One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
Quartz crystals always order themselves in pretty much the same way, converging, as you say, on an optimum solution. Are they designed?
Click to expand...
Order does not entail design.

On the other hand random events do not entail either order or design.

Your example is simplistic. Quartz crystals are not highly specific functional protein chains.
 
buffalo said:
One more time:

Did God know what Adam would look like? Yes

Did Adam look like God planned?

If yes, then it rules out evo. "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?
Click to expand...
God created Nature with Natural Laws to follow. Did God guide evolution himself or did he
set it up so it met with his plans independently? We don’t know, science cannot touch in
that particular area. But Intelligent Design claims to be able to answer that, therefore it is
not a science.

Stop bringing in Dawkins as though
he is the representative of the entire
scientific community.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Those “tests” show adaptive change occurs but make no determination about whether changes are the result of “random” events, unless “random” simply means “causes not completely understood.”
Click to expand...
Random in the scientific context is simply no known pattern. We have NO physical reason to
assume that evolution is guided by an intangible being like God. These tests, in that case, do
make adetermination on whether changes are the result of “random” events.
 
buffalo said:
This is where America is going wrong. Mandatory science class. No philosophy class. Which is why so many Americans buy into scientism. They do not know any different. Indoctrinization or propaganda for what reason? Are our educators complicit or ignorant?

Solution: Mandatory empirical science class, mandatory philosophy class. If this were the case the polls would be quite different. Currently, it is a win for atheism.
Click to expand...
And that is what Intelligent Design is all about. Defeat atheism by lying to the public
about being a real science when it is the same old Creationism using scientific words.
 
buffalo said:
OK, But for Judas Thadeus he is a non-believer, not a creationist.
Click to expand...
Actually I think I was unsure, tried to find the post, can’t find it.
I don’t think the words “he is a non-believer” came from me.
 
buffalo said:
This is where America is going wrong. Mandatory science class. No philosophy class. Which is why so many Americans buy into scientism. They do not know any different. Indoctrinization or propaganda for what reason? Are our educators complicit or ignorant?

Solution: Mandatory empirical science class, mandatory philosophy class. If this were the case the polls would be quite different. Currently, it is a win for atheism.
Click to expand...
All the evidence does point in that direction.

Peace,
Ed
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
And that is what Intelligent Design is all about. Defeat atheism by lying to the public
about being a real science when it is the same old Creationism using scientific words.
Click to expand...
ID the science, is just that, trying to detect design by using the scientific method. The truth defeats atheism. It is meeting evo on its own turf.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Random in the scientific context is simply no known pattern. We have NO physical reason to
assume that evolution is guided by an intangible being like God. These tests, in that case, do
make adetermination on whether changes are the result of “random” events.
Click to expand...
That means the average student is led to believe that ‘theistic evolution’ is not real. On a Catholic forum, that should be obvious. The Church has given us physical reasons. And who is Jesus Christ?

Theistic Evolution is a dodge, and obviously not true. Catholics need to understand what the Church teaches first.

Peace,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
ID the science, is just that, trying to detect design by using the scientific method. The truth defeats atheism. It is meeting evo on its own turf.
Click to expand...
Then why do so many scientific organizations agree with each other that ID is not a science?

To detect a Designer means to FIND GOD WITH SCIENCE (which Intelligent Design is not).

The Truth can defeat atheism, so no more ID, okay?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
God created Nature with Natural Laws to follow. Did God guide evolution himself or did he
set it up so it met with his plans independently? We don’t know, science cannot touch in
that particular area. But Intelligent Design claims to be able to answer that, therefore it is
not a science.

Stop bringing in Dawkins as though
he is the representative of the entire
scientific community.
Click to expand...
Dawkins has many followers and is often brought up to defend evo.

If He set it up to meet with His plans it is design, by definition. Do you now see why Theistic Evo is untenable? It really does come down to God or the god of BUC. Both are faith positions, they are both philosophical.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Then why do so many scientific organizations agree with each other that ID is not a science?

To detect a Designer means to FIND GOD WITH SCIENCE (which Intelligent Design is not).

The Truth can defeat atheism, so no more ID, okay?
Click to expand...
You are now using a designed machine. You know it was designed, because it contains functional complex specified information. Do you conclude God designed your device? Why not?
 
buffalo said:
ID the science, is just that, trying to detect design by using the scientific method. The truth defeats atheism. It is meeting evolution on its own turf.
Click to expand...
Then how come the scientific community doesn’t agree with ID? Also what scientists agree with ID? Possible list of scientists? 🤷
 
buffalo said:
Dawkins has many followers and is often brought up to defend evo.

If He set it up to meet with His plans it is design, by definition. Do you now see why Theistic Evo is untenable? It really does come down to God or the god of BUC. Both are faith positions, they are both philosophical.
Click to expand...
Good thing theistic evolution isn’t a science then.
 
buffalo said:
You are now using a designed machine. You know it was designed, because it contains functional complex specified information. Do you conclude God designed your device? Why not?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, because that is not science.
 
adawgj said:
Then how come the scientific community doesn’t agree with ID? Also what scientists agree with ID? Possible list of scientists? 🤷
Click to expand...
Code: 
 	       **Download**

   
  Download the [Dissent List](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)
7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Irrelevant, because that is not science.
Click to expand...
Your computer contains a certain amount of functional specified complex information. The higher the number the more certain it is designed. You deny this?

Now again. You know your computer is designed. Who is the designer?
 
buffalo said:
Download
Code: 
  Download the [Dissent List](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)
7) Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Code: 
      Yes. Signers of the  Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold  doctorates in biological sciences,  physics, chemistry, mathematics,  medicine, computer science, and related  disciplines from such  institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth,  Rutgers,  University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at   Berkeley.  Many are also professors or  researchers at major  universities and research institutions such as Cambridge,  Princeton,  MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane,   Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology  in  Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
Click to expand...
You know, that was a really unfair question for adawgj to ask, because it doesn’t matter
if over 100 scientists are skeptical about evolution. This is hasty generalization.

Hasty Generalization attempts to reach beyond its grasp and draw major conclusions from a
minor subset of data. Great claims necessitate great evidence. Creationists often make has-
ty generalizations, sometimes from a single case.

Funny thing, this dissent form appears as one example in the Top 25 Creationist Fallacies.

Notice again also: DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, CREATIONIST SOURCE!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top