Posted on 12/20/2010 7:19:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you're in a room of 100 people, odds are likely about 40 think God created humans about 10,000 years ago, part of a philosophy called creationism, according to a Gallup poll reported Friday (Dec. 17). That number is slightly lower than in years past and down from a high of 47 percent in both 1993 and 1999.
And 38 percent of Americans, the poll estimates, believe God guided the process that brought humans from "cavemen" to today's incarnation over millions of years, while 16 percent think humans evolved over millions of years, without any divine intervention.
This secular view, while a relatively small number, is up from 9 percent in 1982, according to Gallup.
Like most American attitudes, Gallup wrote, views on human origins have political consequences. For instance, debates and clashes over which explanations for human origins should be included in school textbooks have persisted for decades. And with 40 percent of Americans continuing to hold to an anti-evolutionary belief about the origin of humans, it is highly likely that these types of debates will continue, according to Gallup.
The findings also stand in stark contrast to another announcement Friday, this one by John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The memo was issued to federal science agencies to guide them in making rules to ensure scientific integrity.
The Gallup results are based on telephone interviews conducted Dec. 10-12 with a random sample of 1,019 adults, ages 18 and older, living in the continental United States. The findings were weighted by gender, age, race, education, religion and phone lines to make the sample nationally representative.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Development of a heat resistant bacteria is evidence of this “solving mechanism”. When the bacteria experienced stress, the mechanism increased its mutation rate, and DNA was changed among the surviving population such that is “solved” the heat stress problem. Are we back to square one now? I thought you had admitted that this was an adaptive function. What would you call adaption other than a change that “solved” a problem?
Saying the change we currently see isn’t responsible for change in the past is akin to saying the erosion we currently see in the Grand Canyon isn’t responsible for making the canyon.
Well sure, a big guy named Paul Bunyan COULD have dug it all out in a day; but such is NOT a scientific hypothesis.
A hypothesis that the state we currently see the canyon in is a result of the changes we currently see underway is a scientific model that explains facts and allows predictions.
And one can easily assess that the amount of erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain the existence of the canyon.
Similarly, the best scientific model to explain the differences between species is that the currently observed rate of change is responsible for the observed differences between species. And one can easily assess that the amount of change is both necessary and sufficient to explain the observed differences.
Again, the fact that a "solving mechanism" exists does not mean that it 'evolved'. The bacteria could just as easily have been created with that ability.
"Saying the change we currently see isn’t responsible for change in the past is akin to saying the erosion we currently see in the Grand Canyon isn’t responsible for making the canyon."
Actually it would be scientifically accurate to say that since current erosion was not observed to create the Grand Canyon. You need to learn the difference between what science can say and what is a philosophical statement.
"Well sure, a big guy named Paul Bunyan COULD have dug it all out in a day; but such is NOT a scientific hypothesis."
And assuming that current erosion did it is NOT scientific either.
"A hypothesis that the state we currently see the canyon in is a result of the changes we currently see underway is a scientific model that explains facts and allows predictions."
Nothing scientific about it since the 'hypothesis' cannot ever be observed. It is philosophical.
"And one can easily assess that the amount of erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain the existence of the canyon."
No, one must believe that current erosion explains the existence of the canyon. It is impossible to state scientifically. You don't seem to understand the definition of science.
"Similarly, the best scientific model to explain the differences between species is that the currently observed rate of change is responsible for the observed differences between species.
Speciation from canines into felines has never been observed. That too is a belief and is not scientific.
"And one can easily assess that the amount of change is both necessary and sufficient to explain the observed differences."
Not scientifically you can't. Philosophically yes, but not scientifically. Please educate yourself on the difference between what science can say and what philosophy must say.
This from the idiot who said...
“Science is based on the assumption that there is no god and that everything that is observed occurred without supernatural intervention.”
????
No, my idiotic FRiend, it is YOU who have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what science actually is, but you are sure that you hate it because the strawman version you invented is against everything you believe!
Nobody yet has observed a valence electron shell, yet they are hypothesized to exist, and they make for a useful model that allows prediction and explanation.
Nobody was there to see the Grand Canyon form via erosion, yet the hypothesis that it DID form via erosion makes for a useful model that allows prediction and explanation.
The proposition that it was formed instantaneously using miraculous means is not scientific, and it is an absolutely useless model in terms of prediction.
When Galileo dropped weights off the tower of Pisa, he was not merely observing and measuring how those weights fell at that location at that time - he was extrapolating into the principle behind how ALL weights fall at ALL locations at ALL times.
“Science is based on the assumption that there is no god and that everything that is observed occurred without supernatural intervention.”
If I am an idiot, why have you not provided evidence in the scientific literature that appeals to supernatural intervention as the explanation for an observation?
"No, my idiotic FRiend, it is YOU who have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what science actually is, but you are sure that you hate it because the strawman version you invented is against everything you believe!"
Actually I do understand science. There is no reason for you to try to project that I 'hate' science. Science is a wonderful too. What is an abuse of science is those who say that it is 'scientific' to assume that current erosion rates produced the Grand Canyon. That is philosophy, not science.
If my 'strawman' is so wrong, it should be easy for you to provide examples in the scientific literature that appeal to supernatural intervention as the explanation for an observation. Please provide them.
Otherwise, I think we can assume it is simply your usual misrepresentation of science.
Extrapolating backward into unobserved, assumed time frames that may not even exist is never scientific. That is philosophical.
Just because extrapolation is appropriate in some circumstances does not mean that it is appropriate in all circumstances. Were extrapolation always appropriate, I could extrapolate an increase in my vertical leap through exercise into the claim that I used to be able to jump to the top of a 200' redwood tree when I was younger and in better shape.
"Nobody was there to see the Grand Canyon form via erosion, yet the hypothesis that it DID form via erosion makes for a useful model that allows prediction and explanation."
You appear to be confusing 'prediction' and 'post hoc story-telling'.
"The proposition that it was formed instantaneously using miraculous means is not scientific, and it is an absolutely useless model in terms of prediction."
The proposition that it was formed in unobserved, assumed time frames that may not even exist is not scientific either and is nothing more than 'ad hoc story-telling'. 'Ad hoc story-telling' is not science, it is philosophy.
"When Galileo dropped weights off the tower of Pisa, he was not merely observing and measuring how those weights fell at that location at that time - he was extrapolating into the principle behind how ALL weights fall at ALL locations at ALL times."
Note that he extrapolated only what he observed at the time and into the future so that he could test it. He did not extrapolate backward into unobserved, assumed time frames that may not even exist. That would not have been scientific.
Again, were extrapolation always appropriate, then I could scientifically claim that I used to be able to jump to the top of a 200' redwood tree when I was younger and in better shape.
Science is not based on the assumption that there is no God.
That is your first bit of absolute idiocy.
Science is “wonderful” you say? And yet you also believe that its starting assumption is that there is no God?
How wonderful!!!
But yes, there is no such thing as supernatural causation in science, you have that at least somewhat correct. If someone were to suppose that a supernatural force were dragging the massive Sun around the tiny Earth while leaving the Earth motionless; that would most assuredly NOT be scientific, any more than the speculation that the Grand Canyon was dug out in one day by a giant and his giant blue ox.
There you go again, spreading your lies!
Taking cable, fiber optic, and pair cables from the control of those that installed them, is “spreading the wealth,” and will result in an instant end to infrastructure expansion. If you cannot keep control of it, why build it?
Please provide examples in the scientific literature that appeal to the supernatural as the explanation for any scientific theory.
"Science is “wonderful” you say? And yet you also believe that its starting assumption is that there is no God? How wonderful!!!"
Please provide examples in the scientific literature that appeal to the supernatural as the explanation for any scientific theory.
"But yes, there is no such thing as supernatural causation in science, you have that at least somewhat correct."
Please provide examples in the scientific literature that appeal to the supernatural as the explanation for any scientific theory.
"If someone were to suppose that a supernatural force were dragging the massive Sun around the tiny Earth while leaving the Earth motionless; that would most assuredly NOT be scientific, any more than the speculation that the Grand Canyon was dug out in one day by a giant and his giant blue ox."
Nor is it scientific to propose that the Grand Canyon was formed in unobserved, assumed time frames that may not even exist. 'Ad hoc story-telling' is not science, it is philosophy
Still posting your comic book strawman garbage I see.
Good thing this is not on the religion forum, because I have to call attention to your deliberate deception, continuing to do battle with your own lie(s).
Nothing in your post is in honest response to anything Dan, or anyone else but you has posted.
You post your own lies and do battle forever with them.
You are insane.
So unless science presupposes supernatural causation as an explanation that assumes there is no God?
Only if you suppose that God only acts upon the universe using supernatural causation and not ever any physical means.
If God, for example, created Gravity; then a study of how Gravity results in the Earth being in orbit around the Sun is not presupposing that there is no God.
So how can a system for gaining knowledge be simultaneously “wonderful” and also “based upon the assumption that there is no God”?
It is “wonderful” to assume that there is no God in your deluded mind?
ISPs retain control. However, they are prevented from using that control to abuse their position in the market to either harm other businesses or deceive their customers. I countered flat-out lies of yours in your thread hijack, and this is all you got?
If you cannot keep control of it, why build it?
You do realize ISPs still have tens of millions of customers paying $40+ each for the service, right?
All you need to do is show me where science assumes that there is a God. I'm still waiting.
"Only if you suppose that God only acts upon the universe using supernatural causation and not ever any physical means."
No, not only. Show me any scientific physical means acting on the universe that is attributed to God.
"If God, for example, created Gravity; then a study of how Gravity results in the Earth being in orbit around the Sun is not presupposing that there is no God."
You always try to go here when you are losing badly. First you need to understand that the fact that bacteria have an adaptive mechanism does not mean that the mechanism 'evolved'. You also need to stop claiming that no creationist has ever answered that question for you.
"So how can a system for gaining knowledge be simultaneously “wonderful” and also “based upon the assumption that there is no God”?"
Why do you want to discuss subjective issues when you can't even get the logical ones right?
"It is “wonderful” to assume that there is no God in your deluded mind?"
The delusions are in your mind, not mine.
Now why is evolution such a good idea for a bacteria under stress? Your claim that it is part of the creationist model is absurd, and argument by assertion only.
defender of the throne
a secret sword in the 3d0 game warriors of might and magic.
OK, you say you are not arguing that the mechanism itself 'evolved', yet you claim that the trait is not only 'subject to evolution' but the 'product of evolution' and also the 'mechanism of evolution'. How does that work?
"...although of course it too is subject to evolution."
Please explain how you are not arguing that the mechanism 'evolved' yet claim it is 'subject to evolution', the 'product of evolution' and the 'mechanism of evolution'?
"The fact that the trait is retained shows its survival advantage."
Again, the fact that something exists and has 'survival advantage' does not mean that it 'evolved'. Believing that it has evolved is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"The trait is not just the product of evolution, when stress occurs, it is the mechanism of evolution."
Help me understand how the 'mechanism of evolution' that is 'subject to evolution' and the 'product of evolution' did not evolve?
"Now why is evolution such a good idea for a bacteria under stress? Your claim that it is part of the creationist model is absurd, and argument by assertion only."
And your claim that you are not arguing that the mechanism evolved but it is, of course, 'subject to evolution' and is both the 'product of evolution' and the 'mechanism of evolution' is absurd and argument by assertion only as well. Now why can't you see that? Just asking.
Oh yeah, because selective pressure upon genetic variability is EVOLUTION.
The error prone DNA polymerase is itself part of the bacterial genome. When error prone DNA polymerase reproduces the genome of the bacteria, the mechanism that induces the error prone DNA polymerase, as well as the gene itself, is subject to change, thus subject to evolution.
It matters not if the original mechanism was derived via evolution, or from nothing directly by God. Either way, from that time onward this was a mechanism of evolution, and subject to evolution.
It need not have been derived via evolution to be a mechanism to INCREASE evolution.
So why would a bacteria increase its rate of evolution in response to stress?
Saying that such is part of the creationist model is ludicrous, as creationists deny that evolution can derive novel biological solutions to environmental stresses.
But I guess creationists accept evolution when it is convenient to them; like when explaining how all modern species could have derived within the last few thousand years from what few species could fit on a boat of specific dimensions.
So no, evolution doesn't result in speciation, the creationist says. Except when we need it to!
The only way this could uniquely favor evolution over creation is if you contend that God would not create life with a broad ability to adapt using mechanisms that are built-in from the start. But that's a philosophical position based on logical fallacy, not a scientific one.
"The error prone DNA polymerase is itself part of the bacterial genome. When error prone DNA polymerase reproduces the genome of the bacteria, the mechanism that induces the error prone DNA polymerase, as well as the gene itself, is subject to change, thus subject to evolution adaptation."
How is the change I made wrong? You like to use the 'evolution' word as though it is the only possibility. How would your exact statement have become false after changing only one word? Without using logical fallacies please.
"It matters not if the original mechanism was derived via evolution, or from nothing directly by God.
Actually, the difference is night and day.
"Either way, from that time onward this was a mechanism of evolution adaptation, and subject to evolution adaptation."
Again, exchanging only the word 'evolution' for the word 'adaptation'; how is the revised statement now false?
"It need not have been derived via evolution adaptation to be a mechanism to INCREASE evolution adaptation. So why would a bacteria increase its rate of evolution adaptation in response to stress?
Again, changing only the word 'evolution' for the word 'adaptation'; how does the statement become false?
"Saying that such is part of the creationist model is ludicrous, as creationists deny that evolution can derive novel biological solutions to environmental stresses."
Ah, projecting emotionally-charged terms again. That seems to be a large part of your 'argument'. Couple that with erecting strawmen about what 'creationists' say without addressing what I say and one could infer that you only have prepared remarks against specific strawman arguments from your evolutionary tracts.
"But I guess creationists accept evolution when it is convenient to them; like when explaining how all modern species could have derived within the last few thousand years from what few species could fit on a boat of specific dimensions."
Keep setting that strawman up and keep knocking him down. I'm sure that is impressing somebody.
"So no, evolution doesn't result in speciation, the creationist says. Except when we need it to!"
Just keep setting that strawman up and keep knocking him down. That's bound to impress the little evolutionist lurkers.
Evolution is adaptation through change in the DNA of a population in response to environmental stress. If you want to use the term “adaptation” instead of “evolution” that is fine.
In which case it becomes Darwin’s theory of ADAPTATION through natural selection of genetic variation.
Semantics doesn’t change a thing.
So yes, God did create life with the broad ability to adapt through natural selection of genetic variation just as Darwin’s theory proposes.
So now that you admit that selective pressure on genetic variation leads to beneficial adaptation; (quite an admission, why it is as if you are giving away half the creationist store!) what is going to prevent this variation from accumulating in different populations such that a 0.01% DNA difference accumulates, or a 0.1% difference, or a 1% or 2% difference?
So the use of the term 'adaptation' didn't change the meaning of your statements at all, did it? The mechanism, then, is perfectly consistent with creation and there is no unanswered question that creationists need to provide you after all.
"In which case it becomes Darwin’s theory of ADAPTATION through natural selection of genetic variation. Semantics doesn’t change a thing."
Actually, it was the difference between night and day.
You admitted that the change didn't make a bit of difference in the science. You obviously still have a philosophical commitment to evolution, but that is supported by another logical fallacy; that of the negative proof fallacy as we will soon see.
You have just shown that evolution isn't science and that the science involved is just as consistent with creation as it is with evolution.
"So yes, God did create life with the broad ability to adapt through natural selection of genetic variation just as Darwin’s theory proposes."
OK, so God created life with the broad ability to adapt to different environments and your bacterial mechanism is perfectly consistent with creation. That's good progress.
Now given that and without engaging in the fallacy of negative proof, how is Darwin's theory different from created kinds splintering into various species through adaptation, simple inbreeding and/or genetic drift?
"So now that you admit that selective pressure on genetic variation leads to beneficial adaptation; (quite an admission, why it is as if you are giving away half the creationist store!)..."
Actually, you are the one who just admitted that the bacterial adaptive mechanism which you thought no creationist could answer for you was created by God. And a creationist explained it to you. My my.
"...what is going to prevent this variation from accumulating in different populations such that a 0.01% DNA difference accumulates, or a 0.1% difference, or a 1% or 2% difference?"
Now see, I asked you not to engage in the negative proof fallacy time and again and here you are right back at it. You see, understanding logic and when you enter into logical fallacy really is much more important than you have ever imagined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.