One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Peter_Plato]

And I would simply point out that you are incorrect. The word creationist has an established definition, and it means what it means no matter how many times you suggest it doesn’t. Creationism specifically denies evolution.

The MOST longstanding definition is the one found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy…

At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense.

This was the de facto definition since long before any “theory” of evolution was espoused.
That the definition became narrowed in the minds of some does not mean the older, more accurate definition no longer holds.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If they don’t need to invoke God, then why are they constantly doing it?

From my perspective YOU are constantly invoking God, but pointing at “them,” by insisting that Intelligent Design necessarily entails “God did it” when, in fact, it doesn’t.

The stone statues on Easter Island appear to be intelligently designed and the Nazca lines appear to be intelligently designed, but neither of these entail “God did it.” Even if evolution were found to be a “designed” process because the definitive alterations to DNA could not have been random, that still does not entail “God did it.”

 

[Farsight001]

The MOST longstanding definition is the one found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy…

This isn’t philosophy apparently, so frankly, i could not care less what an encyclopedia of philosophy has to say. Either Creationism and ID is philosophy and is thus not science despite all your claims, or your provided definition could not be more irrelevant.

 

[Farsight001]

From my perspective YOU are constantly invoking God, but pointing at “them,” by insisting that Intelligent Design necessarily entails “God did it” when, in fact, it doesn’t.

ID IS Creationism. Creationism, by definition invokes God. That some people choose to use the term 'intelligent designer" to refer to God does not mean they are not invoking God.

The stone statues on Easter Island appear to be intelligently designed and the Nazca lines appear to be intelligently designed, but neither of these entail “God did it.” Even if evolution were found to be a “designed” process because the definitive alterations to DNA could not have been random, that still does not entail “God did it.”

'Intelligent design" is a formal term, not two descriptive words. There is quite a large difference.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not really, no, and that’s because I do not bring Jesus into discussions on science.
How did that help your case?

Neither do ID proponents, except by your proxy.

Well Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture,
so no, not secretly anyway. Thomas Nagel appears to take neither sides, certainly not IDs’,
so I would say no also, he’s not a creationist.

Berlinski doubted evolution long before he became a senior fellow. And Nagel is sympathetic to the idea of intelligent design and certainly doubts “evolution” of the neoDarwinist variety without being a theist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

ID IS Creationism. Creationism, by definition invokes God.

By the same token, theistic evolution, invokes God. Theistic evolution IS Creationism, by definition

Pot to kettle…

… Come in, Pot.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

From my perspective YOU are constantly invoking God, but pointing at “them,” by insisting that Intelligent Design necessarily entails “God did it” when, in fact, it doesn’t.

But that is because Intelligent Design was created for the SOLE purpose
of including God into science. The very term was created by Creationists,
to sound more scientific, in hopes that people would not realize that it is
a religious doctrine, not a science.

The stone statues on Easter Island appear to be intelligently designed and the Nazca lines appear to be intelligently designed, but neither of these entail “God did it.”
And is not a science.
Peter Plato;11582092:

Even if evolution were found to be a “designed” process because the definitive alterations to DNA could not have been random, that still does not entail “God did it.”

STILL, is not a science.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But that is because Intelligent Design was created for the SOLE purpose
of including God into science. The very term was created by Creationists,
to sound more scientific, in hopes that people would not realize that it is
a religious doctrine, not a science.

The stone statues on Easter Island appear to be intelligently designed and the Nazca lines appear to be intelligently designed, but neither of these entail “God did it.”
And is not a science.

STILL, is not a science.

So forensic science that leads by evidence to a premeditated intelligent cause is not a science?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

By the same token, theistic evolution, invokes God. Theistic evolution IS Creationism, by definition

Pot to kettle…

… Come in, Pot.

No, the word “Creationism” was invented between the mid-19th century and the early 20th
century in a religious reaction to Darwin and Evolution. That is the primary source for the
word Creationism. Now the word has evolved to open way to Creator-Believers in general,
but the origins of the word are set in stone and apply primarily to people who oppose the
scientific explanation for the origin and development of species in favor to more religious
ideas like Intelligent Design.

Theistic evolution is NOT Creationism.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Neither do ID proponents, except by your proxy.

Designer is the exact same thing. Doesn’t matter whether you open-
ly identify who the supposed Designer is or not, if Creationists mean
God, then they bring mean to bring God into science.

And that is why Intelligent Design is not a science.

 

[vz71]

We’ve already been over this. The people with grant money and awards are far more likely to give them to the people who can upset the status quo.

And the people who currently have the grant have an economic incentive to fight the changes.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

So forensic science that leads by evidence to a premeditated intelligent cause is not a science?

Forensic science can look at something and suppose that it was
fashioned by someone, but that is not science. Forensic science
is science, but Intelligent Design is not science.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, the word “Creationism” was invented between the mid-19th century and the early 20th
century in a religious reaction to Darwin and Evolution. That is the primary source for the
word Creationism. Now the word has evolved to open way to Creator-Believers in general,
but the origins of the word are set in stone and apply primarily to people who oppose the
scientific explanation for the origin and development of species in favor to more religious
ideas like Intelligent Design.

Theistic evolution is NOT Creationism.

Look up the term “chronological snobbery.”

Or “etymological fallacy” for that matter.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Forensic science can look at something and suppose that it was
fashioned by someone, but that is not science.

Forensic science

​

is science, but Intelligent Design is not science.

Do you read what you write and check for latent inconsistencies?

While you are looking up the other terms, spend some time searching for “law of non-contradiction.”

 

[edwest2]

By the same token, theistic evolution, invokes God. Theistic evolution IS Creationism, by definition

Pot to kettle…

… Come in, Pot.

Your first sentence is exactly right.

Best,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Designer is the exact same thing. Doesn’t matter whether you open-
ly identify who the supposed Designer is or not, if Creationists mean
God, then they bring mean to bring God into science.

And if God created the cosmos, by what right do we have to exclude him from our musings about it?

This is your house, God, but stay out of my way while I look around and figure out what I want to do with it.

Sounds blatantly unfair AND PRESUMPTUOUS.

We should at least figure out what the owner of the house intends for it before we assume some right to wander around it and do as we will as if WE own it.

So, if I came to visit you in your home, I have a right to decide whether you have any say with regards to my activity in your house, so long as I DENY, by fiat of my will, that you own it? What gives me the right to do that?

I am free to look around and treat your home as if I own it just so long as I refuse to admit you have any say in the matter?

If God is the Creator, why can science unilaterally determine he has no business in the little “look see” and “look do” that engages science?

It would seem a matter of respect to include God, not exclude him from our private musings, considering that we certainly are not responsible for creating the universe, so what right do we have to make it a matter of our own business?

There is something wildly inconsistent in theistic evolution. God did it, but we don’t want to know about it. Because?

Please don’t go on about my being a Creationist. I could be an atheist and still present an atheist’s philosophical case concerning YOUR inconsistency.

IF it is God’s house and he built (created) it, that would give him rights to it and absolutely erode our right to ignore him.

The problem is your inconsistency as a theistic evolutionist who denies God has any say in science. That would be my contention, even as an atheist.

 

[edwest2]

Speaking of houses. Thomas Aquinas:

"Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways. First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle *Cleanthes]. Secondly, this is clear from a consideration of Divine goodness, which, as we have said above (Q[44], A[4]; Q[65], A[2]), was the cause of the production of things in existence. For as “it belongs to the best to produce the best,” it is not fitting that the supreme goodness of God should produce things without giving them their perfection. Now a thing’s ultimate perfection consists in the attainment of its end. Therefore it belongs to the Divine goodness, as it brought things into existence, so to lead them to their end: and this is to govern.

"Reply to Objection 1: A thing moves or operates for an end in two ways. First, in moving itself to the end, as man and other rational creatures; and such things have knowledge of their end, and of the means to the end. Secondly, a thing is said to move or operate for an end, as though moved or directed by another thereto, as an arrow directed to the target by the archer, who knows the end unknown to the arrow. Wherefore, as the movement of the arrow towards a definite end shows clearly that it is directed by someone with knowledge, so the unvarying course of natural things which are without knowledge, shows clearly that the world is governed by some reason.

"Reply to Objection 2: In all created things there is a stable element, at least primary matter; and something belonging to movement, if under movement we include operation. And things need governing as to both: because even that which is stable, since it is created from nothing, would return to nothingness were it not sustained by a governing hand, as will be explained later (Q[104], A[1]).

“Reply to Objection 3: The natural necessity inherent in those beings which are determined to a particular thing, is a kind of impression from God, directing them to their end; as the necessity whereby an arrow is moved so as to fly towards a certain point is an impression from the archer, and not from the arrow. But there is a difference, inasmuch as that which creatures receive from God is their nature, while that which natural things receive from man in addition to their nature is somewhat violent. Wherefore, as the violent necessity in the movement of the arrow shows the action of the archer, so the natural necessity of things shows the government of Divine Providence.”

From Summa Theologica

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monkey1976]

And if God created the cosmos, by what right do we have to exclude him from our musings about it?

This is your house, God, but stay out of my way while I look around and figure out what I want to do with it.

Sounds blatantly unfair AND PRESUMPTUOUS.

We should at least figure out what the owner of the house intends for it before we assume some right to wander around it and do as we will as if WE own it.

So, if I came to visit you in your home, I have a right to decide whether you have any say with regards to my activity in your house, so long as I deny, by fiat of my will, that you don’t own it? What gives me the right to do that?

I am free to look around and treat your home as if I own it just so long as I refuse to admit you have any say in the matter?

If God is the Creator, why can science unilaterally determine he has no business in the little “look see” and “look do” that engages science?

It would seem a matter of respect to include God, not exclude him from our private musings, considering that we certainly are not responsible for creating the universe, so what right do we have to make it a matter of our own business?

There is something wildly inconsistent in theistic evolution. God did it, but we don’t want to know about it. Because?

Please don’t go on about my being a Creationist. I could be an atheist and still present an atheist’s philosophical case concerning YOUR inconsistency.

IF it is God’s house and he built (created) it, that would give him rights to it and absolutely erode our right to ignore him.

The problem is your inconsistency as a theistic evolutionist who denies God has any say in science. That would be my contention, even as an atheist.

It isn’t that God has no say in science, it’s that the physical sciences say nothing about God. How does one put the Holy Trinity into a test tube?

 

[estesbob]

If God directed evolution what would the evidence of it be? Would it be complex organisms like man with no discernible evidence that evolved from any other species? i am not talking about man evolving from apes-but man evolving from whatever supposedly crawled out of the primordial soup billions of years ago. Of course we would still be faced with where the soup came from and how it crawler came to life but i know strict evolutionists wont talk about that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Speaking of houses. Thomas Aquinas:

"Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways. First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle *Cleanthes]. …

Peace,
Ed

Very impressed by how quickly you connected with and found this passage.

Must have been a stroke of chance!

So even Tullius over 2000 years ago was arguing intelligent design.

Hmmm.

And we have the impression the idea has only recently been proposed.

Right!