One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Peter_Plato]

The reasoning behind the “nice arrangement” is because the very heart of Intelligent Design
has been from the beginning a religious doctrine, formulated by Creationists, in an attempt
to overthrow evolution. The Scientific Community is well aware of this, so it isn’t even going
to give Creationists a chance to get one foot into the door.

Creationists have an agenda, and we’re on to them.

Yes, I know creationists are wrong because they are, well, “Creationists.” They would be wrong even if they used the best science and logic available because that wouldn’t matter in the least. They are Creationists, after all, so they MUST be wrong.

Creationists (of all stripes - except, of course, theistic evolutionists) have been proven to be incapable of being right even if they had the best of logic and science on their side BECAUSE that fact (Creationism = always wrong + forever) was determined in a Dover courtroom by a Bush appointed judge.

Oh, yeah (I forgot the party line) …

…theistic evolutionists are not Creationists because although they believe God CREATED the cosmos he “chanced” it by leaving the details to work themselves out even though he is omnipotent and omniscient he figured it would turn out better if he left it all to random mutation and natural selection. More fun that way… …the element of surprise and all.

Yes. Yes. We get it. It is being pounded into our brains like a Chinese water torture. Fortunately, I have a sieve for a brain and it hasn’t stuck just because of the mere fact of repetition.

And IDvolutionists, even though they don’t attempt to “overthrow” evolution, but actually rely on much of it to make a case, cannot be right, but are wrong because, well, they are Creationists, too, and (repeat after me following the bouncing ball) Creationists are ALWAYS wrong.

Yes, I see your “thinking” there.

“Creationists have an agenda, and we’re on to them.”

 

[buffalo]

The reasoning behind the “nice arrangement” is because the very heart of Intelligent Design
has been from the beginning a religious doctrine, formulated by Creationists, in an attempt
to overthrow evolution. The Scientific Community is well aware of this, so it isn’t even going
to give Creationists a chance to get one foot into the door.

Creationists have an agenda, and we’re on to them.
“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

ID goes way back.

 

[buffalo]

We already know that DNA replication isn’t perfect. If it was, then we would never die.

We now know it is really really good and DNA fights against mutations through several iterations. That in itself makes evo a tough climb.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I know creationists are wrong because they are, well, “Creationists.” They would be wrong even if they used the best science and logic available because that wouldn’t matter in the least. They are Creationists, after all, so they MUST be wrong.

That Creationists (of all stripes - except, of course, theistic evolutionists) have been proven to be incapable of being right even if they had the best of logic and science on their side BECAUSE that fact (Creationism = always wrong + forever) was determined in a Dover courtroom by a Bush appointed judge.

Oh, yeah…

…theistic evolutionists are not Creationists because although they believe God CREATED the cosmos he “chanced” it by leaving the details to work themselves out even though he us omnipotent and omniscient he figured it would turn out better if he left it all to random mutation and natural selection. More fun that way… …the element of surprise and all.

Yes. Yes. We get it. It is being pounded into our brains like a Chinese water torture. Fortunately, I have a sieve for a brain and it hasn’t stuck just because of the mere fact of repetition.

And IDvolutionists, even though they don’t attempt to “overthrow” evolution, but actually rely on much of it to make a case, cannot be right, but are wrong because, well, they are Creationists, too.

Yes I see your “thinking” there.

“Creationists have an agenda, and we’re on to them.”

Finding the truth is a good agenda.

 

[Forged]

They are, that is why evolution is philosophy.

So…if evolution is stand-up Philosophy, are biologists comedians?

I think everybody in this thread should take a break debating and read material not tarnished by opinion. With that goal in mind, I posit this:
nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876

If this description interests you – and you have the time – I would recommend clicking on the link above.
"How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.
In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including ‘intelligent design.’"

 

[StudentMI]

They are, that is why evolution is philosophy.

But evolution is a falsifiable subject. It would seem the why of blind chance or intelligent design is better suited to a philosophical debate.

It almost seems like there is a conflict of terminology. People are using evolution to refer to what is being termed “blind chance” and “intelligent design” to refer to evolution guided by God. Why don’t we just call it evolution? The Church seems to just do that.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Non sequitur.

That would assume that the source DNA that began to be replicated endowed living things with immortality.

How did you arrive at that as a premise?

Not my premise. Believe it or not, I actually learned about that particular subject via the X Files. If you watched that show, you will remember there was a man that ate cancer and was immortal. The was actually a scientist (Dr.) that was a consultant to the show, and would advise the producers on how to connect the premise of the show to things that occur in nature. Some cells (cancer) can reproduce themselves exactly. The normal cells in our bodies don’t, thereby introducing mutations in DNA. It’s not uncommon; it’s the norm. 99.99%+ of the time we’ll never notice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s one conclusion, and as we know over the course of history, many “correct” conclusions turn out to be flat out wrong. We are only beginning to scratch the surface with our understanding of biology, and we’re filling in a lot of blanks with best guesses. A “conclusion” based on best guesses is anything but a certainty.

This point is important. Scientists ought to be the first to admit that conclusions are tentative, with some degree of confidence warranted. That is what puzzles me about this issue. The contention seems to be that evolution, including all the add-on peripherals, is positively RIGHT. Is THAT kind of confidence warranted in ALL aspects of the “theory?”

Adaptive change in living organisms is a fact, clearly. Why that kind of change occurs is an open question.

The dogma enters when an insistence that adaptive change CAN ONLY have been the result of random mutations regulated by natural selection. Why do we have any reason to think that can be the ONLY mechanism just because, perhaps, it has been shown to occur SOME of the time.

Surely, to move from “some times” to “every time” infringes the principle of induction especially when twinned with an adamant refusal to look into other possibilities that might bring about adaptive change.

Can you show where my thinking in this matter is confused? I am open to being found confused. I just don’t have the advantage of a dogma that states “Creationists are always wrong.” My background in philosophy and logic precludes that notion as a possibility.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Did Adam look as God planned?

Of course, but this is irrelevant.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not my premise. Believe it or not, I actually learned about that particular subject via the X Files. If you watched that show, you will remember there was a man that ate cancer and was immortal. The was actually a scientist (Dr.) that was a consultant to the show, and would advise the producers on how to connect the premise of the show to things that occur in nature. Some cells (cancer) can reproduce themselves exactly. The normal cells in our bodies don’t, thereby introducing mutations in DNA. It’s not uncommon; it’s the norm. 99.99%+ of the time we’ll never notice.

Except that a cancer cell only perfectly replicates another cancer cell. It lacks the capacity to differentiate into other kinds of cells - skin, nerve, blood, bone, etc. - that are required to produce an entire living organism.

That consuming a cancer cell would lead to immortality is certainly a fiction even though some science “spawned” the idea, albeit imperfectly; the idea definitely mutated in the process. The questions that arise are: “How random was the mutation of that idea and what was the mechanism by which it was selected to survive and become a part of The X Files?”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

They are, that is why evolution is philosophy.

No . . . Evolution is a science. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, in the guise of science, for the ex-
pressed purpose, since the beginning, of overturning Evolution because Creationists find it threaten-
ing to their personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No . . . Evolution is a science. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, in the guise of science, for the ex-
pressed purpose, since the beginning, of overturning Evolution because Creationists find it threaten-
ing to their personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Everybody now…

Follow the bouncing… Err, rolling ball…


No . . . Evolution is a science. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, in the guise of science…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Yes, I know creationists are wrong because they are, well, “Creationists.” They would be wrong even if they used the best science and logic available because that wouldn’t matter in the least. They are Creationists, after all, so they MUST be wrong.

Creationists (of all stripes - except, of course, theistic evolutionists) have been proven to be incapable of being right even if they had the best of logic and science on their side BECAUSE that fact (Creationism = always wrong + forever) was determined in a Dover courtroom by a Bush appointed judge.

Well Creationists do not have the best of science on their side because
Intelligent Design is not a science, it is a religious doctrine. Why do you
think what happened at the Dover trial happened? “Oh we can blame the
atheists,” I don’t think so.

And Theistic Evolution isn’t a science either, I never said that, it is simply
a term explaining a theological position undisturbed by real science.

…theistic evolutionists are not Creationists because although they believe God CREATED the cosmos he “chanced” it by leaving the details to work themselves out even though he is omnipotent and omniscient he figured it would turn out better if he left it all to random mutation and natural selection. More fun that way… …the element of surprise and all.

In truth, we don’t know exactly what God did, whether he set up natural laws which in
the end would fulfill his purposes or guided it all himself all the way, or simply left it all
to random chance, we don’t know, and no science can scrutinize the will of God.

And IDvolutionists, even though they don’t attempt to “overthrow” evolution, but actually rely on much of it to make a case, cannot be right, but are wrong because, well, they are Creationists, too, and (repeat after me following the bouncing ball) Creationists are ALWAYS wrong.

Yes, I see your “thinking” there.

“Creationists have an agenda, and we’re on to them.”

As I said before, no science or Intelligent Design (see what I did there) can scrutinize
the will of God, because God is not part of the physical creation. The only reason the
Intelligent Design doctrine exists is because Creationists need an alternative to Evolu-
tion. Not because it’s a valid form of science, but it meets the needs of the religious.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

ID goes way back.

Oh, of course, ID had it’s beginnings around the early 1900s, after some Creationists
in America took great umbrage to the Theory of Evolution, I don’t quite see the point
that you are making.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Finding the truth is a good agenda.

Finding truth by discarding science is bad.

 

[Farsight001]

Why don’t you set down a clear and simple depiction of his proof, then, so we can analyze it as a proof?

I think he has given compelling reasons but that is not a proof.

You are making a positive claim that his case has been “proven,” whatever that means. Set it out, then.

Simple logical form with premises and conclusion will do.

It was in the video. Again, watch the video.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Everybody now…

Follow the bouncing… Err, rolling ball…

- - - -
No . . . Evolution is a science. Intelligent Design is a philosophy, in the guise of science…

Doesn’t mean I’m wro-O-ong,

 

[Farsight001]

They are, that is why evolution is philosophy.

Buffalo, that post was about ID and its arguments being metaphysical and not scientific.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by buffalo
Did Adam look as God planned?

Of course, but this is irrelevant.

If God planned what Adam would look like, how would truly “random” mutation and natural selection end up with an Adam that was “planned” to look as he did by God? How could Adam have possibly been “planned,” then?

Oh, I get it, the same way that an infinite number of monkeys, typing on an infinite number of typewriters over an infinite amount of time will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. Yes, of course.

If monkeys can do it, the conclusion MUST be that God would work in the same way.

Not by intelligence and planning, but leaving things to “chance.”

Or…

God COULD HAVE chosen an infinite number of monkeys to write the corpus of Shakespeare’s works, but - being the random kind of God he is - he randomly settled on a guy named Shakespeare instead. The monkey idea was a close second, though.

So the “intelligent” thing to do would be to abandon intelligence, even of the omniscient kind, in favour of trusting an outcome as important as “human nature” - that God would be willing to be crucified for - to random occurrences over billions of years.

Why wouldn’t he also leave our redemption to “chance” since it seems his preferred mode of operation?

 

[Farsight001]

Yes, I know creationists are wrong because they are, well, “Creationists.” They would be wrong even if they used the best science and logic available because that wouldn’t matter in the least. They are Creationists, after all, so they MUST be wrong.

Creationists (of all stripes - except, of course, theistic evolutionists) have been proven to be incapable of being right even if they had the best of logic and science on their side BECAUSE that fact (Creationism = always wrong + forever) was determined in a Dover courtroom by a Bush appointed judge.

Oh, yeah (I forgot the party line) …

…theistic evolutionists are not Creationists because although they believe God CREATED the cosmos he “chanced” it by leaving the details to work themselves out even though he is omnipotent and omniscient he figured it would turn out better if he left it all to random mutation and natural selection. More fun that way… …the element of surprise and all.

Yes. Yes. We get it. It is being pounded into our brains like a Chinese water torture. Fortunately, I have a sieve for a brain and it hasn’t stuck just because of the mere fact of repetition.

And IDvolutionists, even though they don’t attempt to “overthrow” evolution, but actually rely on much of it to make a case, cannot be right, but are wrong because, well, they are Creationists, too, and (repeat after me following the bouncing ball) Creationists are ALWAYS wrong.

Yes, I see your “thinking” there.

“Creationists have an agenda, and we’re on to them.”

You’re forgetting the definition of creationist again. A creationist, by definition, is one who believes there was NO evolution, not even adaptation. And IDvolution isn’t even a coherent thought. Buffalo, after multiple years promoting the idea, still can’t seem to come up with an operational definition of it.