[Verginius Rufus]

We will never know if humans are unique unless we check out all the planets which could support life.

That may take a while, so get started on grant proposals.

[Alas Babylon!]

Is it possible to believe in both creationism AND evolution?

Could not God have/is using evolution as his tool to create life and ultimately us?

Is evolution as a tool not a better solution than finger-snapping and saying “Poof”?

God gives us a tool—our brains—to figure things out. We have lots of evidence he left for us.

But NONE of that evidence means He didn’t do it or does not exists.

[spirited irish]

So-called scientifically enlightened modernists (progressives) claim scientific neutrality as a general operating assumption. Two applications of scientific neutrality evidence this: evolution (relentless change=relativism), an anti-creation account that deconstructs and reduces man in the spiritual image of the Trinity to evolved ape, and deconstructionism (destructive criticism/critical theory). Along with evolution (the divine energy), deconstructionism is a form of relativism or nihilism (meaninglessness) that for more than eighty years has been spilling into and contaminating our moral and culture sustaining institutions from seminaries and Biblical scholarship to academia, law, media, arts, and politics, thence our minds, individually and collectively.

The origin of the neutrality principle is the Garden of Eden. Its' father is the Evil One who tempted Eve to approach the question of eating from the forbidden tree in a neutral, unbiased fashion. He slyly suggested that she adopt a neutral position in order to decide who was right, God or the snake. Like modernists of our own age Eve doubted and therefore rejected God's Word as authoritative and conclusive. As a true neutralist she determined for herself which choice to take. (Gen. 3:4-6)

[Fhios]

A poll proves this? Sounds idiotic. It was tl:dr the whole thing. I think more people believe in the clockmaker rather than pure evolution.

[fwdude]

People accuse God of being cruel for allowing millennia of human suffering; when evolution is infinitely more cruel with billions more suffering through subhuman existence for MILLIONS of years.

[Heartlander]

The survey questions:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Evolution shows that no living thing is more important than any other.

2. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Evolution shows human beings are not fundamentally different from other animals.

3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Evolution shows that moral beliefs evolve over time based on their survival value in various times and places.

[ameribbean expat]

“The data for this survey was collected from March 17-20, 2016, using SurveyMonkey Audience...”.

Couldn’t make it up...using SurveyMonkey for a study on evolution...

[Cyberman]

The entire premise here is silly. The author is basically arguing that we ought to believe what makes us feel better about ourselves, never mind what is actually true.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Whatever led to life on earth and kept it there, it had to (1) climb a probability hill and (2) not fall back down the same hill. #2 might be the thing that gets ignored the most in modern discussions of the topic. But the old-earth creationist Hugh Ross of www.reasons.org turns concerted attention to the topic.

Call me corny, but “Thou preservest man and beast” does no worse than anything that can be called scientific. And what’s more it posits a Creator and Sustainer Who is party to a personal relationship, which billions have found makes sense.

I don’t prove the scientist exists by putting him in a test tube. I prove the scientist exists through various personal interactions.

Some people get hung up over the creation details. I think if anything could answer this question it might be the modern theory of relativity. A God who moved swiftly enough could indeed complete what would appear to us as ages of work, in a personal time frame that meets or beats 24 hours. We don’t have any reason to believe that evening and morning would be forced to apply to the entire globe simultaneously (it doesn’t behave that way now) without some kind of metaphor being implied, such as an absence of spiritual manifestation and a presence of spiritual manifestation respectively.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I.e. if it could be any kind of “evolution” — it’s not Darwin’s.

[DungeonMaster]

Ever see a Darwin Fish? They make sense because evolution is religion.

[Just mythoughts]

TOE was the gateway to abortion.

[AndyTheBear]

The theory of evolution is not the problem. Its the philosophical illiteracy of our culture. For those whose knowledge of philosophy and theology are that appropriate to a 6 year old, grown up knowledge of science and other subjects give them the impression that there is not much to philosophy or theology. When in fact, they really won’t really understand science nor any other discipline well until they correct this glaring deficiency.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

God in envented evolution.

[AWOL 27]

Evolution is a ludicrous, futile belief! Its short-sighted hogwash!!! I mean I don’t even understand…scientists came up with this bizarre laughable idea, and it’s even against their own book! The second LAW of thermodynamics instantly disproves evolution. I quote: “the entropy (a measure of the disorder that exists in any system) of the universe must always either increase or remain the same. It can never decrease.” So what that states is nothing can get better or come from nothing which just happens to be exactly what evolution insists! Really? Evolution tells us that once nothing was here then all of a sudden a single cell appeared either from the BBT (Big Bang Theory) don’t even get me started with that, or just flat appeared. And then this adorable little cell morphed after millions some say billions of years later we humans now “dominate” the earth. The second law of thermodynamics clarifies that this is impossible. Oh and there is no way the earth could be millions or billions of years old because the ocean would be so salty that no fish could live or prosper in it so……yeah if you are a scientist out there and you believe in evolution being the key to life on earth and all the rest of the universe; go back to class and check your facts! Because evolution cannot be decisive; you said it yourself.