One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba_Switzler said:
Why don’t you bold the part that says “as is” for me. Because I’m missing it.

The above definition of ID is consistent with my claim. Any deviation by a designer is going to be a “sudden emergence” with “distinctive features already intact” whether it is God creating animals on the xth day or whether it is a sudden evolution of an ape into a man. Saying that a particular creature begins life “as is” means that, from the beginning of time, it was always the same. That is the common meaning of “creationism” as was previously cited.
Click to expand...
What’s this “sudden evolution”? I think you mean “sudden emergence”, which is not
evolution, it just came to be “as is.” You don’t need that pair of words all the time to
convey that meaning. None of the ORIGINAL definitions of Intelligent Design, which
was at first called “Creation,” are consistent with your claim.

“Creation” didn’t work, so they moved to “Intelligent Design,” give it a hundred years
or so, eventually that term will fall out of favor too, and maybe that new term called
“sudden emergence” will take over, but the world will never forget that it all started
with Creationism, therefore not a science.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
What’s this “sudden evolution”? I think you mean “sudden emergence”, which is not
evolution, it just came to be “as is.” You don’t need that pair of words all the time to
convey that meaning. None of the ORIGINAL definitions of Intelligent Design, which
was at first called “Creation,” are consistent with your claim.

“Creation” didn’t work, so they moved to “Intelligent Design,” give it a hundred years
or so, eventually that term will fall out of favor too, and maybe that new term called
“sudden emergence” will take over, but the world will never forget that it all started
with Creationism, therefore not a science.
Click to expand...
See above refutatation of your claim. Your reliance upon some supposed conspriacy theory is not scientific and unworthy of consideration.
 
From the Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson:

“Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and each must be investigated using that domain’s principles, yet most scientists have been attempting to use physical science to explain life’s information domain, a practice which has no scientific justification.”

This book is endorsed by David L. Abel, Director, The Gene Emergence Project Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc.

davidlabel.blogspot.com/

An excerpt from the book: “Using the 700 bits per protein with the estimated 382 protein-coding genes that the simplest known life form requires yields an estimated 267,000 bits for the simplest known life. This information indicates it is about 10 to the 80,000th times more that control ‘could produce the minimal genome than mindless natural processes. Again, if one wishes to explain the origin of the simplest life form by natural selection, a fitness function will be required that is capable of generating 267,000 bits of functional information.’” Note that even if factors of 10 to the 7th more trials and 1000 more functional results were added, and the minimum genes were halved, control would still be 10 to the 40,130th more probable than mindless natural processes as the cause of the simplest life. Also, thermodynamics, enzymes, and other factors are not considered."

Intelligent Design is the far more reasonable explanation. Referred to as “control” in the above.

Peace,
Ed
 
I think it would be appropriate to mention the philosophical and practical considerations raised by ID and Creationism.
  1. If evidence shows overwhelming evidence of design, then young people will be encouraged to think that the source of design, though undefined in science class, is God.
  2. ID promoters and promoters of Creationism will automatically seize this evidence and present it as evidence. Scientific evidence.
  3. If this happens, then young people will grow up and vote against certain things based on scientific evidence that an unidentified, by science, designer/controller/guider is part of science. That’s what the stakes are.
May I submit the following. A story about a jury trial with top Evolutionary Biologist, Bob Smith, who is asked to describe and defend the design concept as scientific.

“Me and my colleagues have published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that describe not the end of other research, but a concept which highlights the greatest shift in the investigation of living things since Darwin. Our conclusions were based on emerging information about the genome and required consultation with information specialists in the computer sciences, astronomers and those engaged in determining the probability of something happening or not happening. The data are clear. The collated evidence was checked and rechecked. Every effort was made to avoid a vague or biased conclusion. So we arrived at the conclusion that design, pointing to an unknown agent, is the only way life as we know it could develop and exist. Random mutations and natural selection do not have the ability to develop the simplest to the most complex forms of life known, including prehistoric examples of life for which we have knowledge.”

Lawyer 1: So, what is your opinion about the identity of this unidentified agent?

Lawyer 2: Objection! Relevance?

Judge: I’ll allow it.

Bob: “I have heard various opinions, but I, personally, do not regard it as relevant to our research at this time. I am guessing an intelligence far greater than ourselves is involved. Who or what that may be is unknown. But I must emphasize that in a relatively short period of time, the scientific community recognizes that random and so-called natural processes do not have the capacity, even given billions of years, to initiate and add functional information to the simplest organisms and certainly not those more complex.”

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
I think it would be appropriate to mention the philosophical and practical considerations raised by ID and Creationism.
  1. If evidence shows overwhelming evidence of design, then young people will be encouraged to think that the source of design, though undefined in science class, is God.
  2. ID promoters and promoters of Creationism will automatically seize this evidence and present it as evidence. Scientific evidence.
  3. If this happens, then young people will grow up and vote against certain things based on scientific evidence that an unidentified, by science, designer/controller/guider is part of science. That’s what the stakes are.
Click to expand...
Is it appropriate, though, to weigh such implications in the evaluation of scientific claims? I think not. Rather, let the science stand on its own and let people draw reasonable conclusions from it. If you are so willing to believe that people will draw unreasonable conclusions from scientific evidence of a designer why are you so reluctant to believe that that they are already drawing unreasonable conclusions from the lack of evidence of a designer?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Is it appropriate, though, to weigh such implications in the evaluation of scientific claims? I think not. Rather, let the science stand on its own and let people draw reasonable conclusions from it. If you are so willing to believe that people will draw unreasonable conclusions from scientific evidence of a designer why are you so reluctant to believe that that they are already drawing unreasonable conclusions from the lack of evidence of a designer?
Click to expand...
As the evidence for the complexity of the genome increases, it greatly decreases the possibility that the digital information contained within was arrived at through random, blind chance. It’s not reasonable. That’s all I’m saying.

Peace,
Ed
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I didn’t say scientists owned science. It’s just that anybody can
claim anything is science, so scientists around the world gather
and discuss and debate and test just to determine if something
is scientifically valid.

Do we believe the Mormon who says, “Mormonism is Christian,”
or do we turn to the Christian community to verify if this is so???

Same thing, principally speaking.

If you are inspecting a tire dealership, do you just go to them and take their word for it
that they are an honest dealership? You maybe, but not me. It would be more logical
to go around asking others, other dealerships and customers, what they think of the
dealership in question. If the general answer is, “NO, they are not an honest dealer-
ship,” does that not say anything about the tire dealership under inspection?
Click to expand...
What if the other dealerships get free tires?
 
edwest2 said:
From the Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson:

“Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and each must be investigated using that domain’s principles, yet most scientists have been attempting to use physical science to explain life’s information domain, a practice which has no scientific justification.”

This book is endorsed by David L. Abel, Director, The Gene Emergence Project Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc.

davidlabel.blogspot.com/

An excerpt from the book: “Using the 700 bits per protein with the estimated 382 protein-coding genes that the simplest known life form requires yields an estimated 267,000 bits for the simplest known life. This information indicates it is about 10 to the 80,000th times more that control ‘could produce the minimal genome than mindless natural processes. Again, if one wishes to explain** the origin of the simplest life form by natural selection, a fitness function will be required that is capable of generating 267,000 bits of functional information.’”** Note that even if factors of 10 to the 7th more trials and 1000 more functional results were added, and the minimum genes were halved, control would still be 10 to the 40,130th more probable than mindless natural processes as the cause of the simplest life. Also, thermodynamics, enzymes, and other factors are not considered."

Intelligent Design is the far more reasonable explanation. Referred to as “control” in the above.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
What is important to note is that natural selection can only “kick in” when reproduction occurs otherwise there is nothing to select. The question is, “How did the the simplest life form ‘capable of generating 267,000 bits of functional information’ come from, if fitness (natural selection) could not even have been a factor?”

Evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) would have been ineffective to this point.
 
edwest2 said:
As the evidence for the complexity of the genome increases, it greatly decreases the possibility that the digital information contained within was arrived at through random, blind chance. It’s not reasonable. That’s all I’m saying.
Click to expand...
I think this is a fascinating subject alone. If we’re done with definitional distractions, maybe we can take this on.

The argument proceeds something like this:

Too complex for random → requires design → requires designer → God.

Now one can certainly question the argument anywhere along the chain. I think, at best, you end up with a very abstract philosophical designer. And so long as you can’t differentiate between an extraterrestrial being and God then at best all you do is open a door to theism.

But why is it necessary to open a door to theis in the first place? Because science has been so abused of late by proponents of scientism.

I’m very curious to see if IDers can make a solid case. But ultimately we’ll only see evidence of God’s hand if God intends his hand to be shown. It would certainly be interesting if that were the case and foolish of us to ignore the evidence if it were.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I think this is a fascinating subject alone. If we’re done with definitional distractions, maybe we can take this on.

The argument proceeds something like this:

Too complex for random → requires design → requires designer → God.

Now one can certainly question the argument anywhere along the chain. I think, at best, you end up with a very abstract philosophical designer. And so long as you can’t differentiate between an extraterrestrial being and God then at best all you do is open a door to theism.

But why is it necessary to open a door to theis in the first place? Because science has been so abused of late by proponents of scientism.

I’m very curious to see if IDers can make a solid case. But ultimately we’ll only see evidence of God’s hand if God intends his hand to be shown. It would certainly be interesting if that were the case and foolish of us to ignore the evidence if it were.
Click to expand...
If God wants to make himself known, he will, and any insistence that his activity is “unscientific” will certainly be derailed when that activity becomes undeniable. So any determination by humans that science MUST be carried on separately and without regard for God’s activity will be turned on its head.
 
Peter_Plato said:
If God wants to make himself known, he will, and any insistence that his activity is “unscientific” will certainly be derailed when that activity becomes undeniable. So any determination by humans that science MUST be carried on separately and without regard for God’s activity will be turned on its head.
Click to expand...
My own pet theory is that if ID proves correct (and clearly it has a ways to go even if it has shown some progress) it will be because God deliberately planted evidence of his hand that could only be discovered by science in order to b***h slap atheistic scientists.

But never underestimate the willingness of some to deny the undeniable. I think conventional scientists may be the last to recognize the evidence for ID. And this, I suspect, is what they fear most and why they are working so hard to expel ID from science beforehand.

However, I think it is worth discussing the form of the ID argument if only to dispel a lot of atheist malarkey. Even if ID proves a failure it will still be useful to wrest science from the cold dead hands of materialists.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
But why is it necessary to open a door to theis in the first place? Because science has been so abused of late by proponents of scientism.
Click to expand...
Now THAT, for anybody wondering, is a conspiracy theory.
Or a tragic mistake, at least.

What is “sciencism”?

Scientists use the best of their knowledge and practice to obtain knowledge by means of
science. Finding out WHAT science is also is very important. “Professor” Behe admitted
in court that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses Intelligent Design,
would also embrace ASTROLOGY! Is Astrology a science? I’d rather think it is! :rolleyes:

(How do we know Science?)

The Scientific Community is well aware that from the very beginning, Intelligent Design has been
about religion. Need Proof? NEED PROOF? Just look on this thread. The very subject of of God
is unavoidable whenever it is discussed on a thread. AT LEAST ONCE is enough to disqualify it
as a science.

Need more proof? The quote above! The conspiracy theory of “Oh it’s then phoney scientismists,
WON’T give Intelligent Design a shot. AbUsers of science, THEY DON-KNOW WHAT SCIENCE
IS!” Really, proposing a anti-religious sounding word like “sciencism.”
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Scientists use the best of their knowledge and practice to obtain knowledge by means of
science. Finding out WHAT science is also is very important. “Professor” Behe admitted
in court that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses Intelligent Design,
would also embrace ASTROLOGY! Is Astrology a science? I’d rather think it is! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think this is a rather disingenuous interpretation of what Behe allowed in court. Your use of the word “embrace” skews what it was that he actually admitted. As I recall, what he admitted under cross-examination was that his view of science would not, by definition, exclude astrology, but that astrology would still have to demonstrate the truth of any claims it makes. Therefore, his definition of science would not “embrace” astrology but WOULD allow for its claims to be proven true or false.

This is an example of deriving false implications from premises or statements where philosophy and logic would certainly help determine whether those conclusions are warranted. This is as true for many of your claims as it is for claims that science makes or claims about what “science” can legitimately determine.

Behe was not saying astrology is true, but that under his views, claims made by astrology (like any other claims) would receive a fair hearing and not be disallowed merely because the claims are astrological. Astrology would NOT be “embraced” by Behe’s allowance, but its claims would, could and very likely already has been disproven, though not merely because they have been made by astrology, but because they are false, on broader scientific grounds.

Clearly, you didn’t get what the lawyer was up to by asking the question. He was trying to make Behe look bad by making an admission he was not allowed the opportunity to explain.

His admission is basically saying that claims of astrology are not to be dismissed as false merely because astrologers make them, but on independent grounds. Of course. I can see how you would fall for the lawyer’s tactics because you are quite ready to believe that claims made by creationists are false merely because they ARE made by creationists. And claims made by scientists ARE true merely because they are made by scientists. That was precisely Behe’s point, that the truth of any statements are always open to being found true or false in spite of who makes them or what sector that individual belongs to.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
My own pet theory is that if ID proves correct (and clearly it has a ways to go even if it has shown some progress) it will be because God deliberately planted evidence of his hand that could only be discovered by science in order to b***h slap atheistic scientists.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by “b***h slap,” nor do I even want to ask, but I doubt very much that is the way God will deal with things. I think there are several clues, though, that are revealing.

The first is “the stone rejected by the builders” which is, I think, a general caution regarding “rejecting” people, ideas, events, etc. on what “appear” to be solid grounds in order to promote yourself or your ideas, but will later show up as rather flimsy.

I think the statement by Jesus was also a caution against the kind of skepticism that is skeptical of all other positions except its own such that all the arguments against contrary positions are readily accepted but the arguments against one’s own position are either merely ignored or denied outright. It is a kind of philosophical “log” in one’s own eye, so to speak.

The second is Jesus’ words, reiterated by Paul, about confounding the wisdom of the learned and wise. What we think we know may not be so. Yet, we have a “pride” of knowledge that makes us very complicit in defending our views merely because we have taken “a shine” to them.

I doubt God will b***h slap anyone. If anything, it will be more like the Emperor and his clothes. The knowledge lords will arrive at a place by their own reasoning and methods that will clearly be an “empty tomb” and they will stand naked in that place seeing that, in reality, they had “not a clue” about which the spoke. Hopefully, they won’t be on “parade” when they realize their “full regalia” (to mix a metaphor) has withered and fallen off the vine, but, mercifully, in the silence of their own hearts where they can contemplate quietly where they erred, and, perhaps, make amends for all the souls they have led astray.
 
Viewpoint: Human evolution, from tree to braid

Some time ago we replaced a linear view of our evolution by one represented by a branching tree. It is now time to replace it with that of an interwoven plexus of genetic lineages that branch out and fuse once again with the passage of time.
This means, of course, that we must abandon, once and for all, views of modern human superiority over archaic (ancient) humans. The terms “archaic” and “modern” lose all meaning as do concepts of modern human replacement of all other lineages.

It also releases us from the deep-rooted shackles that have sought to link human evolution with stone tool-making technological stages — the Stone Ages — even when we have known that these have overlapped with each other for half-a-million years in some instances.

It seems that almost every other discovery in palaeoanthropology is reported as a surprise. I wonder when the penny will drop: when we have five pieces of a 5,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, every new bit that we add is likely to change the picture.
Did we really think that having just a minuscule residue of our long and diverse past was enough for us to tell humanity’s story?
If the fossils of 1.8 or so million years ago and those of the more recent Neanderthal-modern human era were all part of a single, morphologically diverse, species with a wide geographical range, what is there to suggest that it would have been any different in the intervening periods?

The conclusion that I derive takes me back to Dmanisi: We have built a picture of our evolution based on the morphology of fossils and it was wrong.
We just cannot place so much taxonomic weight on a handful of skulls when we know how plastic — or easily changeable — skull shape is in humans. And our paradigms must also change.
 
It is a sad day when people peddle the Evangelical Intelligent Design argument, over the Philosophical and traditional Teleological Argument. Intelligent Design is just an attempt to sneak creationism through the back door, not to reintrepret the scientific data within a theistic metaphysical framework.

Protip: the Evolutionary Scientists are right, IDers are wrong. The metaphysics of many modern naturalist scientists however is simply deficient for making an argument for the Existence of God, why are we abandoning the Aristotelian Metaphysics in favour of the Cartesian metaphysics that have shown themselves to be flawed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top