One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

If conflicts only with the position that ID cannot be science. If that was not your meaning then we are not in disagreement on this.

Ah, well ID can be a science if it can be accepted by the scientific community.
It has not been, IDists usually want to avoid real scientist and
publish their ideas without other real scientists looking it over,
because if that happened, ID would br presented more, more,
and more as not a science.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But that’s not a definition, though. As the quote says, Intelligent Design “holds”. Its describing one aspect of ID. I gave a formal definition of ID from a textbook. And this textbook was published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and organization run by the Discovery Institute, and authored by Dembski and Wells, who are senior members of the Discovery Institute.

So ultimately, your provided meaning was a partial definition from the DI and my provided meaning was the official full definition from the DI. Which one are you going to trust.

And hopefully this helps illustrate how all over the place and inconsistent they are.

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”.

Ok, show me where the textbook definition says “as is”.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ah, well ID can be a science if it can be accepted by the scientific community. It has not been, IDists usually want to avoid real scientist and publish their ideas without other real scientists looking it over, because if that happened, ID would br presented more, more, and more as not a science.

If IDers offers a scientific explanation that works better than current theories we should hope that the scientific community will accept it but their acceptance does not determine whether or not it is scientific.

If the scientific community were to reject a scientific explanation we should not be surprised that people come to reject them and give absurd answers to public surveys.

 

[Farsight001]

Why do you say this is too high?

Because more than zero is too high.

God’s word says He made everything to reproduce from it own kind.

No it doesn’t. You would also have to define kind to explain what the problem would be. You would also have to explain why you think the creation story should be taken so literally.

Also evolutions says there was death and change, death and change. The word of God says: Rom. 5:12 that death enter when sin did.

You’re right, it does. But this is spiritual death, not physical death. If we sin, we spiritually die. This is a truth all throughout the bible. So it makes perfect sense that spiritual death entered the world when sin did, not physical death.

Still if you look into evolution there is still no prof that it happened.

Tons of proof that it happened, actually. Millions of studies, thousands upon thousands of experiments and direct observations of it happening.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

“Real” scientists don’t own science, fortunately.

I didn’t say scientists owned science. It’s just that anybody can
claim anything is science, so scientists around the world gather
and discuss and debate and test just to determine if something
is scientifically valid.

Do we believe the Mormon who says, “Mormonism is Christian,”
or do we turn to the Christian community to verify if this is so???

Same thing, principally speaking.

Regardless of who is criticizing who, going to the main proponent of a theory seems to me the most reasonable source of definition for a new field.

If you are inspecting a tire dealership, do you just go to them and take their word for it
that they are an honest dealership? You maybe, but not me. It would be more logical
to go around asking others, other dealerships and customers, what they think of the
dealership in question. If the general answer is, “NO, they are not an honest dealer-
ship,” does that not say anything about the tire dealership under inspection?

 

[Farsight001]

The term “creationism” was in use long before ID. It has a long history of usage.

That’s not really relevant. The date of the origins of the term is irrelevant to the fact that they’re the same thing.

Use your brain for a change and recognize the variety of opinions on this subject.

I have recognized the variety of opinions on the subject. That is not really relevant either. Definitions are not matters of opinion.

 

[Farsight001]

IDers who are involved in science are not denying evolution. They are, to varying degrees, denying that random mutation and natural selection are a sufficient explanation for it.

IDers are not involved in science. And again, ID denies evolution BY DEFINITION.

 

[Farsight001]

I don’t need to put up with this carp!

Meyer specifically addressed this in the video that YOU refuse to watch so YOU could find out what it is that HE really thinks, but YOU continue to insist that YOU have a unilateral right to determine what it is that HE as an IDer thinks.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

If IDers offers a scientific explanation that works better than current theories we should hope that the scientific community will accept it but their acceptance does not determine whether or not it is scientific.

True, acceptance does not determine what science is, but WHY the acceptance matters.
The entire scientific community has good reasons not to accept Intelligent Design, there-
fore it is the reasons they don’t accept ID as a science that matters, not the acceptance
itself. Scientists have looked at ID, and have reasons to say “Not a Science.”

If the scientific community were to reject a scientific explanation we should not be surprised that people come to reject them and give absurd answers to public surveys.

You’re right, doesn’t apply to Intelligent Design because it’s not a science, but the statement you made is rather valid.

 

[Farsight001]

It is a science insofar as it makes falsifiable claims. Forgive me if I don’t rely on the honesty of those seeking to expel IDers from science.

But it doesn’t make falsifiable claims. Why are these animals similar? Design! Why are these animals different? Design! It’s an excuse that can be given as an explanation for any scenario.

And no one is seeking to expel IDers from science. It was never science to begin with.

 

[Farsight001]

And we should rely on them because…?

The DIscovery Institute is the leading proponent of ID and most of the leading IDers are affilliated with it. Seems like a good source to me.

The Discovery Institute HELPED PRODUCE the book.

 

[Farsight001]

Science is not kept science by prejudgement. The burden is on IDers to bring something to the table. Let them to that burden.

They are being “let” to that burden. They have failed completely. They haven’t even performed ONE formal experiment.

 

[Farsight001]

No. Materalism is not scientific.

Yes it is. Science by definition studies only the NATURAL WORLD. That is materialistic.

 

[Farsight001]

This thread is over 100 pages long and there still seems to be disagreement over the definition of “Evolution.”

There is, but there shouldn’t be. Evolution has an established definition. There are people here that are adamantly in disagreement with that established definition.

You call me a liar for stating that Random mutation is THE core component of Darwinian evolution (the other two components being Common Descent and Natural Selection). I find this accusation a tad bit extreme, given that Richard Dawkins would also agree with me.

First of all, I did not call you a liar. Second of all, you did NOT state that random mutation was the "core’ component of evolution. You stated repeatedly that it was random mutation ONLY. This is the first time you have brought up common descent and natural selection as being components of evolution. Lastly, I could not care less what Dawkins says.

Darwinian evolution is by definition Random.

No it isn’t.

If you had ever read any of Richard Dawkins books on the subject you would know this. Richard Dawkins is considered one of the leading advocates of Darwinian Evolution and although I do not pay much attention to Richard Dawkins most of the time (he once called for the arrest of Pope Benedict and he has advocated for infanticide) I do think he has accurately described the core tenets of Darwinian Evolution

Dawkins is famous for being an anti-theist. He is in no way one of the leading proponents of evolution. Actually, according to most evolutionary biologists, he’s kind of a nut.

Why do you continue to call me a liar. How uncharitable

I have not called you a liar. I called the statement a lie, meaning it is false. I made no claim regarding whether you knew it was a lie or not.

Michael Behe is an ID proponent and he has never denied that evolution occurs.

Yes, actually, he has. And under oath, to boot.

But he has identified a limit to what Random mutation can do, based on the studies of HIV, Malaria and E.coli - which provide look at evolution in real time.

He has identified no limit. He has arbitrarily declared that there was a limit based on speculation.

 

[Farsight001]

Ok, show me where the textbook definition says “as is”.

Seriously? I already showed that and Judas has produced the definition a dozen times now. There is no need to continue asking for the definition as though it has not been given.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Seriously? I already showed that and Judas has produced the definition a dozen times now. There is no need to continue asking for the definition as though it has not been given.

No, he didn’t. Nor have you.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes it is. Science by definition studies only the NATURAL WORLD. That is materialistic.

No, science studies what it can observe.

There is no agreed defintion of what is “natural” and “unnatural” or “supernatural” that constrains science much less an equivalence between materalistic and natural. It is not the case that a subject must be prequalifed as natural before science can address it. Instead, history shows that what science can successfully address is generally called natural.

They are being “let” to that burden. They have failed completely. They haven’t even performed ONE formal experiment.

Experimentation is certainly a good tool when available but it is not a requirement. There are many fields of science for which experimentation is impractical.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No, he didn’t. Nor have you.

Yes I did, many times, not that I ever get tired of it though :“**Creation **means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the a-
gency of an **intelligent creator **with their distinctive features already intact.
Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987

“**Intelligent Design **means that various forms of life began abruptly through
an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987

“**Sudden emergence **holds that various forms of life began -?-] with their distinc-
tive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings,
animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes I did, many times, not that I ever get tired of it though :“**Creation **means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the a-
gency of an **intelligent creator **with their distinctive features already intact.
Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987

“**Intelligent Design **means that various forms of life began abruptly through
an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987

“**Sudden emergence **holds that various forms of life began -?-] with their distinc-
tive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings,
animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007

Why don’t you bold the part that says “as is” for me. Because I’m missing it.

The above definition of ID is consistent with my claim. Any deviation by a designer is going to be a “sudden emergence” with “distinctive features already intact” whether it is God creating animals on the xth day or whether it is a sudden evolution of an ape into a man. Saying that a particular creature begins life “as is” means that, from the beginning of time, it was always the same. That is the common meaning of “creationism” as was previously cited.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here, let me help you out:

**5. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article “Meanings of Evolution” by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas. **

discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign