One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

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

Doesn’t really matter. If some mutations are positive, no matter how little the chances, evolution becomes inevitable. The rate of mutation only effects the rate of evolution, not whether or not it happens at all.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

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?

And that’s why Intelligent Design is not a science, but a religious system.

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution who are against Intelligent Design are
humble enough to say that we don’t know **why **things are they way they are.
*Maybe *there’s a Designer at work, just maybe, but it isn’t for science to say,
nor is it an area where science can be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Yes, I know it was.

You are claiming Miller is correct and has “proven” his case.

Explain how YOU know…

Lay down his argument in your own words to demonstrate that.

YOU claim his “proof” works, show how you KNOW that is true.

You are a scientist. You do not merely make claims, you give evidence. Correct?

Give the evidence, then. A clear depiction of premises followed by a valid conclusion.

This is called “peer review.”

You are on…

 

[Farsight001]

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?”

Would you call gravity “positively right” because any time you drop something, it falls to the ground? Because that’s how sure we are of evolution too. Little details may need tweaking, but we know enough to know we’re seeing it happen, just like we can see an apple fall from a tree.

 

[Farsight001]

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?

Remember that this is all in the context of science. It was*** scientifically ***random. God might have been guiding the thing the whole way, but God is supernatural, thus outside the realm of science, and cannot be commented on. Hence, it is random in a scientific context. Philosophically and theologically random? That’s a whole different issue.

 

[Farsight001]

Yes, I know it was.

You are claiming Miller is correct and has “proven” his case.

Explain how YOU know…

Lay down his argument in your own words to demonstrate that.

YOU claim his “proof” works, show how you KNOW that is true.

You are a scientist. You do not merely make claims, you give evidence. Correct?

Give the evidence, then. A clear depiction of premises followed by a valid conclusion.

This is called “peer review.”

You are on…

In no way is this “process” you are proposing peer review. And he gave all the evidence needed to show that it works. I should not have to. You’re basically asking for a second opinion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Doesn’t really matter. **If some mutations are positive, no matter how little the chances, evolution becomes inevitable. ** The rate of mutation only effects the rate of evolution, not whether or not it happens at all.

This is an assumption on your part.

If most mutations are negative, life degenerates and evolution could come to a screeching halt. Recall the example of random changes to computer code. The functionality would cease rather quickly BECAUSE an exponentially large number of “random” alterations would be negative.

It is theoretically “possible,” though highly, highly unlikely, that a few random changes to computer code would actually improve its functionality. Virtually all of them would be dysfunctional.

Having only some positive mutations does not make evolution inevitable. That is a claim without evidence or even a rational reason for thinking it to be true.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

This is an assumption on your part.

If most mutations are negative, life degenerates and evolution could come to a screeching halt. Recall the example of random changes to computer code. The functionality would cease rather quickly BECAUSE an exponentially large number of “random” alterations would be negative.

You just gave an excellent example of how the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable.
One cannot do this with Intelligent Design, because it works no matter what the
scenario, in thought, and there are no tests to confirm it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In no way is this “process” you are proposing peer review. And he gave all the evidence needed to show that it works. I should not have to. You’re basically asking for a second opinion.

I see.

So you are NOT competent to give a second opinion, but you ARE competent to determine that Miller’s proof is correct?

Hmmm.

I remain, shall we say, confused.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You just gave an excellent example of how the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable.
One cannot do this with Intelligent Design, because it works no matter what the
scenario, in thought, and there are no tests to confirm it.

That doesn’t make it falsifiable, that makes it unfalsifiable because the fact that life has continued to survive means means the theory “cannot” be false.

It is sheer question begging. Life has survived all changes because life has survived all changes. That doesn’t show “all changes” have been random changes. Which IS the crucial question.

The claim that all changes have been random remains to be shown and IS what evolutionists resist being called on to demonstrate BECAUSE they know it can’t be done.

So they dogmatically assert that all change is random, that random changes result in survival and survival demonstrates that random changes result in survival. Metaphysical trickery that profits on the equivocation of “random change” with “adaptive change.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I see.

So you are NOT competent to give a second opinion, but you ARE competent to determine that Miller’s proof is correct?

Hmmm.

I remain, shall we say, confused.

Why not do your own research? There is only so much that people on a forum can do.

 

[edwest2]

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.”

Very well said. Repetition is a key part of Propaganda 101.

And your last sentence sums up, based on the posts here, that people rejecting evolution “must be stopped at all costs” because Creationists are allegedly always wrong. So they must ALL be lying? That’s the part I can’t understand. The fear appears to be that religious people will NOT be convinced that God, who apparently did literally nothing as recorded in Genesis, just decided to let “chance” take over. More fun, as you wrote.

Also, based on certain things I’ve read elsewhere, “science,” not Divine Revelation, will be the only thing people will need in their lives, and any protests that “No! NO! Parents can teach their kids about God at home. We’re not trying to leave out God.” are not convincing at all. It reminds me about a non-review of a book on amazon: “Keep your Bible out of my government.” So people take the word of God over science on this topic? And the consequences will be… absolutely nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why not do your own research? There is only so much that people on a forum can do.

Yes, of course. But that wasn’t allowed when Dembski was proclaimed “wrong” despite the fact that as you say, “There is only so much that people on a forum can do.”

What’s good for the goose and all that. You don’t see a double standard, here, do you?

 

[buffalo]

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.’"

** Rocking the foundations of biology **

Here it is again - top down - DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance - paper after paper is now showing the inheritance epigenetic information - information is the driver.

Neo Darwinism crumbling…

A major revolution is occurring in evolutionary biology. In this video the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Professor Denis Noble, explains what is happening and why it is set to change the nature of biology and of the importance of physiology to that change. The lecture was given to a general audience at a major international Congress held in Suzhou China. The implications of the change extend far beyond biology itself.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

And your last sentence sums up, based on the posts here, that people rejecting evolution “must be stopped at all costs” because Creationists are allegedly always wrong. So they must ALL be lying? That’s the part I can’t understand. The fear appears to be that religious people will NOT be convinced that God, who apparently did literally nothing as recorded in Genesis, just decided to let “chance” take over. More fun, as you wrote.

The fear isn’t that religious people won’t be convinced that God just decided to let
“chance” take over, that isn’t the issue. The fear is that religious zealots will take
over science and usurp it with their nonscientific views.

If you recall also what Saint Augustine said of the literal interpretation of Genesis,
anyone trying to explain the natural world using sacred writings is a disgraceful &
ruinous undertaking. The point of Genesis isn’t to say HOW God did it, but THAT
God did it, and that no other god or goddess was involved, being written for a par-
ticular audience living in a time and place that was predominantly polytheistic.

What Creationists are trying to do is throw out any and all science that
they find threatening to their personal religious beliefs, seeing how they
are incapable of reconciling science and faith.

The motivation is religiously-based, has been since the beginning (from
the early 1900s), and scientists are not going to allow the Creationists
corrupt science.

 

[buffalo]

Of course, but this is irrelevant.

If Adam looked as God planned then we have two options.

1. They were specially created supernaturally
2. God guided “evolution”, which means it is design.

 

[Techno2000]

Monkeys swing from tree to tree,but their must had been quite a few
tragic accidents before they finely figured it out,No ?

 

[buffalo]

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.

Many centuries further back.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

If Adam looked as God planned then we have two options.

1. They were specially created supernaturally
2. God guided “evolution”, which means it is design.

That isn’t the issue. The very fact that you use the word “supernaturally”
indicates why Intelligent Design is not and cannot be a science.

 

[edwest2]

** Rocking the foundations of biology **

Here it is again - top down - DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance - paper after paper is now showing the inheritance epigenetic information - information is the driver.

Neo Darwinism crumbling…

A major revolution is occurring in evolutionary biology. In this video the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, Professor Denis Noble, explains what is happening and why it is set to change the nature of biology and of the importance of physiology to that change. The lecture was given to a general audience at a major international Congress held in Suzhou China. The implications of the change extend far beyond biology itself.

Thank you, buffalo.

Ed