One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Peter_Plato]

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

What scientists observe is one thing. What they claim it entails or signifies is something else, entirely. That is where what philosophers say is important. Philosophy and logic keep scientists from inferring wildly erroneous things about what they do observe. Theoretizing is essentially subject to philosophical critique. That is why YOU should give a flying leap, though you may not understand why.

Philosophy keeps science honest. It serves as a “check” on “judging strictly by appearances.”

A kind of “guiding hand” that keeps science from becoming too “random” in its conclusions.

 

[Farsight001]

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

There are thousands upon thousands of scientific tests for evolution that have been successfully performed. A few were mentioned in this thread. Calling it wild speculation is just a bold-faced lie.

 

[Farsight001]

So the fear, and meaning of many posts, is clear. One-third of Americans reject evolution. This must be stopped at all costs.

For the sake of mankind, basically. I would not say "at all costs’, though. That’s a bit much.

Non-deity forbid that anyone, including Catholics, might link science and their beliefs together.

No one said that.

After all, science, by definition is silent about God/the supernatural, which is obviously not true.

Its obviously not true? really? Can you point me to a scientific study about God?

Creationists and IDers are ALL suspect. They are ALWAYS wrong.

Pretty much. Since their pet ideas have been proven wrong time and time and time and time and time again, they are quite 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.

A few cases? Try dozens.

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.

And by placing God against evolution, you are HELPING THEM accomplish this task, which is part of the problem that we need to fight for the sake of this country.

The same in schools. Just convince those impressionable young minds that there’s nothing out there.

Except that no one is trying to do that. This is a lie.

 

[Farsight001]

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.

It can happen infinitely many times. Without some indication that it was the result of something else at play as opposed to natural causes, there is no reason to conclude that evolution couldn’t do it. It did it once. Of course it can do it again.

Asking this question is like asking if I flip a weighted coin and come up heads every time, at what flip count are you going to determine that magnets are determining which way it lands? Its weighted. It has a natural tendency toward flipping that way and does not need an outside influence to make it happen.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are thousands upon thousands of scientific tests for evolution that have been successfully performed. A few were mentioned in this thread. Calling it wild speculation is just a bold-faced lie.

Those “tests” show adaptive change occurs but make no determination about whether changes are the result of “random” events, unless “random” simply means “causes not completely understood.”

 

[Farsight001]

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”?

Dawkins was speaking as an atheist, not as a biologist. That’s not the actual definition of Natural selection. You know, we’ve been suggesting you guys take courses in evolution for a while now. Maybe you should actually do it. It would help end a lot of confusion caused by your lack of grasp of proper terminology.

 

[Farsight001]

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

Patterns can happen naturally, hence the example of the quartz crystal.

 

[buffalo]

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,

OK, But for Judas Thadeus he is a non-believer, not a creationist.

 

[buffalo]

Those “tests” show adaptive change occurs but make no determination about whether changes are the result of “random” events, unless “random” simply means “causes not completely understood.”

Right, no one disputes adaptation.

 

[Monkey1976]

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

Honeycombs are always an array of hexagons - are bees capable of design?
Orb spiders build webs with nearly perfect symmetry - are spiders capable of design?
Quartz crystals always form a particular hexagonal prism shape - is silicon capable of design?
Nautilus shells are a perfect Fibonacci spiral - are nautiluses (nautili?) capable of design?

What I’m asking is exactly what criteria are used to determine if a particular natural form is the result of conscious design. Exactly what factors show us that H. sapiens sapiens is the result of conscious design while the mathematically-perfect honeycombs are the result of a non-conscious mind or instinct?

 

[Farsight001]

What scientists observe is one thing. What they claim it entails or signifies is something else, entirely. That is where what philosophers say is important.

No its not. In what universe does it become important what philosophers say? That’s like suggesting that its important what English teachers say because the papers they write are written in English. You’ve got to understand the subject to properly critique it. Philosophers do not typically have the education necessary to properly critque evolution. Likewise with English teachers.

When I write a paper, half the words I write get that little squiggly red line under them automatically that indicates they are misspelled. However, they are not. They are simply words the computer’s dictionary is unfamiliar with. If I let an English teacher go to town on my paper, they’re going to be trying to change the spelling of a whole lot of words thinking they are fixing things when they’re actually making it worse because they don’t understand the subject. likewise with philosophers. If you don’t know the subject, you’re just going to make things worse.

 

[buffalo]

“The idea is this: that convergence – the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems – is not just part of evolution, but a driving force. To say this is an unconventional view would be something of an understatement. To start with an example of convergence (itself an astonishing phenomenon), take the “camera eye” – an eye comprising a lens suspended between two fluid-filled chambers, and the kind of eye which you are using to read this feature.”
“The common ancient ancestor of molluscs and chordates could not possibly have possessed a camera eye, so quite clearly they have evolved independently. The solution has been arrived at by completely different routes.” Or, in other words, evolution has converged on a solution." Simon Conway Morris - professor of evolutionary paleobiology

Converging on a solution? Blind unguided chance or design? Design converges on a solution.

 

[Farsight001]

Those “tests” show adaptive change occurs but make no determination about whether changes are the result of “random” events, unless “random” simply means “causes not completely understood.”

When the chances of something are significantly small enough (there’s an actual specific threshold, but I forget what it is), then things are called random. Since the likelihood of a specific set of mutations that occurs is significantly small enough, it is called random. Again, taking a course on this stuff would at the very least get you guys familiar with terminology. I really think that will help you understand.

 

[buffalo]

Honeycombs are always an array of hexagons - are bees capable of design?
Orb spiders build webs with nearly perfect symmetry - are spiders capable of design?
Quartz crystals always form a particular hexagonal prism shape - is silicon capable of design?
Nautilus shells are a perfect Fibonacci spiral - are nautiluses (nautili?) capable of design?

What I’m asking is exactly what criteria are used to determine if a particular natural form is the result of conscious design. Exactly what factors show us that H. sapiens sapiens is the result of conscious design while the mathematically-perfect honeycombs are the result of a non-conscious mind or instinct?

Patterns occur in nature. (your examples) Designs though always contain patterns. They always contain symbols, languages or maps.

 

[Peter_Plato]

OK, But for Judas Thadeus he is a non-believer, not a creationist.

Well…

… for Judas Thaddeus the fact that Berlinski accepts ID seems sufficient to make him a “Creationist” even if Berlinski isn’t convinced that the universe was, in fact, created.

 

[Farsight001]

Right, no one disputes adaptation.

Good. Since adaptation IS evolution, we all accept evolution now and the case is closed, right?

 

[Farsight001]

Converging on a solution? Blind unguided chance or design? Design converges on a solution.

Quartz crystals always order themselves in pretty much the same way, converging, as you say, on an optimum solution. Are they designed?

 

[buffalo]

Well…

… for Judas Thaddeus the fact that Berlinski accepts ID seems sufficient to make him a “Creationist” even if Berlinski isn’t convinced that the universe was, in fact, created.

My point. I don’t think he realized Berlinski’s persuasion, which trashes his entire argument.

Here is another:

An Atheist defends intellignet design

 

[Peter_Plato]

When the chances of something are significantly small enough (there’s an actual specific threshold, but I forget what it is), then things are called random. Since the likelihood of a specific set of mutations that occurs is significantly small enough, it is called random. Again, taking a course on this stuff would at the very least get you guys familiar with terminology. I really think that will help you understand.

No, when the chance of something happening is significantly small enough and it still happens that would be a reason for thinking it isn’t random, but, rather, designed.

What is the chance of wind and the elements carving the heads of four presidents on Mt, Rushmore? I would suggest “significantly” small, actually impossibly small, which is precisely why we wouldn’t conclude it was random, but, rather, DESIGNED.

I don’t need a course to persuade me of what reason adequately addresses. You may want to take some courses in philosophy of science and logic to “help you understand” what legitimately can be concluded from evidence, which is, by the way, a philosophical and not scientific procedure.

 

[buffalo]

No, when the chance of something happening is significantly small enough and it still happens that would be a reason for thinking it isn’t random, but, rather, designed.

What is the chance of wind and the elements carving the heads of four presidents on Mt, Rushmore? I would suggest “significantly” small, actually impossibly small, which is precisely why we wouldn’t conclude it was random, but, rather, DESIGNED.

I don’t need a course to persuade me of what reason adequately addresses. You may want to take some courses in philosophy of science and logic to “help you understand” what legitimately can be concluded from evidence, which is, by the way, a philosophical and not scientific procedure.

This is where America is going wrong. Mandatory science class. No philosophy class. Which is why so many Americans buy into scientism. They do not know any different. Indoctrinization or propaganda for what reason? Are our educators complicit or ignorant?

Solution: Mandatory empirical science class, mandatory philosophy class. If this were the case the polls would be quite different. Currently, it is a win for atheism.