One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Bubba_Switzler]

Do you know what those difficulties are that they candidly discuss in the journals? It is trivial things such as whether to call this new fossil find a “reptile-like mammal” or a “mammal-like reptile”. They get in fist fights about that stuff at conferences, but in the end, thats small stuff and there is no reason to talk about that “problem” to the general public because it is a problem of classification, not of whether or not the creature whose fossil they found evolved at all.

You should read the article.

How many people do you know who deny evolution? Honestly,

The serious debate is whether blind trial and error can account for the observed evolution.

What are people being asked in these polls? Do they belive in the “young earth”? Are 1/3 of Americans fundamentalist Christians? I don’t think so.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No it doesn’t and that is word for word the creationist lie about what theistic evolution is. They really don’t know how to be honest, do they?

Again, this is a lie. Intelligent Design, according to the ID bigwigs promoting it as a job, it is the idea that we came as is, produced by an “intelligent agent”. Should I pull out their own definition of the word as they put it in their own ID textbook? It specifically says life was created AS IS.

By the PROPER definitions of the words, you appear to be a theistic evolutionist, not an ID advocate. But if they can trick you into thinking that theistic evolution is actually ID and that something else is theistic evolution, then they can claim you among their numbers. This is another of their popular, yet deceptive, tactics that is well known.

Intelligence design is a broad tent that includes both creationism and thestic evolution. The key claim that ID makes, the one that unites all views, is that the hand of God can be discerned scientifically. That’s an arguable point but it is a relatively technical one.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No it doesn’t and that is word for word the creationist lie about what theistic evolution is. They really don’t know how to be honest, do they?

Theistic evolution implies “guided evolution” as opposed to “unguided evolution.”

Fine. If you want to leave open the question of when and how the guidance occurs, then theistic evolution could be compatible with Creationism, ID, front loading and just about any other form of “guiding” that is available. In other words, theistic evolution is merely a claim that God did it without a commitment to how or when. It doesn’t really say much, if anything, at all, except, “Be quiet about God.”

I could be sympathetic to that view if its endorsers mean something like, “Be still and know that I am God,” but, you are not demonstrating that kind of view is the one you live by.

Your position seems a tad more vocal than that.

More like “Be quiet about God because we have science to do.”

It is not “letting God in” so much as “shutting him out.”

Again, this is a lie. Intelligent Design, according to the ID bigwigs promoting it as a job, it is the idea that we came as is, produced by an “intelligent agent”. Should I pull out their own definition of the word as they put it in their own ID textbook? It specifically says life was created AS IS.

Revert to “Creationism.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What are people being asked in these polls? Do they belive in the “young earth”? Are 1/3 of Americans fundamentalist Christians? I don’t think so.

You just proposed a claim, now support it.

 

[powerofk]

No one said theistic evolution was science, did they? Nope. So the statement remains quite true.

Exactly - “Theistic” evolution is actually a Christian way of combining both our faith in God and the science of evolution. Evolution (which simply means: change in a population over time) is a scientific FACT (it’s not a theory- it’s actually a directly observable phenomenon; sure, the organisms that it has been seen with are bacteria (of which there are millions of species) and other single-celled organisms. It would be very difficult to directly observe the evolution of many multi-cellular organisms due to life-span). However, science can say nothing about the existence, or lack thereof, of God.

Many fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible had to be literally factual in all parts. Since the Bible states that God directly created the Earth in 6 days, evolution presented a serious threat to their faith. As such, they rallied against evolution, claiming that it was “anti-God”.

The Catholic Church, however, has remained much more open on the question, and has never considered science (as long as the science is ethical and respects the human person) to be the enemy of faith. We, as Catholics, are not bound to believe in New Earth Creationism (which denies the age of the Earth, and claims that fossils of extinct animals are due to either (a) the flood or (b) God trying to “trick” us) or even Old Earth Creationism (which accepts the age of the Earth and extinct creatures, but not evolution of any kind). The original version of Intelligent Design is “Old Earth Creationism” under a different name.

No - we posit a philosophy of theistic evolution - that is, the creatures did change over time, though God was, is, and always will be the Prime Mover: He initiated the Creation, and He is free to manipulate His Creation as He sees fit. If He uses evolution as a tool, so be it. See, Christians can see evolution and see the hand of God working. Atheists see evolution and see the absence of God. Evolution, in and of itself, does not prove nor disprove a Creator. The problem is, proponents of ID often try to fashion it as a form of theistic evolution, which it is not.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You just proposed a claim, now support it.

Do you seriously believe that is what they survey shows? Really?!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Intelligence design is a broad tent that includes both creationism and thestic evolution. The key claim that ID makes, the one that unites all views, is that the hand of God can be discerned scientifically. That’s an arguable point but it is a relatively technical one.

That is an arguable point, because Intelligent Design claims to be a science that is more correct than the standard scientific views of Evolution.

Theistic Evolution, on the other hand, does not claim to be a science, believes in
God as the Creator, AND trusts fully in the standard scientific views on Evolution.

Quite different.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Theistic evolution implies “guided evolution” as opposed to “unguided evolution.”

But it doesn’t pretend to be a science like Intelligent Design.

More like “Be quiet about God because we have science to do.”

It is not “letting God in” so much as “shutting him out.”

Because God is not subject to science. Science is limited to Creation.
It does not, cannot, will not therefore bring God into the equation as if
he is a measurable factor in Creation.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Do you seriously believe that is what they survey shows? Really?!

I didn’t propose your claim, you did. You made a critical point, now support it.
If you don’t find anything to support it, then your point is not relevant.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That is an arguable point, because Intelligent Design claims to be a science that is more correct than the standard scientific views of Evolution.

Theistic Evolution, on the other hand, does not claim to be a science, believes in
God as the Creator, AND trusts fully in the standard scientific views on Evolution.

Quite different.

Which makes ID interesting. But, contrary to some, ID is not the same as creationism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I didn’t propose your claim, you did. You made a critical point, now support it.
If you don’t find anything to support it, then your point is not relevant.

My point is relevant whether or not it is supported by the current survey. Indeed, my point was that the whole issue has been so ifantalized that the survey is almost certainly yielding incorrect resutls.

Just because you ask someone their opinion doesn’t mean you will get an honest answer. Especially when it is so loaded. One of the most important elements of science is instrumental reliabililty.

 

[edwest2]

Theistic evolution implies “guided evolution” as opposed to “unguided evolution.”

Fine. If you want to leave open the question of when and how the guidance occurs, then theistic evolution could be compatible with Creationism, ID, front loading and just about any other form of “guiding” that is available. In other words, theistic evolution is merely a claim that God did it without a commitment to how or when. It doesn’t really say much, if anything, at all, except, “Be quiet about God.”

I could be sympathetic to that view if its endorsers mean something like, “Be still and know that I am God,” but, you are not demonstrating that kind of view is the one you live by.

Your position seems a tad more vocal than that.

More like “Be quiet about God because we have science to do.”

It is not “letting God in” so much as “shutting him out.”

Revert to “Creationism.”

Rule 1) Science cannot study God, or some unknown agent.

Rule 2) Science cannot say, or a make a linkage, between God and evolution. Some imply it, but it’s very, very clear that, according to the rules, you can’t mix the two.

Or chocolate and peanut butter

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Rule 1) Science cannot study God, or some unknown agent.

Rule 2) Science cannot say, or a make a linkage, between God and evolution. Some imply it, but it’s very, very clear that, according to the rules, you can’t mix the two.

That has not been the view of Christians throughout history. That simply represents a truce line between science and religion. You can choose to repect that truce line if you wish.

Christianity makes falsifiable claims subject to observation. Christianit is not limited to the supernatural nor has God necessarily so limited himself.

If God chose to show his hand in evolution then it can be scientifically detected.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Which makes ID interesting. But, contrary to some, ID is not the same as creationism.

Intelligent Design is Creationism, dressed up in scientific
jargon, insisting on a Designer, which no matter how you
look at it, denotes a Deity.

“Well the Designer in question could be an alien race,” okay, fair, but who designed the aliens? “Well that still doesn’t
necessarily denote a Deity,” but who is the Designer of the Designer(s)? No matter how long the interrogation lasts, in
the end, whether reached or not, Intelligent Design All leads up to Deity, an Eternal Being responsible for the Creation
of all things, and that is called Creationism, which is the source of Intelligent Design, therefore it cannot be considered
a science.

 

[edwest2]

That has not been the view of Christians throughout history. That simply represents a truce line between science and religion. You can choose to repect that truce line if you wish.

Christianity makes falsifiable claims subject to observation. Christianit is not limited to the supernatural nor has God necessarily so limited himself.

If God chose to show his hand in evolution then it can be scientifically detected.

There are some here that will strenuously reject that idea. I’m favoring Intelligent Design.

So, how can science detect God? That’s the issue for some.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Intelligent Design is Creationism, dressed up in scientific jargon, insisting on a Designer, which no matter how you look at it, denotes a Deity.

No. You are abusing terms for rhetorical purposes. Are you proposing that the tern “creationism” subsumes all theories in which God had a hand in creation? Or are you claiming that ID is secretly a young earth theory?

“Well the Designer in question could be an alien race,” okay, fair, but who designed the aliens? “Well that still doesn’t
necessarily denote a Deity,” but who is the Designer of the Designer(s)? No matter how long the interrogation lasts, in
the end, whether reached or not, Intelligent Design All leads up to Deity, an Eternal Being responsible for the Creation
of all things, and that is called Creationism, which is the source of Intelligent Design, therefore it cannot be considered
a science.

You are off on a tangent trembling in fear that if a “designer” is proven then ID adherents will claim that God is proven. Wouldn’t it be interesting enough to prove a design apart from who the designer is?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are some here that will strenuously reject that idea. I’m favoring Intelligent Design.

So, how can science detect God? That’s the issue for some.

I’m satisfied to occupy a neutral position. Let the IDers make and defend their case and weight their claims by proper scientific methods. Don’t let atheists and fellow travelers stack the deck against them such as by requiring a materialistic explanation.

The simplest example I like to give is this: if someone finds Jesus’ body then the gig is up for Christianity. ID is much more complicated but that doesn’t mean it is inherently futile.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let me try this again. My question is not “Does design exist?”. My question is: What are the specific, objective criteria for determining that design is present.

I’ll even start the answer for you:

“The objective criteria for determining that design is present are:* (list item goes here)* (next item)* (and so on)
And these criteria cannot be satisfied by anything that is not the result of conscious intelligent design”

I do think this is a crucial question and I am by no means trying to dodge it. I just want to make certain that what is proposed is legitimate and captures what you are getting at.

We can all agree that “design” in terms of merely repeating or expected patterns does not require intelligence.

However, something like “purposeful means to an end” or “intended and created for a purposed result” might work. The problem is with getting a handle on the “intentions” or purposes of a conscious agent. How would that be known?

One step might be to detail how ends that actually obtained could not possibly have been the result of natural sequences and yet brought about by means that defy all ordinary causal explanations. This is no different than forensic sciences determining agency apart from natural causes.

I think genetic code fits the bill precisely because the nucleotide bases have no determining reason for their order and that precise order was absolutely necessary for bringing about the “unforeseen” result of “living entities.” Living things are very unlike and unexpected as constituents of a universe governed by chemical and physical laws. There is a gap between the consistency of physical and chemical causation and the intricately complex genetic coding that gives rise to living organisms. The second is simply not explained by the first.

Life is far too expansive and complex to have merely “arisen” from physical and chemical interactions.

I don’t think the science of design is sufficiently advanced to answer your question, but I think it plausibly could. Which is why it deserves a full hearing and the opportunity to demonstrate what it proposes.

I’m not saying ID has shown it is completely correct, but it has demonstrated legitimate questions and plausible answers. It doesn’t deserve to be “shut down” for what amounts to an excuse that “It is creationism.”

Even if it was, if God created the universe and life we would expect to find a few clues as to how he went about doing it, we wouldn’t expect him to have acted as if the only means at his disposal were infinite numbers of monkeys.

Theists have no reason to find affinity with “random causation.”

Perhaps he positively WANTS us to know how he did it in order to challenge our intellects, not put us to sleep by implying we should “leave it to him” and not worry about it. Perhaps genetic code is a kind of complex intellectual challenge set up by God to challenge science to work out the details. I don’t know, but I do recognize “excuse making” when I see it.

Shutting down legitimate inquiry because “It’s not science!” is silly. Not accepting the results of inquiry because of a lack of quality is one thing, not allowing the inquiry at all is something else completely.

 

[Farsight001]

You should read the article.

I did. “by Stephen C. Meyer” is all I really needed to know. Why do you guys keep citing proven liars as support for your position? It’s kind of silly.

How many people do you know who deny evolution? Honestly,

A lot, actually. Well over half the people I know, I’d say. They tend to avoid bringing up the subject with me because they know its not going to turn out well for them, so I don’t really have an exact count.

The serious debate is whether blind trial and error can account for the observed evolution.

Why would that be part of the debate? Evolution is not blind trial and error.

What are people being asked in these polls? Do they belive in the “young earth”? Are 1/3 of Americans fundamentalist Christians? I don’t think so.

You should read the polls. The first post in this thread contained a link to one.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You should read the polls. The first post in this thread contained a link to one.

I did which is why I raised the issue. I have found it to be very difficult to engage anyone on this topic seriously. Most tend to take one side or the other for reasons having nothting to do with the science of evolution. I have no confidence whatsoever in the survey results.