfactorily. When it proposes one alternative as the default one and all others anathema merely because they are alternative views, science has NOT done due its diligence.

That will only be accomplished when all other possible explanations for adaptive changes have been allowed a hearing and definitively ruled out. THAT has not been done, except by fiat.

Well said, the explanation by fiat automatically rules out other explanations. But new discoveries are being made all the time. The clear problem for some is a legal, local problem in schools that has nothing to do with the topic. I think we, and people in general, need to look at other explanation, whether labeled Creationist or ID, and see how much scholarship is there, because I have seen one site that refers to articles published in non-ID/Creationist publications.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I would say that you are inventing a false dichotomy. A creationist is someone who claimed the universe was created by God. That leaves wide open the means by which God may have done so. Whether he did it magically by waving a hand and “poof” it came to be, or whether he sat at a drafting table and used tools or instruments to “craft” it, or whether he left it to random means to play themselves out, are all, more or less, essentially “creationist” ideas, nine of which may even be correct.

To say one brand of “creationism” is better than others because it endorses a dubious “scientific” mechanism - natural selection acting on random mutation - because that is the only one currently proposed by science - doesn’t make that flavour of creationism any less creationist, in principle.

In fact, it exposes the entire idea of God creating the universe to a rather “chancy” proposition - that random changes can be orchestrated by an unguided and blind process to create highly complex and conscious life forms, when such a proposition hasn’t been demonstrated except as an assumption of inherently materialistic bias.

No, random mutation filtered by natural selection has not been shown to be THE necessary and sufficient means by which life has evolved to where it has. That is as much an article of faith as any brand of creationism.

When the complete explanation is arrived at, science will have done its job satisfactorily. When it proposes one alternative as the default one and all others anathema merely because they are alternative views, science has NOT done due its diligence.

That will only be accomplished when all other possible explanations for adaptive changes have been allowed a hearing and definitively ruled out. THAT has not been done, except by fiat.

You ever notice how whenever there is a debate between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
Creationists’ Intelligent Design that the subject of “God” comes up a lot? That is why ID is
not a science, because the only reason “God” comes up in these discussions is because
the point of Intelligent Design is that there is a “God.” That’s what it’s all about.

Currently, there are 418 posts that contain the word “God,” and a few talking about how “Darwin–
ian Evolution” is SO atheistic, and blah blah blah, so at some point one has to wonder, “Why? Is
this not a scientific debate?” On the Side of Evolution, yes, this should be a scientific debate, but
on the Side of Intelligent Design, it’s about God, it’s always been about God.

It is for this reason that Intelligent Design
is not a science nor will it ever be consid-
ered a science.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. Because creationism is, in part, the belief that all life was created as is and did not evolve. Hence I am not a creationist. I qualify as believing in theistic evolution.

No. It makes him a liar when he tells his followers that he accepts some aspects of evolution when in real life he does not.

This doesn’t work as an implication.

Behe, like you, accepts that God created the universe. Just because, unlike you, he doesn’t accept natural selection acting on random mutation as the ONLY mechanism for adaptive change does not make him a “liar.” It merely makes him more thorough in terms of what he willing to accept as established. I find that refreshing. Far more refreshing, in fact, than someone who accuses others of lying merely to maintain his own views when they are questioned.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You ever notice how whenever there is a debate between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
Creationists’ Intelligent Design that the subject of “God” comes up a lot? That is why ID is
not a science, because the only reason “God” comes up in these discussions is because
the point of Intelligent Design is that there is a “God.” That’s what it’s all about.

Just as I notice that Jesus Christ, apparently as God, appears in all of your signature lines. That must prove you are “unscientific,” as well, then, because, after all, God beliefs are ALWAYS suspect, correct?

Or perhaps it is your very endorsement of evolution that is secretly motivated by your beliefs about God. You believe in evolution BECAUSE you believe in God. THAT must be “what it’s all about.”

How, by the way, do you explain people like David Berlinski (an agnostic Jew) and Thomas Nagel (an atheist philosopher) who both (among others) question the implications of evolution from a “non-God” perspective? Are they, too, secretly, “creationists?”

 

[Farsight001]

I would say that you are inventing a false dichotomy. A creationist is someone who claims the universe was/is created by God.

And I would simply point out that you are incorrect. The word creationist has an established definition, and it means what it means no matter how many times you suggest it doesn’t. Creationism specifically denies evolution. The belief that a deity created us through evolution is called theistic evolution.

To say one brand of “creationism” is better than others because it endorses a dubious “scientific” mechanism - natural selection acting on random mutation - because that is the only one currently proposed by science - doesn’t make that flavour of creationism any less creationist, in principle.

What’s dubious about something so easily observed?

In fact, it exposes the entire idea of God creating the universe to a rather “chancy” proposition - that random changes can be orchestrated by an unguided and blind process to create highly complex and conscious life forms, when such a proposition hasn’t been demonstrated except as an assumption of inherently materialistic bias.

Evolution has been observed and recreated thousands of times. It is a LIE to say that it has not been demonstrated.

That will only be accomplished when all other possible explanations for adaptive changes have been allowed a hearing and definitively ruled out. THAT has not been done, except by fiat.

Testing other ideas and determining professionally that they don’t hold up to scrutiny is not “by fiat”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You ever notice how whenever there is a debate between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Creationists’ Intelligent Design that the subject of “God” comes up a lot?

What I do notice is that anyone promoting intelligent design does not necessarily logically need to invoke God because if the evolution of life on Earth were discovered to have been designed by some intelligence or other, that intelligence need not be God, but, rather, could be some other super intelligent being we know nothing about. Even Dawkins admits that as a “possibility.”

What I do, also, notice, is that proponents of evolution are the ones who bring up "the subject of “God” … a lot. As a matter of fact, you, personally, will not even allow that intelligent design need not logically entail God even though it doesn’t. You assume advocating intelligent design means the person is a creationist, when in fact, David Berlinski, for one, is not a creationist, but does advocate for the idea of design in nature because he views “random mutation” as an inadequate mechanism for creating novel and successful life forms.

I, for one, agree with him, strictly on the basis of logic and plausibility.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Testing other ideas and determining professionally that they don’t hold up to scrutiny is not “by fiat”.

Your are on…

What “other” mechanisms, besides random mutation guided by natural selection, have been “tested” to determine whether they could have a hand in adaptive change?

Show where, why and by whom - preferably in peer reviewed journals.

We wait with baited breath…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Just as I notice that Jesus Christ, apparently as God, appears in all of your signature lines. That must prove you are “unscientific,” as well, then, because, after all, God beliefs are ALWAYS suspect, correct?

Not really, no, and that’s because I do not bring Jesus into discussions on science.
How did that help your case?

Or perhaps it is your very endorsement of evolution that is secretly motivated by your beliefs about God. You believe in evolution BECAUSE you believe in God. THAT must be “what it’s all about.”

uh . . . huh?

How, by the way, do you explain people like David Berlinski (an agnostic Jew) and Thomas Nagel (an atheist philosopher) who both (among others) question the implications of evolution from a “non-God” perspective? Are they, too, secretly, “creationists?”

Well Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture,
so no, not secretly anyway. Thomas Nagel appears to take neither sides, certainly not IDs’,
so I would say no also, he’s not a creationist.

 

[Farsight001]

This doesn’t work as an implication.

Behe, like you, accepts that God created the universe. Just because, unlike you, he doesn’t accept natural selection acting on random mutation as the ONLY mechanism for adaptive change does not make him a “liar.”

No. It makes him a liar when he says on the stand under oath in trial that he rejects evolution outright and then turns around and tells his fans that he accepts part of it. Those two statements are necessarily contradictory and therefore at least one of them is a lie. I would tend to conclude that the one not made under oath is the lie. I can’t believe you’re making excuses for this liar.

 

[edwest2]

What I do notice is that anyone promoting intelligent design does not necessarily logically need to invoke God because if the evolution of life on Earth were discovered to have been designed by some intelligence or other, that intelligence need not be God, but, rather, could be some other super intelligent being we know nothing about. Even Dawkins admits that as a “possibility.”

What I do, also, notice, is that proponents of evolution are the ones who bring up "the subject of “God” … a lot. As a matter of fact, you, personally, will not even allow that intelligent design need not logically entail God even though it doesn’t. You assume advocating intelligent design means the person is a creationist, when in fact, David Berlinski, for one, is not a creationist, but does advocate for the idea of design in nature because he views “random mutation” as an inadequate mechanism for creating novel and successful life forms.

I, for one, agree with him, strictly on the basis of logic and plausibility.

Well said. Thank you for mentioning David Berlinski.

Best,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

Just as I notice that Jesus Christ, apparently as God, appears in all of your signature lines. That must prove you are “unscientific,” as well, then, because, after all, God beliefs are ALWAYS suspect, correct?

Signature lines are not part of the discussion. This is a diversion and an excuse and you full well know it. Just try to answer the question. Why DOES God always get mentioned if ID is science?

 

[Farsight001]

What I do notice is that anyone promoting intelligent design does not necessarily logically need to invoke God because if the evolution of life on Earth were discovered to have been designed by some intelligence or other, that intelligence need not be God, but, rather, could be some other super intelligent being we know nothing about. Even Dawkins admits that as a “possibility.”

If they don’t need to invoke God, then why are they constantly doing it?

What I do, also, notice, is that proponents of evolution are the ones who bring up "the subject of “God” … a lot. As a matter of fact, you, personally, will not even allow that intelligent design need not logically entail God even though it doesn’t. You assume advocating intelligent design means the person is a creationist, when in fact, David Berlinski, for one, is not a creationist, but does advocate for the idea of design in nature because he views “random mutation” as an inadequate mechanism for creating novel and successful life forms.

Seeing as how ID IS creationism under a different name and we have provided more than enough evidence here to prove it, that DOES, in fact mean that the person advocating ID is a creationist.

I, for one, agree with him, strictly on the basis of logic and plausibility.

lol. What logic?