One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No. You are abusing terms for rhetorical purposes. Are you proposing that the tern “creationism” subsumes all theories in which God had a hand in creation? Or are you claiming that ID is secretly a young earth theory?

Well I have history backing me up on this.
As to your question now: Creationism proposes a supernatural origin of all things,
and it comes in many various flavors, young-earth, old-earth, etc. It has come to
my knowledge that some Y.E. Creationists criticize Intelligent Design on matters
of the Age of Creation and the identity of the Designer, but it really matters not at
all what kind of Creationism ID is proposing, it is still Creationism disguised as a
form of science.

You are off on a tangent trembling in fear that if a “designer” is proven then ID adherents will claim that God is proven. Wouldn’t it be interesting enough to prove a design apart from who the designer is?

Fear? No Fear, I’m simply tracing back the proposition of ID to show that it
is a religious view, not a science, and that even if it doesn’t explicitly talk a-
bout WHO or WHAT the Designer is, the very purpose in claiming “design”
is to denote an “Intelligent Designer,” who is God, and therefore it is not a
science, but a religious endeavor, and a dishonest one at that.

 

[Farsight001]

Intelligence design is a broad tent that includes both creationism and thestic evolution.

In no way is it so. This is a lie. The formal definition of ID specifically denies the possibility of evolution.

The key claim that ID makes, the one that unites all views, is that the hand of God can be discerned scientifically. That’s an arguable point but it is a relatively technical one.

That is in no way the key claim that ID makes. The key claim that ID makes is in its definition - “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”

Look at that again. “life began abruptly” and “features already intact”. That is specifically and diametrically opposed to evolution.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In no way is it so. This is a lie. The formal definition of ID specifically denies the possibility of evolution.

That is in no way the key claim that ID makes. The key claim that ID makes is in its definition - “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”

Look at that again. “life began abruptly” and “features already intact”. That is specifically and diametrically opposed to evolution.

Let’s look at how the Discovery Institute defines it:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

That is most definitely not incompatible with evolution. It’s not even incompatible with natural selection. It is only incompatible with the cliam that natural selection is, alone, a suffiicient explanation.

 

[Farsight001]

Fine. If you want to leave open the question of when and how the guidance occurs, then theistic evolution could be compatible with Creationism, ID, front loading and just about any other form of “guiding” that is available. In other words, theistic evolution is merely a claim that God did it without a commitment to how or when. It doesn’t really say much, if anything, at all, except, “Be quiet about God.”

Holy carp, how are you not getting this? Creationism and ID SPECIFICALLY deny the possibility of evolution IN THEIR VERY DEFINITIONS. In no way is theistic evolution, which necessitates evolution, compatible with Creationism or ID which specifically deny that evolution is possible.

More like “Be quiet about God because we have science to do.”

Science cannot comment on God or it is de facto not science. Again, its not a matter of wanting to exclude God. Its a matter of it being scientifically impossible to include God.

Revert to “Creationism.”

I believe that to do so would make God a deceiver, so I cannot do that in good conscious.

 

[Farsight001]

Do you seriously believe that is what they survey shows? Really?!

He didn’t say a single thing about his own beliefs regarding surveys. He asked you a question.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well I have history backing me up on this.
As to your question now: Creationism proposes a supernatural origin of all things,
and it comes in many various flavors, young-earth, old-earth, etc. It has come to
my knowledge that some Y.E. Creationists criticize Intelligent Design on matters
of the Age of Creation and the identity of the Designer, but it really matters not at
all what kind of Creationism ID is proposing, it is still Creationism disguised as a
form of science.

Fear? No Fear, I’m simply tracing back the proposition of ID to show that it
is a religious view, not a science, and that even if it doesn’t explicitly talk a-
bout WHO or WHAT the Designer is, the very purpose in claiming “design”
is to denote an “Intelligent Designer,” who is God, and therefore it is not a
science, but a religious endeavor, and a dishonest one at that.

And what does Catholicism say is the orign of all things? What does deism say is the origin of all things?

Creationism is generally used to mean a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story and, for those into the details, a young earth.

The fact that IDers want to show that God is the origin of all things does not mean that ID is a religion. Science is not an atheistic monopoly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I did. “by Stephen C. Meyer” is all I really needed to know. Why do you guys keep citing proven liars as support for your position? It’s kind of silly.

Yes, of course. He’s wrong BECAUSE he is a liar.

Who was giving the class on fallacies earlier in this thread?

A lot, actually. Well over half the people I know, I’d say. They tend to avoid bringing up the subject with me because they know its not going to turn out well for them, so I don’t really have an exact count.

You don’t put notches in your belt?

Sad that their opinions are not respected. Do you, at least, give them the opportunity to explain the subtleties of their position, or just go in shooting?

Why would that be part of the debate? Evolution is not blind trial and error.

Correction. It is blind trial and error innovation selected by environmental pressures.

You should read the polls. The first post in this thread contained a link to one.

He WAS referring to the first post.
Compare the title of the thread to his question, “Are 1/3 of Americans…”

Brain fart or are you posting randomly and allowing the thread to select who your posts actually respond to?

 

[Farsight001]

Which makes ID interesting. But, contrary to some, ID is not the same as creationism.

Then why are their definitions identical? Why do the textbook for Creationism that was planned for public schools and the textbook for ID that was planned for public schools have the exact same title, pictures, and contents, substituting only “Intelligent designer” for “God” and “intelligent design” for “creation”? And why have the biggest promoters of ID, who literally promote it for a living, admitted under oath that they are the same thing?

 

[Rich]

just a few years ago, it was half, so this is good. Even though the article tries to make it seem like there are more and more of them, there are actually less and less. One third is still too high, of course, (for the most part) but I’ll take the improvement.

Why do you say this is too high? God’s word says He made everything to reproduce from it own kind. Also evolutions says there was death and change, death and change. The word of God says: Rom. 5:12 that death enter when sin did. Sin enter in the garden after every thing was finished being created. Still if you look into evolution there is still no prof that it happened. It is taught as fact, but the facts don’t show that.

 

[Farsight001]

My point is relevant whether or not it is supported by the current survey. Indeed, my point was that the whole issue has been so ifantalized that the survey is almost certainly yielding incorrect resutls.

Just because you ask someone their opinion doesn’t mean you will get an honest answer. Especially when it is so loaded. One of the most important elements of science is instrumental reliabililty.

Your point is pointless. He asked a question. Asking a question in return does not answer that first question.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Let’s look at how the Discovery Institute defines it:

discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

That is most definitely not incompatible with evolution. It’s not even incompatible with natural selection. It is only incompatible with the cliam that natural selection is, alone, a suffiicient explanation.

Well Evolution does not only depend on natural selection but
also random mutation, environmental circumstances, etc.

Now let’s see something from the true history of Creation-Science, I mean “Intelligent Design”:“**Creation **means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency
of an **intelligent creator **with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987

“**Intelligent design **means that various forms of life began abruptly through an
intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins
and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987

“**Sudden emergence **holds that various forms of life began ?] with their distinctive
features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings,
animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Then why are their definitions identical? Why do the textbook for Creationism that was planned for public schools and the textbook for ID that was planned for public schools have the exact same title, pictures, and contents, substituting only “Intelligent designer” for “God” and “intelligent design” for “creation”? And why have the biggest promoters of ID, who literally promote it for a living, admitted under oath that they are the same thing?

The term “creationism” was in use long before ID. It has a long history of usage.

There are many ideas floating around in this domain but some seeking to infantalize the discussion seem bent on reducing everything to God vs. atheism or creationism vs. evolution.

Use your brain for a change and recognize the variety of opinions on this subject.

 

[Farsight001]

That has not been the view of Christians throughout history. That simply represents a truce line between science and religion. You can choose to repect that truce line if you wish.

no. its a matter of the definition and purpose of science, not a truce. Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural. Hence, science cannot comment on or study God.

If God chose to show his hand in evolution then it can be scientifically detected.

And what tool do you think science has by which they can measure God?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well Evolution does not only depend on natural selection but also random mutation, environmental circumstances, etc.

Evolution is simply the observation that life evolved over time. Natural selection is one explanaiton for the observation of evolution. Random mutation is one explanation for the variance that natural selection works upon to effect evolution.

IDers who are involved in science are not denying evolution. They are, to varying degrees, denying that random mutation and natural selection are a sufficient explanation for it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

no. its a matter of the definition and purpose of science, not a truce. Science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural. Hence, science cannot comment on or study God.

And what tool do you think science has by which they can measure God?

As I said, Christianity makes falsifiable claims. If you find the body of Jesus you have disproved Christianity.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The term “creationism” was in use long before ID. It has a long history of usage.

There are many ideas floating around in this domain but some seeking to infantalize the discussion seem bent on reducing everything to God vs. atheism or creationism vs. evolution.

Use your brain for a change and recognize the variety of opinions on this subject.

Let’s look at the word “Creationism,” shall we?In that broadest sense of the term, I can agree with you, but it is not the most common
usage of the term. “Creationist” was first used by Charles Darwin in 1856 to describe a
proponent of Creationism. In the 1920s, the term became mostly applied to Fundamen-
talist Christians who insisted on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative
and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. In 1975, Creationism still yet was a
religious position against evolution. At Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005, ruling concluded that
“Intelligent Design,” as it was called, is not science and contravenes the constitutional
restriction on teaching RELIGION in public school science classes.Wait, what’s the connection between those last two sentences?“**Creation **means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency
of an **intelligent creator **with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987

“**Intelligent design **means that various forms of life began abruptly through an
intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins
and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987
OH THERE IT IS!

IDists:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Holy carp, how are you not getting this? Creationism and ID SPECIFICALLY deny the possibility of evolution IN THEIR VERY DEFINITIONS. In no way is theistic evolution, which necessitates evolution, compatible with Creationism or ID which specifically deny that evolution is possible.

I don’t need to put up with this carp!

Meyer specifically addressed this in the video that YOU refuse to watch so YOU could find out what it is that HE really thinks, but YOU continue to insist that YOU have a unilateral right to determine what it is that HE as an IDer thinks.

You don’t even want to know what he thinks, because it is far easier to address your “depiction” of him than to actually address HIS thinking.

You don’t really understand what a “strawman” is, do you? In theory, perhaps, but not by its practical application.

Of course, science can only detect those strawmen standing in cornfields, certainly not the ones that are safely ensconced in shuttered minds where they have nothing to do but decay and turn to compost.

I’ve got it, now. How silly of me to not have figured this out earlier

 

[buffalo]

On Information, Design, Science, Creation & Evolutionary Materialism:

Engaging the Current controversies over the role of information and design in understanding the origins of the Cosmos, Life, Biodiversity, Mind, Man and Morality



FSCI is also an observable, measurable quantity; contrary to what is imagined, implied or asserted by many objectors. This may be most easily seen by using a quantity we are familiar with: functionally specific bits [FS bits], such as those that define the information on the screen you are most likely using to read this note:
1 → These bits are functional, i.e. presenting a sceenful of (more or less) readable and coherent text.
2 → They are specific, i.e. the screen conforms to a page of coherent text in English in a web browser window; defining a relatively small target/island of function by comparison with the number of arbitrarily possible bit configurations of the screen.
3 → They are contingent, i.e your screen can show diverse patterns, some of which are functional, some of which – e.g. a screen broken up into “snow” – would not (usually) be.
4 → They are quantitative: a screen of such text at 800 * 600 pixels resolution, each of bit depth 24 [8 each for R, G, B] has in its image 480,000 pixels, with 11,520,000 hard-working, functionally specific bits.
5 → This is of course well beyond a “glorified common-sense” 500 - 1,000 bit rule of thumb complexity threshold at which contextually and functionally specific information is sufficiently complex that the explanatory filter would confidently rule such a screenful of text “designed,” given that – since there are at most that many quantum states of the atoms in it – no search on the gamut of our observed cosmos can exceed 10^150 steps:

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

As I said, Christianity makes falsifiable claims. If you find the body of Jesus you have disproved Christianity.

Yeah-hau, but Intelligent Design is NOT falsifiable, ergo not a science.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s look at the word “Creationism,” shall we?

In that broadest sense of the term, I can agree with you, but it is not the most common
usage of the term. “Creationist” was first used by Charles Darwin in 1856 to describe a
proponent of Creationism. In the 1920s, the term became mostly applied to Fundamen-
talist Christians who insisted on a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative
and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. In 1975, Creationism still yet was a
religious position against evolution.
​

This remains the common use of the term “creationism”.

I gave the definition of ID from it’s leading proponent.

The difference is quite obvious to those with eyes to see.​