One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

So YOU are NOT a creationist, then? You DON’T believe God created the universe?

Which 20 logical fallacies are “creationists” consistently making?

Do you think that Meyer’s use of Darwin’s own method of inference to the best explanation to support his inference that an intelligent agent best explains the DNA code in cells is a logical fallacy? Was it a fallacy when Darwin used it or only now for Meyer?

(First, I meant 25, excuse me)

YOU asked for the fallacies,
so I don’t want to be tattled
on for this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk
Now I am not a Creationist in the radical sense, which I believe it the common
definition. I do believe in God and that he created all things, so I guess I am a
Creationists in the broader sense of the word, but mostly the word is descrip-
tive of any who believe that the Bible MUST be interpreted literally, no matter
what science says.
(By the way, I believe you just made a false dichotomy, no?)

 

[Farsight001]

I recall when Kansas moved to ban the teaching of evolution that some professors were demanding that their universities not admit students from Kansas. I remember thinking “how strange” . Ones view on evolution is irrelevant in just about every profession there is.

And you think this makes it unimportant to be accurate and truthful in teaching children?

 

[Farsight001]

The issue is one of clarity. It is an issue that presents itself in the thread title as well as in your contributions.

“Evolution” is a “catch-all” phrase that could have a number of implications. Ditto with the words “creation” and “intelligent design.”

Um…no. Evolution has one definition. Creationism and ID also have specific definitions. This is part of the problem - you guys don’t even know the real definitions of the words you are using. Evolution is the idea that living beings change from generation to generation in adaptation to their environment (environment being EVERYTHING that impacts them EVER) - a simple definition, but adequate for our purposes here. Creationism is the belief that the universe/world was created less than 10,000 years ago as is. ID is the same thing as Creationism, under a different name. I’m a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created the universe. I am most certainly not a creationist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The trouble is though, if Creationists reject evolution because it doesn’t adhere to their literal interpretation of the Bible, why don’t they then accept the whole allegorical cosmology given
in the Bible as literal? Talking flat Earth, Dome Sky, Pillars Under the Earth, etc.

It is this “lumping” that creates the “trouble.”

If you mean young earth creationists who do defend a literal interpretation by rejecting every aspect of evolution, then, perhaps, you have a case.

If you mean old earth creationist who rejects some aspects of evolution such as the plausibility of random selection acting on genetic mutation accounting for all speciation and all innovations in body morphology, then there is no necessary logical connection between “creationists rejecting evolution” and adherence to “a literal interpretation of the Bible.”

You create your own issue here by failing to distinguish the various flavours of “creationism,” all the possible models of evolution and the variant definitions of “literal” in Biblical exegesis.

 

[edwest2]

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It is this “lumping” that creates the “trouble.”

If you mean young earth creationists who do defend a literal interpretation by rejecting every aspect of evolution, then, perhaps, you have a case.

If you mean old earth creationist who rejects some aspects of evolution such as the plausibility of random selection acting on genetic mutation accounting for all speciation and all innovations in body morphology, then there is no necessary logical connection between “creationists rejecting evolution” and adherence to “a literal interpretation of the Bible.”

You create your own issue here by failing to distinguish the various flavours of “creationism,” all the possible models of evolution and the variant definitions of “literal” in Biblical exegesis.

There’s no such thing at “random selection,” I think you mean “natural selection,”
which is the opposite of “random.” And the only reason a Creationist would reject
evolution is because the Bible doesn’t talk about evolution, there’s the connection.

A Creationist is simply someone who rejects what science has to say about the
natural world in favor of what the Bible says and doesn’t say, and not to mention
being very selective about it as well.

 

[estesbob]

The trouble is though, if Creationists reject evolution because it doesn’t adhere to their literal interpretation of the Bible, why don’t they then accept the whole allegorical cosmology given
in the Bible as literal? Talking flat Earth, Dome Sky, Pillars Under the Earth, etc.

Why would you care ?

 

[cerad2]

I’m sorry, but anyone who tells you that they know how muscles, bones and tendons could have evolved separate from each other, when all three must exist simultaneously fror any of them to be functional, (not to mention all the other systems running through them), is blowing smoke. Students should be encouraged to fairly contemplate both sides, and decide.

I realize that facts are not a part of discussions such as these but please do not assume that jellyfish have no muscles just because they have no bones. You might get stung.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm
Peace,
Ed

We have to focus though on what he said and did say.

He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said
scientific and philosophical reason must work together in
a way that does not exclude faith.

I admittingly agree with,

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict
said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a com-
plete, scientifically proven theory.”

but let’s also keep in mind,

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers
made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environ-
ment to finally verify **or disprove **the theory.

And again, ye pesky anti-evolutionists,

He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said
scientific and philosophical reason must work together in
a way that does not exclude faith.

 

[Darryl1958]

Much of it has to do with family breakdown, Single parent families, dysfunctional and deadbeat dads. Schools are not miracle workers.

futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=107&sectionid=692

bossip.com/290527/deadbeat-dad-files-father-of-23-children-by-14-different-mothers-jailed-for-failure-to-pay-over-500k-in-child-support30346/

I started out stating that schools have a role to play in instilling values. Value-free schools are valueless.

I fully agree that the dysfunctioning values of society have a direct impact on even the possibility of becoming educated.
Public schools have a lowest common denominator toward values, which means that a lot of time is spent figuring out where kids ought to be able to take a dump and things like that.

Catholic schools were instituted as a counter-reformation measure by the Jesuits, and they were quite successful in stemming the tide of that assault on Catholic values. I think that another counter-reformation is in order against the value-free education that public schools now provide.

It is not the stuff of miracles, but it is step back from the kind of corruption of values that are having such a terrible effect on children getting an education.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I started out stating that schools have a role to play in instilling values. Value-free schools are valueless.

Because it’s not like parents have to, right?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Um…no. Evolution has one definition. …This is part of the problem - **you guys ** don’t even know the real definitions of the words you are using. Evolution is the idea that living beings change from generation to generation in adaptation to their environment (environment being EVERYTHING that impacts them EVER) - a simple definition, but adequate for our purposes here.

Who are “you guys?” How do you know my actual position when I am still uncertain of it? Merely because I am arguing for a fair hearing does not automatically put me in any particular camp. You do realize that, no?

As to “real definition” I think Meyer has a pretty good definition that proposes six “levels” or aspects to evolution.

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with
   modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single
   common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common
   ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Source: discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf

If you don’t think it is necessary to distinguish among them, does that mean you are quite content accepting all of them and all implications that result?

Creationism is the belief that the universe/world was created less than 10,000 years ago as is. ID is the same thing as Creationism, under a different name.

You will have to explain to Meyer that ID necessarily restricts him to a young earth model, he claims not to subscribe to it. You had better set him straight about that.

Just for practice, care to provide the logic behind why “creationism” and ID both imply the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, since many ID proponents do not make that claim? Why do you have the authority to tell ID proponents what they do and don’t believe?

Meyer, for one, makes his arguments for design from a model that accepts and depends upon cellular evolution. His Signature in the Cell makes a case for design from the origin of living cells some 3.5 billion years ago. He accepts the first four “levels” of evolution to account for genetic modification. In fact, much of his case depends upon it since the logic of his argument depends upon accepting genetic code found in cells as the information medium from which life has evolved.

I’m a theistic evolutionist.

Excellent.

Do you accept #6, that “evolution” involved “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations?” If so, what role did God play?

I believe God created the universe. I am most certainly not a creationist.

So, God created the universe, but the universe was not created? Seems self-contradictory.

Perhaps you agree it was created, but God left the outcome ( life and human beings) totally up to unguided, blind and chance forces?

 

[Darryl1958]

Because it’s not like parents have to, right?

I have answered you as best as I could already.
Your questions are no longer making much sense to me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There’s no such thing at “random selection,” I think you mean “natural selection,”
which is the opposite of “random.” And the only reason a Creationist would reject
evolution is because the Bible doesn’t talk about evolution, there’s the connection.

You are correct, I meant natural selection.

 

[Farsight001]

Who are “you guys?” How do you know my actual position when I am still uncertain of it? Merely because I am arguing for a fair hearing does not automatically put me in any particular camp. You do realize that, no?

Yeah, actually it does put you in a particular camp. It puts you in the camp of people who don’t know that the fair hearing was already given and the game is already over.

As to “real definition” I think Meyer has a pretty good definition that proposes six “levels” or aspects to evolution.

And I think you put too much faith in Meyer who, again, has no idea what he’s talking about. Its called setting up a strawman. He set up his own definition of evolution to knock down instead of addressing what evolution really is.

If you don’t think it is necessary to distinguish among them, does that mean you are quite content accepting all of them and all implications that result?

Its not that its not necessary to distinguish. It’s that other than #2, none of those listed things is actually evolution.

You will have to explain to Meyer that ID necessarily restricts him to a young earth model, he claims not to subscribe to it. You had better set him straight about that.

If I see him, I’ll do that.

Just for practice, care to provide the logic behind why “creationism” and ID both imply the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, since many ID proponents do not make that claim? Why do you have the authority to tell ID proponents what they do and don’t believe?

I went through it in detail earlier in this thread. It has been proven multiple times in the court of law (with a young earth creationist judge presiding, no less), that ID is LITERALLY young earth creationism under a different name.

Meyer, for one, makes his arguments for design from a model that accepts and depends upon cellular evolution. His Signature in the Cell makes a case for design from the origin of living cells some 3.5 billion years ago. He accepts the first four “levels” of evolution to account for genetic modification. In fact, much of his case depends upon it since the logic of his argument depends upon accepting genetic code found in cells as the information medium from which life has evolved.

But again, there are not 4 levels or six levels or 2 levels of evolution. There is just evolution. That he would suggest there are 6 levels proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

So, God created the universe, but the universe was not created? Seems self-contradictory.

As I already pointed out, a Creationist is not merely a person who thinks God created the universe. A creationist is a person who believes that the universe, earth, and all the animals on it was created AS IS, with no evolution.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Who are “you guys?” How do you know my actual position when I am still uncertain of it? Merely because I am arguing for a fair hearing does not automatically put me in any particular camp. You do realize that, no?

As to “real definition” I think Meyer has a pretty good definition that proposes six “levels” or aspects to evolution.

If you don’t think it is necessary to distinguish among them, does that mean you are quite content accepting all of them and all implications that result?

You will have to explain to Meyer that ID necessarily restricts him to a young earth model, he claims not to subscribe to it. You had better set him straight about that.

Just for practice, care to provide the logic behind why “creationism” and ID both imply the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, since many ID proponents do not make that claim? Why do you have the authority to tell ID proponents what they do and don’t believe?

Meyer, for one, makes his arguments for design from a model that accepts and depends upon cellular evolution. His Signature in the Cell makes a case for design from the origin of living cells some 3.5 billion years ago. He accepts the first four “levels” of evolution to account for genetic modification. In fact, much of his case depends upon it since the logic of his argument depends upon accepting genetic code found in cells as the information medium from which life has evolved.

Excellent.

Do you accept #6, that “evolution” involved “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations?” If so, what role did God play?

So, God created the universe, but the universe was not created? Seems self-contradictory.

Perhaps you agree it was created, but God left the outcome ( life and human beings) totally up to unguided, blind and chance forces?

Reading posts like this makes it all worth while. A ruby on a mountain of rocks.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You are correct, I meant natural selection.

Which is in no way “random,” correct?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I have answered you as best as I could already.
Your questions are no longer making much sense to me.

I think my last few replies were mostly statements, explanations,
not questions, so maybe that’s the problem. You’re trying to read
non-questions as questions. I can see how that is problematic.

 

[ringil]

So you believe this is a discussion between the educated and non educated?

On the subject of evolution- yes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And I think you put too much faith in Meyer who, again, has no idea what he’s talking about. Its called setting up a strawman.

So you have read his books, then, to know that he hasn’t a clue?

Or is this a case of the pot and kettle?

He set up his own definition of evolution to knock down instead of addressing what evolution really is.

Meyer is at fault for clearly defining the subtle facets of what is meant by “evolution” in order to properly address the issues with it, but, you, by deliberately keeping the term ambiguous in order to attack “creationists,” are doing us all a service?

Keep up the good work, then!