One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[buffalo]

Thank you, buffalo for your posts. Here’s one more.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161809.htm

Peace,
Ed

Thanks Ed.

 

[meltzerboy]

An argument from popularity?

Be careful here. The Catholic church does not support evolution without the hand of God. It accepts micro-evolution as most people do. Creative ability for novel features is the issue. (also Humani Generis with regard to polygenism)

It’s the same in Judaism: G-d got the process started and knows what will happen but does not micro-manage everything, just as He does not control our free-will decisions. Why is that so difficult for a believer to accept?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I don’t get it. Regardless of motivation if they stumble upon or find a truth why won’t you accept it? Is your implied claim that science has no a priori bias?

If a Creationist has “this” to say, and the scientific community peer reviews it (which
keeps science honest), and the scientific community after having carefully examined
the claims of Creationist, disapproves, then I disapprove.

Science is based on facts, evidence, and not just any single “scientist”
saying what ever he wants but an entire community working together to
understand whether something is factual or not.

Again: Creationists are notorious for quote mining. That is to search for
supporting quotes from scientific articles, journals, whatever, supporting
Creationist ideas provided the mined excerpts are robbed of their mean-
ing and context.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The Catholic church does not support evolution without the hand of God.

So, in other words, evolution as currently described could have been planned from the beginning by God, and thus it the truth.

Creative ability for novel features is the issue. (also Humani Generis with regard to polygenism)

With regard to polygenism, if it does not exist, man is at least 10s of thousands of years old, and likely millions.

 

[buffalo]

It’s the same in Judaism: G-d got the process started and knows what will happen but does not micro-manage everything, just as He does not control our free-will decisions. Why is that so difficult for a believer to accept?

It is not. God does uphold His creation though.

 

[buffalo]

If a Creationist has “this” to say, and the scientific community peer reviews it (which
keeps science honest), and the scientific community after having carefully examined
the claims of Creationist, disapproves, then I disapprove.

Science is based on facts, evidence, and not just any single “scientist”
saying what ever he wants but an entire community working together to
understand whether something is factual or not.

Again: Creationists are notorious for quote mining. That is to search for
supporting quotes from scientific articles, journals, whatever, supporting
Creationist ideas provided the mined excerpts are robbed of their mean-
ing and context.

I use the original papers to support my claims.

 

[meltzerboy]

It is not. God does uphold His creation though.

So we then agree and both believe in this kind of evolution?

 

[buffalo]

So, in other words, evolution as currently described could have been planned from the beginning by God, and thus it the truth.

With regard to polygenism, if it does not exist, man is at least 10s of thousands of years old, and likely millions.

Then the question becomes - Did God know what Adam would look like?

The reason the Church has a problem with polygenism is that their could be men among us without original sin.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Is your claim that God set evolution up to unguided chance? Given these two choices I fall in the design camp. The mind of God much like an artist created and designed it. Design has purpose.

Are you serious? Most biologists are atheist.

I don’t know exactly how God works, but do you? God could have set life up to evolve
on its own. Life could have evolved in a way that God had designed it to evolve. All we
can tell through the evidence is that something like evolution did occur to bring us the
world of life that we know today. I don’t think Evolution "X"s God out of the picture, but
that is only what Creationists infer from or impose upon Evolution.

And how do you know that most biologists are atheist?
That’s quite a claim to make.

 

[buffalo]

So we then agree and both believe in this kind of evolution?

No - I believe this: **IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know exactly how God works, but do you? God could have set life up to evolve
on its own. Life could have evolved in a way that God had designed it to evolve. All we
can tell through the evidence is that something like evolution did occur to bring us the
world of life that we know today. I don’t think Evolution "X"s God out of the picture, but
that is only what Creationists infer from or impose upon Evolution.

Wait - evolution is designed by God? That would be Intelligent Design.

 

[meltzerboy]

No - I believe this: IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Are you a young-earth Creationist? I get that impression when you say “AT ONCE.” That would mean you take Genesis and the six-day Creation literally, as though each day were exactly 24 hours. It would also suggest you believe that mankind existed at the same time as the dinosaurs, and so on. Is that your belief and that of IDvolution (Intelligent Design)? Or is the latter different in this respect from the previous Creationism theory?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Wait - evolution is designed by God? That would be Intelligent Design.

Maybe, just maybe, but I don’t like the “Creationist” implication of Intelligent Design.

There are people who argue against a 13.5 Billion Year Old Universe, 4.5 Billion Year Old
Earth, and against Evolution, Dinosaurs even, and such say that they believe in a 6,000
Year Old Earth Created in 6 Days, World Flood, Talking Snake, No Metaphors, All Liter-
al, and call it Intelligent Design, even calling it Science.

Neither Science nor Evolution contend that God is in control, all it does is explain what
has, can, and could in the future happen. Did you really think that Evolution said there
is not God or God didn’t do any of this or that?

 

[buffalo]

Are you a young-earth Creationist? I get that impression when you say “AT ONCE.” That would mean you take Genesis and the six-day Creation literally, as though each day were exactly 24 hours. It would also suggest you believe that mankind existed at the same time as the dinosaurs, and so on. Is that your belief and that of IDvolution (Intelligent Design)? Or is the latter different in this respect from the previous Creationism theory?

I have posted this before. Gen 1 appears to be from God’s perspective. Imagine a rolled up tape measure, say 7 layers. God being outside time sees it all at once. Humans who live on the timeline have to look back the graduations.

The “at once” concerns prime matter per St Augustine. We understand that life has 500 or so conserved genes. They contain the building blocks for all various life forms. Gene switches turn them on and off. (see facilitated variation)

Dinosaurs - are you the many recent soft tissue finds? Dinosaur bones have been carbon dated between 28000 -32000ya.

Please clarify your last question.

 

[buffalo]

Maybe, just maybe, but I don’t like the “Creationist” implication of Intelligent Design.

There are people who argue against a 13.5 Billion Year Old Universe, 4.5 Billion Year Old
Earth, and against Evolution, Dinosaurs even, and such say that they believe in a 6,000
Year Old Earth Created in 6 Days, World Flood, Talking Snake, No Metaphors, All Liter-
al, and call it Intelligent Design, even calling it Science.

Neither Science nor Evolution contend that God is in control, all it does is explain what
has, can, and could in the future happen. Did you really think that Evolution said there
is not God or God didn’t do any of this or that?

Catholics interpret scripture this way (as you probably know).

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

Yes, evolutionism denies God.

 

[buffalo]

Maybe, just maybe, but I don’t like the “Creationist” implication of Intelligent Design.

There are people who argue against a 13.5 Billion Year Old Universe, 4.5 Billion Year Old
Earth, and against Evolution, Dinosaurs even, and such say that they believe in a 6,000
Year Old Earth Created in 6 Days, World Flood, Talking Snake, No Metaphors, All Liter-
al, and call it Intelligent Design, even calling it Science.

Neither Science nor Evolution contend that God is in control, all it does is explain what
has, can, and could in the future happen. Did you really think that Evolution said there
is not God or God didn’t do any of this or that?

What do you see as the “creationist” implication of ID?

 

[buffalo]

Maybe, just maybe, but I don’t like the “Creationist” implication of Intelligent Design.

There are people who argue against a 13.5 Billion Year Old Universe, 4.5 Billion Year Old
Earth, and against Evolution, Dinosaurs even, and such say that they believe in a 6,000
Year Old Earth Created in 6 Days, World Flood, Talking Snake, No Metaphors, All Liter-
al, and call it Intelligent Design, even calling it Science.

Neither Science nor Evolution contend that God is in control, all it does is explain what
has, can, and could in the future happen. Did you really think that Evolution said there
is not God or God didn’t do any of this or that?

Yes, I believe there was a flood. Catastrophism is now accepted by geologists. There are over 70 flood legends around the world. Ancient Chinese Characters tell the story of the flood.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Catholics interpret scripture this way (as you probably know).

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

Yes, evolutionism denies God.

At what point does Evolution (not “evolutionism”) deny God?

That is, again, a Creationist construct.

Your appending of the suffix “ism” to “evolution” is evident of that.

 

[buffalo]

At what point does Evolution (not “evolutionism”) deny God?

That is, again, a Creationist construct.

Your appending of the suffix “ism” to “evolution” is evident of that.

Here is how.

Evolution is not empirical science as it is trying to reconstruct past events. Empirical science is observable, testable and predictable. Evolution does not meet the test. It is therefore philosophy and some take it as religion.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What do you see as the “creationist” implication of ID?

Intelligent Design, typically, seeks to refute many ideas brought on by science concerning
the natural world. Does Intelligent Design deny the Big Bang, or the fact that the universe
is almost 14 billion years old, or that the Earth is almost 5 billion years old?

What about Continental Shift? Evolution? Other species of humans that did exist?

If the answer to any of those is “No,” then we have Creationist elements found in Intelligent Design.