One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
XndrK said:
Okay, let me point something out. (This might have already been done, but I’m not going to spend the next two hours checking every one of the near 1000 posts to see.)

The fossil record is like a pile of family photos with a few missing. You may not have every pic, but it’s pretty obvious that the people in the pics are getting older.

Similarly, the fossil record doesn’t have all the “pictures,” but the snapshots we do have give us a pretty good idea about what happened in the past.
Click to expand...
No, the fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.
 
buffalo said:
First, I can outline how we know ID is science. We know ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments. The purpose is to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental researchers uncover irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. For some nice, easy articles that further discuss why ID is science, please see any of the following links:
Click to expand...
Among the things I’m bothered by, however, is the assumption of this “CSI,” which really sounds more like an subjective opinion.
I have also found some criticisms on the CSI concept:
And again, you seem incapable of stepping far enough away from Creationist sites
to find more trustworthy sources. I WILL ADMIT, however, I did take notice of what
Dr. McPeek had to say: What makes something science is not merely having hypotheses. Science is having hypotheses and then testing them. The In-
telligent Design hypothesis is untestable by science, exactly because we can never empirically know or understand the actions
of God or any other Intelligent Designer. This in no way negates the validity of the hypothesis. It simply means that this hypothe-
sis is outside the purview of science, because science can only support or refute hypotheses that are empirically testable, and
this is not one of them.
WHY would he say that? and WHY did the site fiddle with one of the sentences? It’s almost as
though “Designists” are pretending that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with trying to prove
that there is a God.
 
estesbob said:
So you beleive God created these organisms and then just walked away ?
Click to expand...
Again, this is not really relevant to the discussion at hand. Forum rules say we stay on topic, so I actually can’t really talk about it.
 
Farsight001 said:
Again, this is not really relevant to the discussion at hand. Forum rules say we stay on topic, so I actually can’t really talk about it.
Click to expand...
Sure you can-all you have to do is answer the question. Do you believe God crated these organisms and just walked away? And if one believes God created these organisms why is it so hard to accept the fact many people believe he had a direct hand in how these organism evolved?
 
Farsight001 said:
Really? You have quite an education? And you got this at what university or college?

Because it holds back education and scientific advancement for the betterment of this country and of the whole world.
Click to expand...
On the macro level, I can’t think of a single application in the present. Regarding the past, much rewriting is ongoing. I spent nearly 10 years in a teaching hospital and had access to all sorts of journals and was on good terms with a top man in his field who published books on his findings. This theory was not relevant in the least. I watched him spend years doing trial and error. The theory was not predictive. He had awards for his trial and error but as of the time I left, the problem remained a problem.

Peace,
Ed
 
estesbob said:
Sure you can-all you have to do is answer the question. Do you believe God crated these organisms and just walked away? And if one believes God created these organisms why is it so hard to accept the fact many people believe he had a direct hand in how these organism evolved?
Click to expand...
Again, the subject at hand is not who or what created life. Please get back to the subject.
 
edwest2 said:
On the macro level, I can’t think of a single application in the present. Regarding the past, much rewriting is ongoing. I spent nearly 10 years in a teaching hospital and had access to all sorts of journals and was on good terms with a top man in his field who published books on his findings.
Click to expand...
So? My cousin is a top eye surgeon. I’m not about to claim I know a lot about eyesight. Hospitals make you an expert on hospitals, not evolution. So I guess your answer would be you’ve gone to no college or university to get an education on the subject and that you don’t actually have one.
This theory was not relevant in the least. I watched him spend years doing trial and error. The theory was not predictive. He had awards for his trial and error but as of the time I left, the problem remained a problem.
Click to expand...
That’s because hospitals are hands on. You’ll see engineers spend years building stuff and never actually use physics to predict. That’s because physics was already used and the engineers are applying what physicists learned through experimentation. It’s the same with hospitals - their very medical practices are based off of biological knowledge, of which evolution is a very key component. You may not have realized you were using stuff learned through experimentation and evolution research, but you most certainly were.
 
vz71 said:
Dueling theories.

is physics right?
Is biology?

It would appear you have set up a conflict.
Click to expand...
Ii didn’t set up anything. I asked a question. One I would appreciate an answer to.
 
To sum up this thread so far:
  1. Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution is not only incompatible with the empirical data but it is also incompatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
  2. Intelligent Design (aka Non-random Evolution) - as articulated by Michael Behe - is fully compatible with not only Catholic Teaching but also with the scientific evidence.
 
HansTrappist said:
To sum up this thread so far:
  1. Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution is not only incompatible with the empirical data but it is also incompatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.
  2. Intelligent Design (aka Non-random Evolution) - as articulated by Michael Behe - is fully compatible with not only Catholic Teaching but also with the scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
In no way is that a summary of this thread. Did you even read any of it? Evolution is not random. ID explicitly denies that evolution happens AT ALL. And you actually think that evolution is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church? You’re not SSPX, are you? Because several popes have explicitly said that it is not in contradiction with the Church.
 
Farsight001 said:
So? My cousin is a top eye surgeon. I’m not about to claim I know a lot about eyesight. Hospitals make you an expert on hospitals, not evolution. So I guess your answer would be you’ve gone to no college or university to get an education on the subject and that you don’t actually have one.

That’s because hospitals are hands on. You’ll see engineers spend years building stuff and never actually use physics to predict. That’s because physics was already used and the engineers are applying what physicists learned through experimentation. It’s the same with hospitals - their very medical practices are based off of biological knowledge, of which evolution is a very key component. You may not have realized you were using stuff learned through experimentation and evolution research, but you most certainly were.
Click to expand...
I am educated on the subject and have gone to college. All I’m seeing here, including in the past, is a recruitment program. If I verify my agreement, for example, the program continues until complete acceptance is achieved. This is part of Psychological Warfare 101, which I have studied.

The correct approach, I think, is to present facts for and against, and once that is completed then people are free to accept or reject those facts. Nothing is served by presenting the information to total strangers and making any type of disparaging remarks.

I have a friend who told me the following: “I don’t believe in God, I believe in evolution.” He later changed his mind based on his own further study.

Peace,
Ed
 
Farsight001 said:
In no way is that a summary of this thread. Did you even read any of it? Evolution is not random. ID explicitly denies that evolution happens AT ALL. And you actually think that evolution is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church? You’re not SSPX, are you? Because several popes have explicitly said that it is not in contradiction with the Church.
Click to expand...
These are two facts that some seem to refuse to acknowledge: that evolution is not (entirely) random and that believing in the theory of evolution (with some qualification) is not in opposition to the teaching of the Church.
 
How is this thread allowed when evolution is supposed to be a banned topic on CAF?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top