One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[meltzerboy]

It isn’t that I don’t accept evolution, it IS that …

1. I need to be clear what it us that I am accepting. Unfortunately, the term “evolution” has so many layers and subtle inferences attached to it that when anyone says “evolution” they probably have quite a different configuration of those layers and inferences, so distinct from anyone else who uses the term that, very likely, the same “entity” is not being discussed.
2. I take a philosophical approach to this issue. That means I do not accept evolution a priori and then attempt to jerrymander the evidence to fit the explanation. What I do do is take the evidence at face value and only then determine what it entails. It is not clear to me that, on the whole, the preponderance of evidence leads to a conclusion that evolution must be occurring and can be the only possible or plausible explanation. It is a plausible inference, but it has, by no means, been conclusively demonstrated. So from a philosophical perspective, I see no problem questioning those inferences that require justification because they are not as compelling as they have been portrayed to be by “proponents” of the theory.

My confidence in “evolution” has not been bolstered by posters in this thread. My general impression is that the case for evolution isn’t being made very cogently because there is not a strong case to be made. That is clear from the lack of compelling argument over the hundreds of posts so far written.

The most virulently proposed “argument” has been that evolution is correct because, well, it is opposed by “creationists” who are incompetent baboons but can’t see that fact because they refuse to believe they actually descended from apes and the genetic evidence obviously shows they did.

Neither am I convinced by a claim that all “creationists” (a catch-all equivocation if there ever was one) are guilty of a myriad of fallacies when that claim, itself, is a severe but oblivious application of kettle logic.

I would oppose such thinking on the grounds that it is nonsense even if I were a rabid evolutionist. It portrays evolutionists as sloppy logicians and incompetent thinkers. I am sure a better case can be made, it just hasn’t been. Which leaves me wondering why.

Perhaps no one on this thread has sufficient expertise to make a strong enough case for evolution and that is why you are not convinced. But if you do your own research on what the scientists who specialize in evolutionary theory say, you may better understand their perspective. One source I found on the Internet is “Misconceptions about Evolution,” which is linked to the University of California, Berkeley. You might want to read what they say. And, by the same token, those who believe in the validity of the theory of evolution might wish to investigate what proponents of Intelligent Design say by means of primary sources rather than relying solely on how IDevolution is described by posters on this thread, who may not be so knowledgeable concerning the details of the theory.

 

[vz71]

Sadly, which I didn’t make clearer before, I do not have that.

As for you last point there, kind of a misrepresentation of evolution.

That last bit there was exactly what you had said.

Would you like me to run through the quote again?

 

[Crossbones]

I have enough of an idea about “what science is” to know that good science is based on logical implications from evidence, thus on “good philosophy.”

So, go learn about evolution in a disciplined environment devoting the necessary time to understand the nuances and then apply your philosophical point of view and report to us your conclusions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you are sincere, then go to a college or university and take an course of evolution and learn about it in detail. You are only going to get tidbits of information here because a forum is a poor way of learning about a topic such as this and the debate on this topic always revolves around small gaps in evolution being exploited by creationists or IDers to say it’s all bunk. The fact is, I shouldn’t have ‘humored you’ because I am not an expert on the field. I know what science is and I know ID is not science and that was my point in posting.

EDIT: Example of the type of debate you get on the field is directly below my post

So how does NOT being an expert in the field allow you to make a determination that what IDers say is “all bunk?”

For all you know the “small gaps” in evolution might be exploited by the materialist evolutionists to draw conclusions the other way that are just as unwarranted.

Does “inference to the best explanation” present a scientific or philosophical case? Does the fact it is a philosophical argument mean it is not scientific?

Darwin used it to infer common descent and speciation from adaptive change. Meyer uses the same method to infer intelligence from information coding in DNA. Is inference of this kind only “science” when used by Darwin, but “bunk” when used by Meyer?

Why would that be the case?

You have not read Meyer, correct?

Let’s be clear here. It is YOU making a positive claim that what IDers say is “all bunk.” It is up to you to demonstrate that. You can’t hide behind “I’m not an expert” as a way of escaping your claim.

If you don’t have the expertise to defend evolution, you equally do not have the expertise to debunk ID, correct?

 

[Farsight001]

The source is from University of California @ Berkeley. On the Internet, one can find it under the heading of Misconceptions about Evolution.

I already gave them the link to Berkeley, along with several other links. Don’t expect them to actually look at it.

 

[vz71]

Catholics are really all creationists. We do believe God did it. The alternative is “everything came from nothing” - the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) I like the God. It is more intellectually satisfying.

Now you say that “Catholics are really all creationists,” meaning that we all
believe that there is a Creator or that we all take the Bible 100% literally?

buffalo made a statement concerning Catholics, and clarified exactly what was meant.
His finding is perfectly logical.

You rebuttal is a distortion of what he had said.

Is this not an example of what you accuse creationists of doing?

 

[Farsight001]

That doesn’t verify evolution by a long-shot.

Err…yes, yes it does. It is one species becoming another species, which is literally the definition of macro-evolution according to you guys.

 

[Farsight001]

The issue is trying to extrapolate adaptation (aka micro-evo) to macro - evo. That is where they go into storytelling.

The storytelling is when creationists act like there’s a difference between macro and micro evolution. There is no. Its all just evolution.

 

[Farsight001]

The nylon proof is not valid. Nylon is a carbon chain that the bacteria adapted to consume.
*
*
Nylon and proteins are polyamides made from amino acids. Nylon is derived from adipic acid which comes from oat hulls or corncobs. It should be no surprise bacteria digest it.

Manmade products synthesize what nature already has done. Polymers existed right from the beginning of life.

Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.

…In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can
acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds
such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the
process of adaptation. The artificial expansion of the metabolic
diversity of microorganisms toward various unnatural compounds
would be important in terms of biodegradation of
environmental pollutants.

Then explain the DNA testing of the bacteria that proves that it is a new species. Also explain how the initial set of bacteria DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY to process nylon and that they developed the capacity through mutation and adaptation, i.e. - evolution.

 

[Farsight001]

You do understand that macro evolution is also not testable.

Darwin relied on inference to the best explanation as his method, which means any claims concerning evolution beyond adaptive change are philosophical and not experimental according to your own criteria.

I’m almost seeing red here. According to YOUR DEFINITION of macro-evolution, which is one species becoming another species, it is quite testable. In fact, in giving the example of the nylon eating bacteria, I showed you not only visible proof that one species became another, but also that they were able to make it happen in a lab, i.e. TEST it. And here you are trying to convince people that it is not testable? That’s nothing but a willful lie. shame on you.

 

[Farsight001]

Well no, it’s not the same “kind of thing” at all. Squares are a subset of rectangles precisely because there is nothing about squares that cannot be found in rectangles. What makes squares unique is a peculiar iteration of a rectangular property, not an entire plethora of novel properties such as the ones I partially listed above. It would be like saying all squares are rectangles but they also can sing opera, do the jitterbug, drive cars, play the banjo, etc. etc. Which is to say they aren’t really “only rectangles” after all.

But there are a lot that can be found in squares that are not found in rectangles. Four equi-distant sides are in squares and not rectangles. Perpendicular bisectors of the corners are found in squares and not rectangles. A square has many traits that a rectangle does not, and yet a square is a rectangle. Why? Because it meets the definition of a rectangle. I am a male because I have male parts. That I might have long hair or pale skin or a large frame does not mean I cannot be male anymore. It just means that I have more traits in addition to the traits that make me male. likewise, we are all apes BY DEFINITION. That we have more traits in addition to the traits that make us an ape does not magically somehow make us non-apes.

The problem is with your idiosyncratically imprecise but erratic application of labels to ideas that haven’t been fully articulated in that brain of yours. It is mildly interesting that you are willing to run fast and loose with the meaning of the word “quadruped,” but are retentively picky about the word “creationist.”

I misspoke. I had the integrity to admit it, and you decide to deride and mock me in an underhanded way for it?

I suggest you allow the definition of “creationist” to include anyone who thinks the universe was “created.” From there we can further subdivide the class to include various forms of creationist ideas. You have demonstrated you can do this by distinguishing squares as subsets of rectangles (see above.)

Except that the definition of a creationist is already formally established. You don’t just get to change the definitions of words to suit you. Were that allowable, I would have tried to tweak the meaning of quadruped above instead of admitting that I misspoke.

1. theistic evolution creationists - those who, like you, subscribe to the idea that God created and tuned the cosmos at the front end to bring about evolution as a natural process that no further required his guiding hand.

Thats a really reduntant definition. Theistic evolutionists necessarily believe that God created it all. That’s what the theistic part MEANS. The only reason to add the word "creationist’ to the end is to puff up your numbers or make your group seem more important.

I understand that you are resistant to the idea of being “lumped in” with those other “creationists” because of the connotations that go with the word, but perhaps you could see it as a kind of penitential self-emptying - a call to eat and drink with tax collectors, sinners and assorted other untouchables, academically speaking.

Its not about being lumped in. Its about the proper definition of the word.

 

[Farsight001]

Michael Behe has demonstrated that there is a mathematical limit to what Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution can achieve in Nature. Anything beyond that mathematical limit requires Non-Random Evolution (aka Design). Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts. Even Richard Dawkins admits that Nature appears to be Designed, but he will not admit that this appearance is real. Dawkins thinks that Darwinian (aka Random) Mutation can give rise to this “appearance” of design. The only problem, as Michael Behe has demonstrated in his book The Edge of Evolution, is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Random Mutation gave rise to complex, intelligent biological life that we see around us. In fact, Behe demonstrates that it is a mathematical impossibility and that in fact Random Mutation is much better at Devolution than Evolution.

It is really quite satisfying to know that all these smug militant atheists are actually anti-scientific hypocrites who cling to an irrational belief system with an almost religious fervor.

No, Behe has not. In fact, his “mathematical limit” was an idea posited AND REFUTED decades before he even finished school. It is laughable and ignorant, as is the entirety of his book.

 

[Farsight001]

It seems we have the hypothesis.
Can this be repeated in a lab?

Yes. Again, see the nylon eating bacteria experiment.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m almost seeing red here. According to YOUR DEFINITION of macro-evolution, which is one species becoming another species, it is quite testable. In fact, in giving the example of the nylon eating bacteria, I showed you not only visible proof that one species became another, but also that they were able to make it happen in a lab, i.e. TEST it. And here you are trying to convince people that it is not testable? That’s nothing but a willful lie. shame on you.

Do you know what inductive reasoning actually is?

You also should realize that the idea of “species” is a label we humans put unto different types of creatures according to certain traits. In effect, it is an arbitrary term. The difference between nylon eating bacteria and non-nylon eating bacteria is marginal. The difference between bacteria and human beings is vast.

To infer that bacteria can change from non-nylon consuming to nylon consuming means, inductively speaking, that you have made a case that bacteria can change into human beings is far from being established, especially since you are relying on induction to do so.

It is a start, certainly, but it is not case closed. Continue seeing red, then, perhaps we can witness the evolution of a new species. But don’t start chowing down on nylon, that trait has been taken by the bacteria.

 

[vz71]

I never said “Evolution is ALL OF science”. I went through this clarification once already (even though I should not have had to do that the first time)

No, you simply implied it very heavily.

You claimed that someone that rejects evolution rejects science.

You did NOT claim that someone who rejects evolution rejects only part of science.

Wouldn’t this as well be an example of what creationists are accused of by others on this thread?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes. Again, see the nylon eating bacteria experiment.

This reminds me of the Guinness Book of Records fellow who has consumed a train locomotive and various other metallic contraptions. If some genetic component is found to correlate with his propensity for iron does that imply we have a whole new species of human beings?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Perhaps no one on this thread has sufficient expertise to make a strong enough case for evolution and that is why you are not convinced. But if you do your own research on what the scientists who specialize in evolutionary theory say, you may better understand their perspective. One source I found on the Internet is “Misconceptions about Evolution,” which is linked to the University of California, Berkeley. You might want to read what they say. And, by the same token, those who believe in the validity of the theory of evolution might wish to investigate what proponents of Intelligent Design say by means of primary sources rather than relying solely on how IDevolution is described by posters on this thread, who may not be so knowledgeable concerning the details of the theory.

Blessed are the peacemakers…

 

[vz71]

Where does it say that? Where is that in the official definition of evolution?

An interesting question.
As it does seem many here are operating off of different definitions.

Perhaps clarity is in order.

What exactly is the definition of evolution?
What exactly is the definition of creationist?
What exactly is intelligent design?

 

[Crossbones]

So how does NOT being an expert in the field allow you to make a determination that what IDers say is “all bunk?”

For all you know the “small gaps” in evolution might be exploited by the materialist evolutionists to draw conclusions the other way that are just as unwarranted.

Does “inference to the best explanation” present a scientific or philosophical case? Does the fact it is a philosophical argument mean it is not scientific?

Darwin used it to infer common descent and speciation from adaptive change. Meyer uses the same method to infer intelligence from information coding in DNA. Is inference of this kind only “science” when used by Darwin, but “bunk” when used by Meyer?

Why would that be the case?

You have not read Meyer, correct?

Let’s be clear here. It is YOU making a positive claim that what IDers say is “all bunk.” It is up to you to demonstrate that. You can’t hide behind “I’m not an expert” as a way of escaping your claim.

If you don’t have the expertise to defend evolution, you equally do not have the expertise to debunk ID, correct?

Ok, I haven’t read every idiotic thing that every IDer has said to conclude it’s all bunk. I just haven’t found anything in my readings of IDer that I didn’t consider bunk, so I made the mistake of saying it’s all bunk. Buffalo pointed out Universal Probability Limit, and I said it was bunk. The number is wrong (how do you conclude there are 10^45 states any one second reasonably), it’s applied incorrectly (people have shown that the limits he proposes are poorly applied and what Demski(sp?) says could never happen, in fact, could happen in the time frames considered. And, no, Buffalo, I’m not arguing with you on that, so save your time.

So, you want me to go read more stuff and then tell you why I think it’s bunk, when I’ve concluded that it is likely a waste of my time since everything I’ve read on the topic in the past is bunk, so I probably will reach the same conclusion.

Now, if you want me to devote my life to convincing you it’s all bunk by reading a bunch of junk and then explaining to you why it’s junk and then having you come up with some artificial philosophical constraint that it could possibly not be junk, then I’m telling you right now that I won’t do that. I’ve said we can disagree, I’ve suggested you go take a college course and learn about evolution and apply it to your philosophical views, but really, you just want to argue. So have at it, I’m done with it. Maybe if the ID guys didn’t put out so much bull at the beginning in establishing their fake science then I would spend more time learning about it now, but I have better things to do.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Except that the definition of a creationist is already formally established.

When and where? By a Dover, Pennsylvania judge?