One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
What does murder have to do with it? Populations evolve, not entire species. And evolution is adaptation to improve survival of the individual, not the entire race. There is no logical reason that evolution would cause murder to cease.
Click to expand...
Survival of the fittest obviously entails that what “fittest” means cannot be predetermined beforehand, so evolution theory cannot make predictions. Also, we cannot know with any great certainty whether the traits that actually survived were THE fittest to survive. There may have been unforeseen events that spoiled their chances. So really, we can’t remonstrate too much about the lack of connection between fitness and survival, but we do know that some living things did survive.

Fortunately, they are still on hand for us to make stuff up about. Fun ain’t it!

Oh, yea… …and we have this great theory.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
That begins however with the idea that there is a Designer. Also, no matter what hy-
pothetical reality with which we challenge Intelligent Design, it just is not falsifiable.
By that very fact alone, Intelligent Design is not a science. It sure speaks scientific-
ally, but at its very heart, ID is religion.

The example you gave above rings something very familiar. When the Aztecs discovered
the abandoned city of Teotihuacan, noticing all the incredible complexes and pyramids,
they concluded that the city was built by the gods. That is intelligent Design “science.”
Click to expand...
Intelligent Design is most certainly “falsifiable.” But Darwinism is not. Michael Behe explains this wonderfully starting here youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A&app=desktop
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
GOD BLESS YOU! :highprayer:
Those last questions you posed are really interesting and would make a great thread.

Not THAT is where Faith and Reason meet people. 👍
Click to expand...
As per your request, I opened a thread on this subject (whether the “attainment of self-awareness” was caused by the infusion of the soul, the Fall, or something else). I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure, but it should be a decent philosophical discussion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=850505
 
buffalo said:
How can a brain produced by changing and surviving and not getting better be rational and dependable to even make truth claims?
Click to expand...
I never said that Evolution excludes getting better, the question earlier was,
“Why do humans still murder each other if we have evolved?”, inferring that
evolution, if true, should have us perfect or something, which isn’t the case.

Our brains do get better. How? Through mutation and the taking advantage of
these adaptive traits. I think the question you really want is WHY, the answer
to which is GOD.
 
Peter_Plato said:
If changes to genetic code were found to be predominantly the result of sequences buried in the code itself which we have not yet been deciphered, and if mutations were found to have only a small role, then that thesis is testable and verifiable by further deciphering of the code.

If genetic code contains the kind of power within it to trigger wholesale speciation, not the result of mutations over time, but rather the result of coding already present that would go a long way to determining whether intelligent design is built into the entire process.

Thus, very falsifiable and very scientific and not religious in the least.
Click to expand...
We now see that the DNA code can be read forward and backward and has layers. If we randomly mutate it we may get a new meaning but destroy the others.

Page 141 of the book “Genetic Entropy” by Dr. Sanford.
S A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S
Which is translated ;

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.
This ancient puzzle, which dates back to 79 AD, reads the same four different ways. Thus, if we change (randomly mutate) any single letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings (functions) of the message with the new mutation (save for the center letter).

The case for RM and NS (blind unguided chance) to do this should be seriously questioned.
 
edwest2 said:
Others are successfully thinking outside of the box.

amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/0890514615/ref=pd_sim_b_8

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
What a find Ed.
In the Beginning Was Information

The edifice of science based on methodological naturalism shaken to the core

The German professor Werner Gitt, in his landmark book In The Beginning Was Information provides a rigorously formal presentation and his book is well worth reading.

Gitt’s argument is summarized in the following 8 theorems:

(1) No information can exist without a code.

(2) No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

(3) No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [note: apobetics is Gitt’s term, referring to the fact that there can be shown to be

a will and a larger objective behind all instances of intent].

(4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

(5) No information can exist without a transmitter.

(6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

(8) No information can exist without a will.

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found. Gitt has presented this proof to university audiences of many thousands of people across Europe, and no one has ever been able to point out an exception. Numerous rebuttals to Gitt’s theorems have been made, but in each instance, every one ignores or dismisses semantics and intent, properties that are essential to all forms of communication.

Unless / until a contradictory example can be found, these theorems are taken to be universally true.

For any reviewer to question Dr. Prof. Gitt’s knowledge of the topic, only shows ignorance on his/her part
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Let me explain it this way:

If Evolution were true, we should observe a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between
creatures that are progressively more and more similar to each other. This phenomenon is
explained by the Theory of Evolution by suggesting that species branch out from common
descent, and this is indeed what the evidence tells us.

Intelligent Design would say that the Designer used the same materials to design all life so
of course we would expect to find a nested hierarchy of similarities between creatures. Fair.

Now let’s change the state of being in the natural world. If we were to find the fossilized remains of a horse in strata
dating back to the Cambrian Explosion, the Theory of Evolution would be in Big Trouble, for NO amount of tweaking
in the light of new data could possibly explain this strange anomaly. So here, evolution is entirely dependent on the
state of the natural state of the world in reality.

Intelligent Design, however, still stands in light of the “Cambrian Horse.” Why? That’s how the Designer designed it.
What about altering the nested hierarchy observation, say that NO creature was similar in any way, shape, of form.
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if All Creatures were genetically similar EXCEPT for us Homo–sapiens?
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if camels were made of clay? That’s how the Designer designed it.

No matter what, Intelligent Design is not grounded in reality, does not depend on reality, only on the assumption of
the existence of an unknown Designer who designed it. Change reality, Intelligent Design still works, because That
is how the Designer designed it. Intelligent Design is not a science, that’s how the Designer designed it!
Click to expand...
Common descent and natural selection are really quite trivial aspects of "Evolution " - no one denies these concepts, certainly not Mr. Behe.

What is contested is the notion that random processes are solely responsible for the irreducible complexity and fine tuning we observe in Nature.

Also, your continual caricature of ID as being not scientific is damaging your credibility. You might want to try some other tactic out of the playbook.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Let me explain it this way:

If Evolution were true, we should observe a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between
creatures that are progressively more and more similar to each other. This phenomenon is
explained by the Theory of Evolution by suggesting that species branch out from common
descent, and this is indeed what the evidence tells us.

Intelligent Design would say that the Designer used the same materials to design all life so
of course we would expect to find a nested hierarchy of similarities between creatures. Fair.

Now let’s change the state of being in the natural world. If we were to find the fossilized remains of a horse in strata
dating back to the Cambrian Explosion, the Theory of Evolution would be in Big Trouble, for NO amount of tweaking
in the light of new data could possibly explain this strange anomaly. So here, evolution is entirely dependent on the
state of the natural state of the world in reality.

Intelligent Design, however, still stands in light of the “Cambrian Horse.” Why? That’s how the Designer designed it.
What about altering the nested hierarchy observation, say that NO creature was similar in any way, shape, of form.
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if All Creatures were genetically similar EXCEPT for us Homo–sapiens?
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if camels were made of clay? That’s how the Designer designed it.

No matter what, Intelligent Design is not grounded in reality, does not depend on reality, only on the assumption of
the existence of an unknown Designer who designed it. Change reality, Intelligent Design still works, because That
is how the Designer designed it. Intelligent Design is not a science, that’s how the Designer designed it!
Click to expand...
That is a pretty good rendering of that youtube video you linked (with your own subsitutions).

The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, “Yes.” A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ξ is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Let me explain it this way:

If Evolution were true, we should observe a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between
creatures that are progressively more and more similar to each other. This phenomenon is
explained by the Theory of Evolution by suggesting that species branch out from common
descent, and this is indeed what the evidence tells us.

Intelligent Design would say that the Designer used the same materials to design all life so
of course we would expect to find a nested hierarchy of similarities between creatures. Fair.

Now let’s change the state of being in the natural world. If we were to find the fossilized remains of a horse in strata
dating back to the Cambrian Explosion, the Theory of Evolution would be in Big Trouble, for NO amount of tweaking
in the light of new data could possibly explain this strange anomaly. So here, evolution is entirely dependent on the
state of the natural state of the world in reality.

Intelligent Design, however, still stands in light of the “Cambrian Horse.” Why? That’s how the Designer designed it.
What about altering the nested hierarchy observation, say that NO creature was similar in any way, shape, of form.
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if All Creatures were genetically similar EXCEPT for us Homo–sapiens?
That’s how the Designer designed it. What if camels were made of clay? That’s how the Designer designed it.

No matter what, Intelligent Design is not grounded in reality, does not depend on reality, only on the assumption of
the existence of an unknown Designer who designed it. Change reality, Intelligent Design still works, because That
is how the Designer designed it. Intelligent Design is not a science, that’s how the Designer designed it!
Click to expand...
You really should credit your sources when you “borrow” material directly from a source.
 
Peter_Plato said:
True. Which makes evolution of life forms a much greater challenge than simply coding computer software. So if we would view random changes to computer code as being highly unlikely to improve software, then it would appear to be even less likely that random changes to genetic code would improve it because genetic code bears double the burden - properly functioning bodies and the reproduction of those bodies.
Click to expand...
Small aside, here: Using particular code routines called “genetic algorithms”, it has been shown that evolved devices are not only possible, but their design and efficiency is beyond anything we could do on purpose. See my post #941 for details.
 
HansTrappist said:
What is contested is the notion that random processes are solely responsible for the irreducible complexity and fine tuning we observe in Nature.
Click to expand...
Right there, I have a problem. Intelligent Design in this area appears to be trying to pin
God down under glass like a butterfly and examine the operative nature that is beyond
our grasp. What you call and hate as randomness, I see as the unknown Hand of God
interacting Creation, “or not,” I don’t know, because I am not God and don’t claim that
any form of science can decipher the existence of a Designer.
 
buffalo said:
What a find Ed.
In the Beginning Was Information

The edifice of science based on methodological naturalism shaken to the core

The German professor Werner Gitt, in his landmark book In The Beginning Was Information provides a rigorously formal presentation and his book is well worth reading.

Gitt’s argument is summarized in the following 8 theorems:

(1) No information can exist without a code.

(2) No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

(3) No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [note: apobetics is Gitt’s term, referring to the fact that there can be shown to be

a will and a larger objective behind all instances of intent].

(4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

(5) No information can exist without a transmitter.

(6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

(8) No information can exist without a will.

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has ever been found. Gitt has presented this proof to university audiences of many thousands of people across Europe, and no one has ever been able to point out an exception. Numerous rebuttals to Gitt’s theorems have been made, but in each instance, every one ignores or dismisses semantics and intent, properties that are essential to all forms of communication.

Unless / until a contradictory example can be found, these theorems are taken to be universally true.

For any reviewer to question Dr. Prof. Gitt’s knowledge of the topic, only shows ignorance on his/her part
Click to expand...
You’re welcome.

Ed
 
To those supporting ID as a legitimate science, I ask: How exactly would one falsify it? Evolution is simple to falsify, as has been pointed out: Find a modern form alongside early forms. How would one falsify ID?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top