One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

And you can fully explain how maglev trains are supported by magnetic repulsion?

I have a basic grasp of maglev, yes. And if i wanted to understand it fully, i could do the research. There are other people who understand it just fine and I can learn from them.

We see what we see, are impressed by it and try to explain it. They are not idiots because they witness something inexplicable. They see what they see and try to make sense of it.

Its not just “inexplicable”. It violates the very laws of physics that they observe applying to everything else and it does it every moment of every day all over the world. It’d be like if all the kumquats on earth fell up instead of down - and just the kumquats. Its a mindbogglingly huge deal that would throw their entire grasp of the universe into disarray and they would all be focused on explaining it every moment of every day until they did. The physicists would be postualing gravitational effects and a potential absence of higgs bosons in the kumquats. The biologists would be dissecting the heck out of these things and looking at the evolutionary tree to try to see how far back this goes and where the change happened and running test after test after test on them. The chemists would be digging into the composition of these things, looking perhaps for the presence of anti-matter along with the physicists. It would consume the scientific world, just like strange floating metal plates would.

Let’s try to be a little more charitable. Obviously, you are much more capable of understanding and explaining all of reality than these aliens are, but that’s no reason to be harsh. Remember these aliens are made of much “denser” materials than we are.

Yes, they’re very dense. I implied that already.

 

[HansTrappist]

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.

Lies? What lies?

The only lie is the notion that random evolutionary processes gave rise to complex, biological life.

The only lie is that Intelligent Design is “creationism” or that ID is not science.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Exactly, pursue truth wherever it leads.

How much truth can science alone deliver?

I don’t think science it put in it’s proper perspective from your question. Science at it’s most fundamental is an attempt to explain that which is observable to us. Truth may include that which is outside of what we can observe in our our current state of being, therefore we may not be able to understand all truth in our current state. This is likely to be the case, given our current understanding of quantum physics.

 

[Farsight001]

Lies? What lies?

The only lie is the notion that random evolutionary processes gave rise to complex, biological life.

The only lie is that Intelligent Design is “creationism” or that ID is not science.

It IS a lie that random evolutionary processes gave rise to complex life. As has been explained to you multiple times, it is random mutation WORKING WITH natural selection that gave rise to complex life (which is a bit of a misnomer in terms, as we are no more genetically complex than an amoeba).

And if you pay attention to the past posts, you will notice that even the inventers of ID have admitted under oath in the court of law that it was creationism in disguise and that in the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, a young earth creationist judge, appointed by George W. Bush himself, gave a 100 page scathing decision on the issue for his fellow believers’ decision to be so outright deceitful in simply changing the name of creationism in an attempt to get it into public schools.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Then someone asks you about a theory. You have doubts about some aspect of it and ask how they arrived at a particular number. They give you a citation that doesn’t match their assumptions and can’t really explain it to your satisfaction.

At that point, what do you do, Mr. Scientist and Journal Editor?

Who cares what others do? Rework the theory. Nobel Prizes have been won for small modifications in theories, resulting in enormous leaps of understanding.

With regard to some of the earlier discussions regarding chance, remember that when it comes to evolution, the only beings that can even come up with opinions on that chance is those that are the result of the small chance. If there are 1 x 10^100 planets in the universe, and only one has life, then guess what? The theory fits the observation (not that I necessarily subscribe to that POV).

Those arguing against evolution because of small chances also don’t have evidence against the possibility that we can be a result of small chance. Infinitesimally small doesn’t equal impossible. Unless those that are the possible result of such a small chance can come up with other life in the universe to prove their point, they simply have a hypothesis, and a weak one at that.

 

[buffalo]

No. What’s your point?

All that we are required to believe by the tenets of the Faith is that God created the first Man and Woman, whom we know as Adam and Eve, and that at some point they disobeyed God through the wiles of the Devil and thereby introduced original sin into the world.

We know from Genesis that God desires to have a real relationship with us, that He created us, and that He desires only good for us despite our disobedience.

Things like the science behind the how of it all are interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to the bigger picture that God represents. We don’t know for certain How He did it, because we aren’t God. Given what we know through the auspices of science, I find it very likely that human beings came about through the gifting of an immortal soul from God to some creature that theretofore did not have one, but that’s still ultimately irrelevant to the point of who we are and why we’re here.

1. 
   *]The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology"
   
   1. 
      *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
      *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
      *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
      *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
      *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
      *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
      *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
      *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
      *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
      *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
      *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
      *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
      *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
      *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
      *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
      *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
      *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
      *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
      *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
      *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
      *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
      *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
      *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think science it put in it’s proper perspective from your question. Science at it’s most fundamental is an attempt to explain that which is observable to us. Truth may include that which is outside of what we can observe in our our current state of being, therefore we may not be able to understand all truth in our current state. This is likely to be the case, given our current understanding of quantum physics.

Do you think that Revelation should illuminate what is observable to us?

 

[vz71]

Because half a defense mechanism is better defense than no defense mechanism. If we gave half the police officers in a city no bullet proof vests and the other half half a bullet proof vest, which group do you think is going to survive longer?

Interesting question.

Those without bullet proof vests would likely be much more careful and cautious about the situation they put themselves in.

Those with, less so.

One may well find the vest has little bearing at all on survival.

 

[vz71]

…from last.

The proponent of “random” modification has to solidify their case that a mechanism such as “random mutation” has the power to innovate and adapt under the auspices of natural selection, just as the person who proposes that random glitches in computer software filtered for continuity by user selection is sufficient to explain the advancement of computer software.

What if the science of genetics does find a kind of “built-in” capacity - traceable back through time - within DNA and RNA itself to bring about “designed” improvements so that most changes are not random at all but, rather, “pre-installed?”

This is not such a far-fetched idea since genetic code does, indeed, have the power to direct the extremely complex growth and development of each organism from egg or seed to maturity. The code directs when and how stem cells become differentiated. Likewise, why could the “super-code” of DNA not have had the power integral to it to direct when and how changes in speciation occurred through physical time? That would involve some pre-planning, i.e., Deity, which is why materialist scientists are determined to die on the hill called “Random.”

It would seem to me that someone who dogmatically insists that the code could not be designed is not going to look for this possibility but will continue down a wrong path. ID proponents ought to be listened to precisely because they offer an alternative scenario that COULD be true and ought not be dismissed merely because of metaphysical presumptions that nature must only be physical. We can’t conclude that just because we know nature has a physical essence that it can ONLY have a physical essence. Good science would keep an open mind about such things.

People are not supposed to notice the design. To note it is to note something that cannot be measured, and is therefore anathema.

It is interesting. Centuries ago science was about reality and scientists would struggle to find ways to measure it.
Now science says reality is only what can be measured.

 

[Farsight001]

Interesting question.

Those without bullet proof vests would likely be much more careful and cautious about the situation they put themselves in.

Those with, less so.

One may well find the vest has little bearing at all on survival.

sigh.

Its an analogy. All other things being equal, who survives better?

 

[Farsight001]

People are not supposed to notice the design. To note it is to note something that cannot be measured, and is therefore anathema.

No. To ASSUME design, which is what is clearly being done, is anathema.

It is interesting. Centuries ago science was about reality and scientists would struggle to find ways to measure it.
Now science says reality is only what can be measured.

And where does science say that? Oh yeah…nowhere. Please stop just making things up.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The only lie is the notion that random evolutionary processes gave rise to complex, biological life.

No, the lie would be that, “Science conclusively KNOWS that evolution
is by no means random and that a Divine Designer is behind it all.” That
is the lie of Intelligent Design, that science can see the Designer, God.
Another lie is that Intelligent Design is a science. At least the scientists
who claim evolution are honest enough to say that "As far as science is
able to reveal to us, evolution involves in part random mutations to which
we DO NOT KNOW the physical causes behind.

Intelligent Design is different, however, for it is a non-falsifiable religious
view that pretends to be a science and is by far not humble enough to
just say the words “I don’t know.”

The only lie is that Intelligent Design is “creationism” or that ID is not science.

I believe this following pair of videos demonstrates your claim as false:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2jonHmBeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ZpQZgw2UM

 

[vz71]

sigh.

Its an analogy. All other things being equal, who survives better?

A few pages ago you were complaining that people were rejecting science since they disagreed with evolution.

Now you want us to skip the scientific research and simply answer.

Sorry, but I am more rational than that. I tend to slow things down, analyze, and decide.
You are welcome to skip science if you wish.

 

[vz71]

No. To ASSUME design, which is what is clearly being done, is anathema.

And where does science say that? Oh yeah…nowhere. Please stop just making things up.

How ugly to accuse me of that.

Of course, your positive assertion, prove it. Your integrity is on the line.

 

[Farsight001]

A few pages ago you were complaining that people were rejecting science since they disagreed with evolution.

Now you want us to skip the scientific research and simply answer.

Sorry, but I am more rational than that. I tend to slow things down, analyze, and decide.
You are welcome to skip science if you wish.

Because its a simple analogy, not an all-encompassing scientific theory, but since you want to nitpick, lets make the analogy more precise - since organisms are not typically aware of a mutation until it actually effects some change, lets add that the officers with half-vests are not aware that they are wearing them. Now who’s got the better chance of survival?

 

[Farsight001]

How ugly to accuse me of that.

Of course, your positive assertion, prove it. Your integrity is on the line.

Ok. Simple. Science doesn’t say that reality is only what can be measured. Hence, you clearly made it up. Want to prove me wrong? Then do what I asked and show me where science says reality is only what can be measured. Good luck.

 

[vz71]

Because its a simple analogy, not an all-encompassing scientific theory, but since you want to nitpick, lets make the analogy more precise - since organisms are not typically aware of a mutation until it actually effects some change, lets add that the officers with half-vests are not aware that they are wearing them. Now who’s got the better chance of survival?

Still unknown.

We do not know how many are or are not shot at, we do not know if any that are shot at actually are hit, we do not know if any that are hit are hit are seriously injured or killed.

You will have to write more fiction to get the answer you appear to be after.

By then, I wonder if you will remember what you are trying to prove.
I also wonder if the amount of fiction necessary to analogize the proof would call the proof into question.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other.

 

[vz71]

Ok. Simple. Science doesn’t say that reality is only what can be measured. Hence, you clearly made it up. Want to prove me wrong? Then do what I asked and show me where science says reality is only what can be measured. Good luck.

Perha;s you should re-read the post.
I asked for proof. Not of science, but of what you are claiming of me.

The moderators have been very gracious in allowing a subject that is banned to be discussed. But I suspect the thread is watched closely.
Please do not make this a discussion of the person and not the subject.

 

[Farsight001]

Still unknown.

We do not know how many are or are not shot at, we do not know if any that are shot at actually are hit, we do not know if any that are hit are hit are seriously injured or killed.

You will have to write more fiction to get the answer you appear to be after.

By then, I wonder if you will remember what you are trying to prove.
I also wonder if the amount of fiction necessary to analogize the proof would call the proof into question.

No need to be so intentionally difficult. Again, its just an analogy. But since you need clarification, assume all other things being equal, which group is more likely to survive?

I hope your need for clarification illustrates how in depth evolution really is and how much studying and research and experiments are actually done on the subject to arrive at these kinds of conclusions. It’s not just some idea. its been tested and tested and tested and tested in minute detail.