One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
It can’t be proven:

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

The Church also has no problem with the following:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Source: Catholic Answers tract.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
So by your own addmission the church has no problem with believing the world to be billions of years old, nor does it have a problem with evolution. So is this crusade that people on this thread seem to launch against the vast majority of scientists a personal one?
My guess is that it is a product of the effects that Protestant thinking has had on American catholics.

Honestly the only thing that keeps me posting on this threat despite the refusal of most peope here to actually listen is that I know as soon as I recognize the futilty of trying to reason with you and leave, at least one person here will hail it as a victory of religion over the evils of modern science
 
Peter_Plato said:
You see this is the part (bolded) that just doesn’t make sense to me.

For some reason, merely discovering that “God did it” will effectively turn us all into lazy disinterested slobs who are so finally satiated with the knowledge that he did do it that we completely lose interest in how he did.

Just finding out definitely that “God did it” will, likewise, turn God into an unpredictable cad because as long as we don’t have certainty in knowing that he orders creation he can act in consistently ordered and quite predictable ways, and, up to that point, has, but, if we were ever to uncover his secretive ways, just to spite us, he will instantly change from being ordered and predictable to a bipolar nihilist who would “absolutely destroy most scientific knowledge.”

Why is it necessary to imply from “God did it,” that “there is no way to predict God’s behavior or test for patterns of it?” If he ACTUALLY is creating the universe at THIS very moment why does the universe appear to be quite ordered and predictable now? Yet, according to you, merely finding out that “God did it” will change the current order into chaos.

In any case, I fail to understand how “random mutation” is any less problematic than “God did it” from the perspective of research. Random mutation is no more controllable or foreseeable in terms of “predicting further change” than the Supreme Being altering genetic code.

Do you think it is our knowledge that keeps the universe ordered or is there room to think God might actually have something to do with that? Or do you think that finding out that God has an interest in the outcome will “cramp our style” so to speak and hinder the real progress that humans can accomplish without interference from the omniscient Mind who would just get in the way. Thank you very much.

What is really quite humorous is the fact that a few posts ago, Judas Thaddeus willingly admitted that God is completely in control of EVERYTHING and it seemed to make no difference with respect to our knowing how he goes about business.

Perhaps the two of you ought to confer and come to terms with whether God controlling things will actually completely undermine human knowledge or make absolutely no difference to it.

Just a thought…

Perhaps at this moment in history when our capacity to irrevocably alter the genetic makeup of all life, when we are close to harnessing energy and biochemicals in potentially massively destructive ways and are at near critical points regarding energy and resources, this might be a good time to allow for the possibility that the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God has an intense interest in where we are headed and just might be willing to work with us to make the Earth a better place.

Why will discovering his intelligent “guiding hand” be such an awful thing? Why are we so resistant to the idea?

I don’t get it.

Perhaps because we fear that he really isn’t there after all and that we are desperately alone in the cosmos.

Perhaps there appears to be something heroic in standing alone against all odds?

Perhaps we intuitively sense that a final screw up would be less catastrophic if it were merely to mean the final extinction of an accidental chain of events than if something much more consequential hangs on our actions.
Click to expand...
You so proudly announce that, “Judas Thaddeus willingly admitted that God is completely
in control of EVERYTHING,” almost as if I and other theistic evolutionists have been hold-
ing any other position and that this just suddenly came to light.

WHERE’S THE FREAKIN’ SURPRISE?! :mad:
 
Peter_Plato said:
You see this is the part (bolded) that just doesn’t make sense to me.

For some reason, merely discovering that “God did it” will effectively turn us all into lazy disinterested slobs who are so finally satiated with the knowledge that he did do it that we completely lose interest in how he did.
Click to expand...
Exhibit A - all the Creationists out there who don’t want to learn about evolution or anything else that would explain how. For a lot of people, God did it, and that’s all they care about. Some people have even posted in this thread to that effect.
Just finding out definitely that “God did it” will, likewise, turn God into an unpredictable cad because as long as we don’t have certainty in knowing that he orders creation he can act in consistently ordered and quite predictable ways, and, up to that point, has, but, if we were ever to uncover his secretive ways, just to spite us, he will instantly change from being ordered and predictable to a bipolar nihilist who would “absolutely destroy most scientific knowledge.”
Click to expand...
The problem is that God is supernatural, so we have no mathematical constructs or formulas or tools for measuring and predicting that can be applied to God. So, scientifically speaking, he would be completely unpredictable and nothing we did could work. That’s why science is the study of the NATURAL world.
Why is it necessary to imply from “God did it,” that “there is no way to predict God’s behavior or test for patterns of it?” If he ACTUALLY is creating the universe at THIS very moment why does the universe appear to be quite ordered and predictable now? Yet, according to you, merely finding out that “God did it” will change the current order into chaos.
Click to expand...
When I say “God did it”, I mean the idea that God directly intervened. And it will throw things into chaos because we will be forced to conclude that God may have directly intervened with everything else.
In any case, I fail to understand how “random mutation” is any less problematic than “God did it” from the perspective of research. Random mutation is no more controllable or foreseeable in terms of “predicting further change” than the Supreme Being altering genetic code.
Click to expand...
Again, its not just random mutation. It is random mutation WITH natural selection. And if you don’t understand, then maybe you should do as the rest of us and study the subject.
What is really quite humorous is the fact that a few posts ago, Judas Thaddeus willingly admitted that God is completely in control of EVERYTHING and it seemed to make no difference with respect to our knowing how he goes about business.
Click to expand...
Being in control and directly intervening are two different things.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
You so proudly announce that, “Judas Thaddeus willingly admitted that God is completely
in control of EVERYTHING,” almost as if I and other theistic evolutionists have been hold-
ing any other position and that this just suddenly came to light.

WHERE’S THE FREAKIN’ SURPRISE?! :mad:
Click to expand...
They seem to have selective hearing on this matter. That or they refuse to believe that anybody who thinks evolution is true can also think God is in control. They seem to have a vested interest in making Evolution and God mutually exclusive, but I fail to see why.
 
Gricken said:
So by your own addmission the church has no problem with believing the world to be billions of years old, nor does it have a problem with evolution. So is this crusade that people on this thread seem to launch against the vast majority of scientists a personal one?
My guess is that it is a product of the effects that Protestant thinking has had on American catholics.

Honestly the only thing that keeps me posting on this threat despite the refusal of most peope here to actually listen is that I know as soon as I recognize the futilty of trying to reason with you and leave, at least one person here will hail it as a victory of religion over the evils of modern science
Click to expand...
On the contrary, what I posted is that the Church has not decided on billions or thousands of years but has ruled infallibly that the universe has not existed since eternity.

I know of no one that wishes to bother scientists about their work. Priests and nuns aren’t blocking the doors to science labs. I personally do not know any Biologists. Which means the idea of this having a personal facet is odd.

A few are not listening. In discussing this topic and rejecting the idea, a few react like the world will come to an end without it. Is that rational? I think not. As at least one poster wrote that he, nor I, are anti-science or wish scientific progress to stop, but it is quite clear that we are being given an incomplete explanation of what a human being is.

“Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Gricken said:
So by your own addmission the church has no problem with believing the world to be billions of years old, nor does it have a problem with evolution. So is this crusade that people on this thread seem to launch against the vast majority of scientists a personal one?
My guess is that it is a product of the effects that Protestant thinking has had on American catholics.

Honestly the only thing that keeps me posting on this threat despite the refusal of most peope here to actually listen is that I know as soon as I recognize the futilty of trying to reason with you and leave, at least one person here will hail it as a victory of religion over the evils of modern science
Click to expand...
I honestly am confused by this.

I don’t see it as a conflict between religion and modern science, but rather a question of where the truth is to be found. Science does not have a monopoly on truth. Before Einstein the majority of those “modern” scientists did not accept or even conceive that general relativity might be correct. Before the Standard Big Bang model was definitively (more or less) demonstrated most scientists thought an eternal universe was beyond dispute.
A vast majority of scientists do not necessarily hold infallible convictions - that has been evidenced consistently by the development of science itself. Ideas change, even the ideas of the majority.

Science continually changes. The lesson to be learned here is that compelling ideas deserve, minimally, a hearing.

Science is best served by allowing new ideas to “show their stuff.” That does mean a fair hearing even when “the majority” opposes new ideas. Novel ideas never begin as the majority view.

If those ideas do not bear out, they will fall by the wayside.

I suggest you keep an eye on this issue. There are criticisms of various aspects of evolution as inadequate from a number of different fronts. Thinking among scientists will change.

My confusion stems from why you chose Ed as the one to bear the brunt of your frustration. He seemed quite moderate in his position.

What is the point on this thread that you think has been a futile one to get across?
 
Gricken said:
They seem to have selective hearing on this matter. That or they refuse to believe that anybody who thinks evolution is true can also think God is in control. They seem to have a vested interest in making Evolution and God mutually exclusive, but I fail to see why.
Click to expand...
“QUOTE MINING!”
Logical Fallacy, every five minutes, brought to us specially by Creationists!
 
Farsight001 said:
The classification system (invented by young earth creationist Carl Linnaeus) that we use today defines us quite noticeably as apes. (which, again, was Linnaeus’ doing). In EVERY WAY, we are apes. Don’t like it? Evolve into something else.
Click to expand...
Do apes think, compose music, write books, study science, create new types of homes, build elaborate technology, program computers, invent, read, listen to lectures, engage in philosophical discussions, act morally, wear clothing, compile dictionaries and encyclopedias, produce movies and documentaries, play sports, play board games, turn resources into goods, mine, drill, farm, keep statistics, believe in God, take cruises, etc. etc?
Farsight001 said:
But suggesting you are not an ape is akin to suggesting that you are not a quadruped.
Click to expand...
I am not a quadruped. Last time I counted, I only had two (count 'em) TWO feet.

quad·ru·ped
ˈkwädrəˌped/
noun
  1. an animal that has four feet, esp. an ungulate mammal.
Case closed.
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Huzzah! The American
Education System still
works! :clapping::extrahappy::clapping:
Click to expand...
Apparently not so well regarding longish Latin words used to describe animal morphology or the use of negatives.
 
edwest2 said:
On the contrary, what I posted is that the Church has not decided on billions or thousands of years but has ruled infallibly that the universe has not existed since eternity.

I know of no one that wishes to bother scientists about their work. Priests and nuns aren’t blocking the doors to science labs. I personally do not know any Biologists. Which means the idea of this having a personal facet is odd.

A few are not listening. In discussing this topic and rejecting the idea, a few react like the world will come to an end without it. Is that rational? I think not. As at least one poster wrote that he, nor I, are anti-science or wish scientific progress to stop, but it is quite clear that we are being given an incomplete explanation of what a human being is.

“Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
The church hasn’t decided on it because it is not a theological question.

Who isn’t giving us a full explanation of what a human being is? Science? That isn’t science’s job. So you can not fault it for failing to do that.

Nobody here is denying God’s role in the creation of the universe, nor is anyone trying to make theology and philosophy irrelevant, if you want to talk to somebody about that, talk to the Materialists. But that is not us, and I would appreciate if you would stop acting like it is.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I honestly am confused by this.

I don’t see it as a conflict between religion and modern science, but rather a question of where the truth is to be found. Science does not have a monopoly on truth. Before Einstein the majority of those “modern” scientists did not accept or even conceive that general relativity might be correct. Before the Standard Big Bang model was definitively (more or less) demonstrated most scientists thought an eternal universe was beyond dispute.
A vast majority of scientists do not necessarily hold infallible convictions - that has been evidenced consistently by the development of science itself. Ideas change, even the ideas of the majority.

Science continually changes. The lesson to be learned here is that compelling ideas deserve, minimally, a hearing.

Science is best served by allowing new ideas to “show their stuff.” That does mean a fair hearing even when “the majority” opposes new ideas. Novel ideas never begin as the majority view.

If those ideas do not bear out, they will fall by the wayside.

I suggest you keep an eye on this issue. There are criticisms of various aspects of evolution as inadequate from a number of different fronts. Thinking among scientists will change.

My confusion stems from why you chose Ed as the one to bear the brunt of your frustration. He seemed quite moderate in his position.

What is the point on this thread that you think has been a futile one to get across?
Click to expand...
It is not the position itself that bothers. It is the lack of give and take. The lack of exchanging ideas. It feels like talking to a brick wall.

The point that I, and others have been trying to get across is that evolution =/= materialism or atheism. And almost (not you) everyone here, has been acting like these words are interchangeable.

It’s like when a protestant accuses me of worshiping Mary, it doesn’t matter how much I explain it to him.
 
Farsight001 said:
Good for you. there still doesn’t appear to be any sort of relevance to the issue at hand that I can see. Posting context-free articles tends to do that.
Click to expand...
Well i think the whole point of the article is that evolution is about as useful in a practical sense as a fifth person in a double date situation.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Do apes think, compose music, write books, study science, create new types of homes, build elaborate technology, program computers, invent, read, listen to lectures, engage in philosophical discussions, act morally, wear clothing, compile dictionaries and encyclopedias, produce movies and documentaries, play sports, play board games, turn resources into goods, mine, drill, farm, keep statistics, believe in God, take cruises, etc. etc?

I am not a quadruped. Last time I counted, I only had two (count 'em) TWO feet.

quad·ru·ped
ˈkwädrəˌped/
noun
  1. an animal that has four feet, esp. an ungulate mammal…
Click to expand...
What is a human? Genetically, a primate, in the family of Hominidae, which in-
cludes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos AND HUMANS. The genes
speak for themselves.

Not ALL apes think, compose music, write books, study science, etc, so you’re point
there is irrelevant, though it is interesting to see that you don’t study science, and be-
fore you say that you do, all I can see you doing is quote mining from any scientific
source, rob it of it’s context, to support the LYING false science called Creationism.
 
lightbeamrider said:
Based on what? How does an understanding if evolution, ape like creature to man, for example, affect anti-biotic resistant research? Are you saying ancient evolution theory is a precursor to anti biotic research? Without the former there could have been no latter? Read carefully the article.

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/
Click to expand...
Based on what? ON SCIENCE!

How does an understanding if evolution, ape like creature to man, for example, affect anti-biotic resistant research? WE KNOW HOW ORGANISM WORK!

Are you saying ancient evolution theory is a precursor to anti biotic research? YES!!!

Without the former there could have been no latter? IT HELPS IMMENSELY!

We SEE micro-organisms evolving, SEE - TODAY(!), what don’t you get about that?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
What is a human? Genetically, a primate, in the family of Hominidae, which in-
cludes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos AND HUMANS. The genes
speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
Then why do you continually insist on translating what they say?
 
Four days now, and still no answer from those who oppose evolution: Is God a trickster?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top