One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[buffalo]

Hold on to your jaw . . . “Creation mean that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency
of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an
intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins
and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987

“Sudden emergence holds that various forms of life began with their distinctive
features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings,
animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007
Is that not just sad? :dts:

What do you mean “Evolution itself has no voice”?
Some, even many, “evolutionists” as you insist on
calling them, do in fact use evolution to deny God,
but the official SCIENTIFIC position on evolution is
making NO statement about God, not for God, not
against God, NO statement about God. Such ac–
cusations are Creationist constructs.

Good Links Answering
this FALSE statement:home.comcast.net/~chris.s/evolcrea.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Time for review:

**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.

---

I would just like to see evolution observed, repeated and predicted in a lab? Do you have an experiment link?

 

[Peter_Plato]

As far as science can
tell, everything was by chance, which is a perfectly valid statement for science to make, seeing how it is limited to the physical
world. NOW we can explain WHY everything is the way it is because we can say that GOD did it. There is absolutely no need
of the dishonesty of Intelligent Design, saying Evolution isn’t true, GOD DID IT, how?
GOD DID IT, by what process?, GOD DID
IT, and so forth. If Creationists don’t like that Evolution doesn’t talk about God, Creator, Designer, Intelligent Designer, TOUGH !!!

Everything happened by chance = valid statement.
Everything is the way it is because GOD did it = valid statement.
**For Intelligent Design to say God did it = dishonest statement **

Intelligent design could NOT possibly be a valid process because well…

… God would NEVER use intelligence to design when BLIND UNGUIDED CHANCE is available to him.

Ostensibly the reason Intelligent Design is dishonest is because its proponents stubbornly balk at accepting that “it happened by chance” DOES equate to “God did it” despite the fact that it hasn’t been actually demonstrated how the two statements could possibly be consistent with each other by anyone, anywhere.

The seeming inconsistency is safely to be ignored as a red herring by those claiming that “it happened by chance” does indeed = “God did it.”

Simple, right?

Can’t accept the convoluted logic… TOUGH!

You have to smile, give your head a shake, mutter benignly to yourself and wonder how we ever got to this level of intellectual confusion.

Then - by some remarkable stroke of chance - the answer comes, perhaps BUC is actually true…

…to explain how SOME did, indeed, get here.

Which explains their affinity for the chanciful logic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Who are Lawrence Krauss, Francisco Ayala, and Kenneth Miller?

Are they members of the Magisterium?

Perhaps Farsight has read their collected works?

 

[edwest2]

Wow. Referring to Post #1017

Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

There you go again, using that term “Evolution” equivocally.

What do you mean by “Evolution?”

Do you mean Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations or do you mean Natural Selection action on Non-Random Mutations?

You act like it is an established scientific fact that Natural Selection acting on Random Mutation is responsible for complex, intelligent Life.

And yes, Darwinian Evolution is really just a fancy form of Atheism. It goes all the way back to Epicurus and his concept of the eternal universe. Darwin simply applied Epicurus’ Materialism to biology. Richard Dawkins has applied it to the popular culture. But when you remove the mask, it is nothing more than a form of naked, militant Atheism.

What I mean by Evolution is that life evolves over millions of years, whether
it is all guided by God or not, we don’t know for sure, BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT GOD, and a few factors that play a role are Natural Selection and (as
far as HONEST science can tell) “random mutation.”

I don’t need liars and fake science to assure me that there is a God who is responsible for
everything existing. Darwinian Evolution is not atheism, nothing about it is atheism. That’s
only the opinion of Creationists who do not, can not, and refuse to understand Evolution.

Darwin just might have, I don’t trust you, proposed some materialism of sorts,
but did he deny God? Did he agree with Epicurus on his concept of an eternal
universe? I believe that you’re making an Association Fallacy (also called Guilt
by Association). Why do Creationists HAVE TO make logical fallacies?

Now back to random and non-random. We cannot say in the context of science whether
Evolution is guided by God or by random chance. To do otherwise would be to hold God
within a test tube, or place him under a microscope, and science is not going to do that.

Finally, back to Darwinian Evolution: You have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
Darwinian Evolution truly is Atheism, not just give your own personal opinion or the opin-
ion from a Creationist group, but I want to see actual proof that this is a definition used
by the majority of people.

 

[buffalo]

WEAK ANTI-ID ARGUMENTS:
**1] ID is “not science” **
**2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously **
**3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research **
4] ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions
**5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” **
**6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists” **
7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science
**8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy **
**9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong **
**10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design **
**11] Darwinian evolution is a Vastly More “Simple” Argument than Intelligent Design **
**12] **Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!
**13] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution **
14] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like “Darwinism.” The word “Darwinism” is a derogatory term used by creationists, intelligent design supporters, and other opponents of evolutionary theory that has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists.
15] Nothing is Wrong with the Modern Synthesis! (And, by the way, what kind of “Darwinism” is ID dealing with? Why?)
16] ID is really an attempt at overthrowing the well established principles of science. It is a theory which denies the history itself of modern rational thought and of our scientific tradition
17] Methodological naturalism is the rule of science
18] Methodological naturalism is a centuries-old, traditional rule for science
19] Science does not address the “Supernatural.”
**20] ID scientists are participating in a tautological exercise. They don’t really draw an inference to design; they assume a design in advance and then call it an inference **
**21] **Evolution and artificial intelligence research have proved that there is no such thing as the “free will” that IDers attribute to designers; and, there is a scientifically respectable form of “free will” that is fully compatible with determinism
**22] **Who Designed the Designer?
**23] **The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed
**24] **Bad Design Means No Design

 

[buffalo]

**25] **Intelligent Design proponents deny, without having a reason, that randomness can produce an effect, and then go make something up to fill the void
**26] **Dembski’s idea of “complex specified information” is nonsense
**27] **The Information in Complex Specified Information (CSI) Cannot Be Quantified
**28] ** ? Isn’t it just a “pet idea” of some dubious commenters at UD?
**29] **The ID explanatory filter cannot rule out chance or unknown laws!
**30] **William Dembski “dispensed with” the Explanatory Filter (EF) and thus Intelligent Design cannot work
**31] **Intelligent Design Tries To Claim That Everything is Designed Where We Obviously See Necessity and Chance
**32] **What types of life are Irreducibly Complex? Or which life is not Irreducibly Complex?
33] In the Flagellum Behe Ignores that this Organization of Proteins has Verifiable Functions when Particular Proteins are Omitted, i.e. in its simplest form, a protein pump
**34] **Behe is Jumping to Conclusions on P. falciparum and his so-called edge of evolution. P. falciparum did not evolve because it did not need to evolve: it is so perfect already that it cannot improve upon itself
**35] What About the spreading of antibiotic resistance? **
**36] **ID Proponents Talk a Lot About Front-Loading But Never Explain What It Means
37] ID Proponents use a lot of other buzz-words like Intelligence, Design, Complexity, etc, but never clearly and convincingly explain what they mean
38] Does Quantum Theory contradict and disprove the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)?
39] ID is Nothing More Than a “God of the Gaps” Hypothesis
40] Why are you Intelligent Design Creationists always so busy quote-mining what scientists have to say about Evolution?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Time for review:

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.

Brace yourself!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Everything happened by chance = valid statement.
Everything is the way it is because GOD did it = valid statement.
**For Intelligent Design to say God did it = dishonest statement **

Intelligent design could NOT possibly be a valid process because well…

… God would NEVER use intelligence to design when BLIND UNGUIDED CHANCE is available to him.

Ostensibly the reason Intelligent Design is dishonest is because its proponents stubbornly balk at accepting that “it happened by chance” DOES equate to “God did it” despite the fact that it hasn’t been actually demonstrated how the two statements could possibly be consistent with each other by anyone, anywhere.

The seeming inconsistency is safely to be ignored as a red herring by those claiming that “it happened by chance” does indeed = “God did it.”

Simple, right?

Can’t accept the convoluted logic… TOUGH!

You have to smile, give your head a shake, mutter benignly to yourself and wonder how we ever got to this level of intellectual confusion.

Then - by some remarkable stroke of chance - the answer comes, perhaps BUC is actually true…

…to explain how SOME did, indeed, get here.

Which explains their affinity for the chanciful logic.

I never said,
“God would NEVER use intelligence to design when BLIND UNGUIDED CHANCE is available to him”
That is your own construct.

Intelligent Design is dishonest because it claims to be a science, slips un-
der the radar of real scientists when publishing their own false scientific re-
ports, attempt to convince people that there is a God by using fake science.

Maybe if Intelligent Design was not about fake science, I’d go along with it.

 

[vz71]

Maybe because this time it’s mostly based on intellectual discussions and not ranting insults.

This thread does seem to have an air of civility that other evolution threads appear to have lacked.

 

[edwest2]

This thread does seem to have an air of civility that other evolution threads appear to have lacked.

True. May I add, that for most, at least two of the following is not true:

1. Blind, unguided chance did it.
2. God did it but he must have used blind, unguided chance.
3. God did it and he infallibly directed the outcome, with no chance involved.
4. God did it in 6 “days” of creation, either 24 hour days or thousand year “days.” Which would strangely, put the age of the earth at where it currently stands on the Hebrew Calendar.

I really like science. Too bad that, for some “evolution=ALL of science.” That makes me wary about all threads like this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Time for review:
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.​

I would just like to see evolution observed, repeated and predicted in a lab? Do you have an experiment link?

Does the “preserve the ‘kind’ that they began as” not confirm what I just said?

Two Good Links on Why Intelligent Design Fails as a Science:
youtube.com/watch?v=dz2jonHmBeI
youtube.com/watch?v=K_ZpQZgw2UM
This perfectly reflects what St. Augustine says:
“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.
It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”

Everything you described is RELIGION deceitfully using the language of science.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

This thread does seem to have an air of civility that other evolution threads appear to have lacked.

Believe it or not, I’m trying very hard to constrain myself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I never said,
“God would NEVER use intelligence to design when BLIND UNGUIDED CHANCE is available to him”
That is your own construct.

Intelligent Design is dishonest because it claims to be a science, slips un-
der the radar of real scientists when publishing their own false scientific re-
ports, attempt to convince people that there is a God by using fake science.

Maybe if Intelligent Design was not about fake science, I’d go along with it.

You are right. I am wrong.

Just one question…

How would we know it is “fake science” without clearly defining what it is that makes any endeavor “science” to begin with?

How about we start there…

What is “real” science, then?

 

[HansTrappist]

What I mean by Evolution is that life evolves over millions of years, whether
it is all guided by God or not, we don’t know for sure, BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT GOD, and a few factors that play a role are Natural Selection and (as
far as HONEST science can tell) “random mutation.”

I don’t need liars and fake science to assure me that there is a God who is responsible for
everything existing. Darwinian Evolution is not atheism, nothing about it is atheism. That’s
only the opinion of Creationists who do not, can not, and refuse to understand Evolution.

Darwin just might have, I don’t trust you, proposed some materialism of sorts,
but did he deny God? Did he agree with Epicurus on his concept of an eternal
universe? I believe that you’re making an Association Fallacy (also called Guilt
by Association). Why do Creationists HAVE TO make logical fallacies?

Now back to random and non-random. We cannot say in the context of science whether
Evolution is guided by God or by random chance. To do otherwise would be to hold God
within a test tube, or place him under a microscope, and science is not going to do that.

Finally, back to Darwinian Evolution: You have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
Darwinian Evolution truly is Atheism, not just give your own personal opinion or the opin-
ion from a Creationist group, but I want to see actual proof that this is a definition used
by the majority of people.

Quit using “creationist” like its a dirty word. All Catholics must believe in the Creator.

And quit implying that Intelligent Design is not scientific. In fact, Intelligent Design is based on the observational data and basic Logic: Life appears to be designed (even Dawkins says so). When we see design we correctly conclude the presence of a Designer. This is true of automobiles and skyscrapers as much as it is true of the biological nanotechnology present in a living cell. Until some mechanism more probable and evident than Intelligent Design comes along to account for the complex, intelligent biological structures in our midst, then we must follow the evidence where it will lead . And it doesn’t lead to the Blind Watchmaker.

 

[buffalo]

Does the “preserve the ‘kind’ that they began as” not confirm what I just said?

Two Good Links on Why Intelligent Design Fails as a Science:youtube.com/watch?v=dz2jonHmBeI
youtube.com/watch?v=K_ZpQZgw2UM
This perfectly reflects what St. Augustine says:“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.
It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
Everything you described is RELIGION deceitfully using the language of science.

It is this very same St Augustine who thought of prime matter. page 16

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION
A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE

 

[buffalo]

Does the “preserve the ‘kind’ that they began as” not confirm what I just said?

Two Good Links on Why Intelligent Design Fails as a Science:youtube.com/watch?v=dz2jonHmBeI
youtube.com/watch?v=K_ZpQZgw2UM
This perfectly reflects what St. Augustine says:“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.
It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”
– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
Everything you described is RELIGION deceitfully using the language of science.

IDvolution is taking ID the science to the next step. Indeed it is philosophy. Note this last sentence: IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Consider the following: where is the weak link? Arrows show information flow.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

 

[lightbeamrider]

This thread does seem to have an air of civility that other evolution threads appear to have lacked.

To say the least. The other site i visit is loaded with vitriol. Practically a free for all. No holds barred. This site packed with useful information. Hope it stays around.

 

[meltzerboy]

True. May I add, that for most, at least two of the following is not true:

1. Blind, unguided chance did it.
2. God did it but he must have used blind, unguided chance.
3. God did it and he infallibly directed the outcome, with no chance involved.
4. God did it in 6 “days” of creation, either 24 hour days or thousand year “days.” Which would strangely, put the age of the earth at where it currently stands on the Hebrew Calendar.

I really like science. Too bad that, for some “evolution=ALL of science.” That makes me wary about all threads like this.

Peace,
Ed

For whom is evolution ALL of science? I’m not sure what that statement means. There are certain ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe in young-earth creationism and that the earth is no more than approximately 6000 years old, but they are in the tiny minority even within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Quit using “creationist” like its a dirty word. All Catholics must believe in the Creator.

And quit implying that Intelligent Design is not scientific. In fact, Intelligent Design is based on the observational data and basic Logic: Life appears to be designed (even Dawkins says so). When we see design we correctly conclude the presence of a Designer. This is true of automobiles and skyscrapers as much as it is true of the biological nanotechnology present in a living cell. Until some mechanism more probable and evident than Intelligent Design comes along to account for the complex, intelligent biological structures in our midst, then we must follow the evidence where it will lead . And it doesn’t lead to the Blind Watchmaker.

I don’t use “Creationist” like a dirty word.
You’re right about how all Catholics must believe in a Creator, but that isn’t what makes one
a Creationist. What makes a Creationist a Creationist is a strict, fundamental belief on the
Bible and CREATION, and in addition, a Creationist’s are pessimistic towards scientific ex-
planations that do not mention God. As a result, Creationist created their own brand of fake
science called “Creationism,” seemed to be a good word of Of Pandas & People up till the
courts forbade Creation from being taught in public schools, so Creationists then turned to
a more “scientific sounding” term: Intelligent Design. (Compare both Of Pandas & People,
First and Second Edition).

“Life appears to be designed,” says Dawkins, but coming from an honest atheist, and how
he used the word “appears,” that is no support for Intelligent Design. The very fact that you
say “conclude the presence of a Designer” demonstrates that ID is not a science, it’s a re-
ligion cloaked as science.

We are Catholics, and we don’t need lies to protect the Faith.