One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Tenofovir]

What ad hominem? I am not attacking anyone’s personal character as an argument against
Intelligent Design. Does anyone know what an ad hominem is? Here is a far better example
of an ad hominem: The Full Title of Darwin’s book on evolution is “On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of **Favoured Races **in the Struggle for
Life,” so Darwin was a racist and Evolution is a Racist Doctrine, and ought to be avoided.
Oh and by the way, “Race” did not always have to apply to skin color, and in the context
Darwin was using, “Race” was the equivalent of “Species.”

And what genetic fallacies? Talking about the meaning of the word Creationism?
I just showed you that the classic meaning of the meanings of Creationism and
Creationist have been generally consistent since their first usage.

Saying ID is false and we need not listen to ID arguments or answer them because people do it to justify their “Creationism” is an ad hominem.
Saying ID is false because it originated with motives to defend Creationism is a genetic fallacy.
Newton, Copernicus, etc all studied the natural order because they wanted to understand God better. All early European scientists and many philosophers and many more modern ones did this. By itself it’s not a reason to attack and reject ID or their work.

You can’t refute Aristotle by saying, Aristotle did all this to understand God better, which was the highest ideal for him. You can’t refute St Thomas by saying “oh he just wanted to justify his belief in God.”

 

[Tenofovir]

Look, if you want to insist that “Creationism” entails a belief that God created the universe as depicted by a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, fine.

Young Earth creationists espouse “Creationism” and are Creationists.

Meyer, Behe, Berlinski, et al, do not accept that the Genesis account is to be taken in such a literalistic manner so they CANNOT be Creationists in YOUR sense of the word. You want to tar them with the same brush by unilaterally telling them what THEY believe.

That’s like me saying YOU must be a literal Creationist because YOU believe in God creating the world. It traffics in ambiguity merely to insist that someone YOU disagree with is in error.

It simply is not a fair-minded approach to the issue to tell others who disagree with you what they MUST believe without actually listening to what it is that they actually do. That is dishonest. We wait to hear what THEIR views actually are, not TELL them what they believe. Unacceptable.

Well said.

Maybe he should rather use terms like YEC. After all YEC is not redundant. It’s a particular type of Creationism who believes in a Young Earth and so likely a literal Creation narrative.

 

[Tenofovir]

In another context, this would be considered “circumstantial” evidence, not conclusive.

Indeed. But in this case this is done for pragmatic reasons. But science has not proved this, it’s based off assumptions. But we can set these things aside or concede them for the sake of argument. Even here science does not show a process is unguided. We’d have to assume an unguided process looks like X. Then posit that because our experiment shows not X, science has shown process is -]unguided/-] guided or vice versa. But that’s based of an underlying assumption /premise which itself is not scientific or perhaps even true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What ad hominem? I am not attacking anyone’s personal character as an argument against
Intelligent Design. Does anyone know what an ad hominem is? Here is a far better example
of an ad hominem: The Full Title of Darwin’s book on evolution is “On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of **Favoured Races **in the Struggle for
Life,” so Darwin was a racist and Evolution is a Racist Doctrine, and ought to be avoided.
Oh and by the way, “Race” did not always have to apply to skin color, and in the context
Darwin was using, “Race” was the equivalent of “Species.”

And what genetic fallacies? Talking about the meaning of the word Creationism?
I just showed you that the classic meaning of the meanings of Creationism and
Creationist have been generally consistent since their first usage.

Not quite correct.

If the claims made in “The Origin of Species” do actually make verifiable claims that some races have advantage over others, that is not racist. Dark skin, for example, is an advantage in terms of sun burn and skin cancer prevention compared to very white skin. That is a real genetic advantage. It is not racist to point out that fact. And Darwin was NOT wrong just because his claims lead to a conclusion that some races have advantages over others.

Darwin, or any evolutionist can make whatever verifiable claims they want regarding the advantages that some races have over others. None of which need to entail racism as long as these are statements of fact and verifiable.

It becomes racist when the “value” of people of different races count differently because of those claimed advantages. If someone claims people of dark skin are “better” because they have a genetic advantage, that is a “moral” claim, not a factual one. That is discrimination and could, likely, be a racist belief.

An ad hominem would, indeed, be the case if someone claimed Darwin’s views on evolution were wrong because he was racist, but not the case that Darwinism is wrong because someone might wrongly draw racist conclusions from its tenets.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Not quite correct.

If the claims made in “The Origin of Species” do actually make verifiable claims that some races have advantage over others, that is not racist. Dark skin, for example, is an advantage in terms of sun burn and skin cancer prevention compared to very white skin. That is a real genetic advantage. It is not racist to point out that fact. And Darwin was NOT wrong just because his claims lead to a conclusion that some races have advantages over others.

Yes, but people have still used that ad hominem to attack Darwin and Evolution
was the point I was making and a better example of what an ad hominem is be-
cause I keep getting accused of ad hominem-ing IDists. Again though, because
you seemed to have missed it, Darwin used “Races” to mean “Species,” NOT
people of different colored skin.

 

[RACJ]

No. There is no scientific test for guidance. We cannot say evolution is guided or not. There is no peer review scientific work doing experiments to determine this. It’s just asserted by many but it’s not a scientific conclusion, but a PHILOSOPHICAL or METAPHYSICAL one.

There is no scientific “test” for evolution happening either. The idea that single-cell organisms can “evolve” into higher forms of life is wild speculation. At least those who believe in some kind of “guidance” of evolution are trying to make some sense of what naturalist scientists are proclaiming. But people like me reject the idea of organs and organisms appearing through random modification through descent. We are perfectly cofortable calling biologists’ bluffs. Rob

 

[edwest2]

So the fear, and meaning of many posts, is clear. One-third of Americans reject evolution. This must be stopped at all costs. Non-deity forbid that anyone, including Catholics, might link science and their beliefs together. After all, science, by definition is silent about God/the supernatural, which is obviously not true. Creationists and IDers are ALL suspect. They are ALWAYS wrong.

But if this gets into the schools and that is the case in a few examples, then something more important than a scientific theory is at risk. What is most at risk is the spread of anti-theism. That the message seen on buses in the UK: "The Atheist Bus Campaign message read: ‘THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE.’” which means you need to listen to others, but certainly not believers.

The same in schools. Just convince those impressionable young minds that there’s nothing out there. That “there’s no one… up there.” (George Carlin). So, what are they left with? Nothing. Except the really bad lifestyles out there. No Commandments, no shame, no guilt, no sin.

Science is man’s god, and by definition, science is silent about the supernatural. Quit saying two contradictory things at the same time.

God Forbid

Ed

 

[buffalo]

Look, if you want to insist that “Creationism” entails a belief that God created the universe as depicted by a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, fine.

Young Earth creationists espouse “Creationism” and are Creationists.

Meyer, Behe, Berlinski, et al, do not accept that the Genesis account is to be taken in such a literalistic manner so they CANNOT be Creationists in YOUR sense of the word. You want to tar them with the same brush by unilaterally telling them what THEY believe.

That’s like me saying YOU must be a literal Creationist because YOU believe in God creating the world. It traffics in ambiguity merely to insist that someone YOU disagree with is in error.

It simply is not a fair-minded approach to the issue to tell others who disagree with you what they MUST believe without actually listening to what it is that they actually do. That is dishonest. We wait to hear what THEIR views actually are, not TELL them what they believe. Unacceptable.

Berlinski is an atheist.

 

[Farsight001]

That is most uncharitable. It’s also a strawman and an ad hominem.

In no way was that uncharitable and in even less of a way was that a strawman or an ad hominem.

I think they say that they can prove it, or at least disprove that life originated and species evolved by pure unguided natural means. God is not necessary for ID. And ID need not posit an alternative. It only need to show that there are ignored and unanswered errors in the concept of neo Darwinian evolution. Please keep the God talk out of this.

Of course they SAY it. They are lying. And proof of this fact has been given time and time and time again.

 

[Farsight001]

If the evidence points to design then the evidence points to design. If it points to Chance then it points to Chance. Scientists must follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of the theological implications. Unfortunately, for Darwinists, the best empirical data available on Evolution - the studies of HIV, Malaria and E.coli that Michael Behe summarizes in his book The Edge of Evolution - supports Intelligent Design much more than it supports Blind Chance as the mechanism behind the irreducible complexity that we find in biology and the fine-tuning that we find in the Laws and Events of Cosmology.

Lol. In absolutely no way whatsoever do those things point to design. You haven’t bothered to read the scientific responses to Behe, have you? You’re putting waaaay too much faith in one man.

The conclusion of Intelligent Design flows from an impartial study of the empirical evidence and standard Logic.

No it doesn’t because no formal study has been performed.

The identity of the Designer is not a conclusion based on the empirical evidence. It is a matter for Theologians to resolve and as Catholics we know the identity of the Designer with absolute certainty.

No, its a conclusion based on the myriad of evidence we have provided that proves that they mean the designer to be God.

 

[Farsight001]

Correct.

Nor is Intelligent Design “creationism.”

Nor is Intelligent Design unscientific:

Proof in large quantities has already been given otherwise. Until you can counter that proof, which, thus far, none of you have even acknowledged, let alone tried to argue against, it stands and you just sound like off-key broken records when you say otherwise.

 

[Farsight001]

You are playing with words.

Yes, because basic logical syllogism are “playing with words”.

Any position that makes a claim that God created the universe is, by definition, “creationism.” That is what the word means.

No it is not. We have been over this before. Creationism is, specifically, the belief that God created the universe AS IS, NO evolution. You guys have a real problem with listening. This is like the 20th time I’ve had to correct you on this exact issue.

 

[buffalo]

Now we have:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Fish flaunt neon glow

“It’s like they have their own little private light show going on,” says John Sparks, a curator of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York who helped to lead the work. “We were surprised to find it in so many.”

---

How many times can we see convergent evo before they concede evo couldn’t do it by RM and NS? We have many examples of the same feature “evolving”. Something else is at play.

 

[Farsight001]

No. There is no scientific test for guidance. We cannot say evolution is guided or not. There is no peer review scientific work doing experiments to determine this. It’s just asserted by many but it’s not a scientific conclusion, but a PHILOSOPHICAL or METAPHYSICAL one.

If there is no scientific test for guidance, the Intelligent Design, which says that our development was guided by an 'intelligent designer" is therefore not science.

As for randomness, it is thought that any set of random values could be determined by some formula. You can’t ever know something really is random. A very complex formula can give you values you may think are random but are not.

Which is why scientists determine that anything of high enough complexity and low enough chances is effectively random.

Finally to say evolution is truly unguided we’d have to have a sure fire example of unguided evolution occurring elsewhere and compare it to our own. That’s not gonna happen in this universe. To say laws of physics are unguided, we’d need the same. But this is philosophy, not science. Science just throws out things like “this sequence of base pairs is the same in species x and y” and someone concludes that the two are related, assuming that this is the only way that DNA can spread to both. Science ends here.

No. To say that evolution is unguided, we would have to try our best to come up with every possible explanation of guidance and disprove them all. If someone 20 years from now comes up with a new explanation, tests it, and confirms that evolution is indeed guided, then evolution is guided. But BASED ON THE EVIDENCE we have now, scientifically, evolution is unguided. That’s how science works.

 

[buffalo]

One more time:

Did God know what Adam would look like? Yes

Did Adam look like God planned?

If yes, then it rules out evo. "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

 

[Monkey1976]

How many times can we see convergent evo before they concede evo couldn’t do it by RM and NS? We have many examples of the same feature “evolving”. Something else is at play.

You do realize that there are certain situations where there is a single best solution? The fact that dolphins, sharks, and icthyosaurs share a common body shape isn’t surprising at all. Those species had a “problem to solve” and there is a particular shape that is ideal for moving through the water at high speed, so convergence is to be expected.

Still waiting on the exact criteria for determining if “design” is present. How can we tell that “design” is present in the human hand, but absent in a spider’s web or a quartz crystal?

 

[Farsight001]

It’s not the position of all. I think there is at least one atheist philosopher (or maybe 2 = Fodor and Monton) who give credence to ID. And Berlinski is an agnostic and not religious at all. Some would call him an atheist. But that’s entirely IRRELEVANT. Because that’s still an ad hominem fallacy. And the arguments these guys make can apply to aliens. One has to show why they are wrong and not that they’re wrong because they’re doing this for God.

Who gives a flying leap what philosophers say? This is supposedly a science, so stick with the scientists.

Ad hominem.

You seem to be offering the accusation of “ad hominem” more as an excuse not to reply to the argument than anything. An ad hominem is attacking the trait of a person and suggesting that their argument is wrong because of that trait. Such as “you’re asian so you’re wrong”. Or “you’re a woman, so you can’t possibly know anything about power tools.”

Thanks. You’re doing yourself a terrible disservice by repeating atheist talking points based on ad homimem, genetic fallacies, caricatures.

But he’s not. You actually just did use an ad hominem by suggesting that the argument had no merit because it was an atheist talking point, though. His arguments have thus far been basically logically valid and merit a tangible reply, not a dismissal.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Berlinski is an atheist.

His position seems more agnostic than atheistic. He has, in his writing and videos, said that he is sympathetic with the idea of a creator but not yet convinced,

 

[buffalo]

You do realize that there are certain situations where there is a single best solution? The fact that dolphins, sharks, and icthyosaurs share a common body shape isn’t surprising at all. Those species had a “problem to solve” and there is a particular shape that is ideal for moving through the water at high speed, so convergence is to be expected.

Still waiting on the exact criteria for determining if “design” is present. How can we tell that “design” is present in the human hand, but absent in a spider’s web or a quartz crystal?

“Once is an instance. Twice may be an accident.
But three times or more makes a pattern.” — Diane Ackerman, 1993

 

[Farsight001]

Look, if you want to insist that “Creationism” entails a belief that God created the universe as depicted by a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, fine.

Its not just fine. That’s the definition of the word.

Meyer, Behe, Berlinski, et al, do not accept that the Genesis account is to be taken in such a literalistic manner so they CANNOT be Creationists in YOUR sense of the word. You want to tar them with the same brush by unilaterally telling them what THEY believe.

No. We’re tarring Behe with the same brush by pointing out that he’s lying when he says he doesn’t believe that, as he has stated under oath otherwise.

It simply is not a fair-minded approach to the issue to tell others who disagree with you what they MUST believe without actually listening to what it is that they actually do. That is dishonest. We wait to hear what THEIR views actually are, not TELL them what they believe. Unacceptable.

Like the creationists stacking school boards so they can tell all the teachers they MUST teach ID and teach all the students that ID is completely valid even though it hasn’t gone through any real scientific scrutiny.