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 ...
Your delusions of adequacy in logic are amusing.
No, calling evolution adaptation is not a “night and day” difference, and saying so doesn't make it so. Evolution is adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation. If you want to change the name, Darwin's theory becomes the ADAPTATION of life through natural selection of genetic variation.
Darwin's theory would explain how ANY living organism using DNA would splinter into various species, created from nothing or not.
It is not different at all from how creationists assume that created “kinds” splintered into various species; it provides the MECHANISM for how they change. Thus my pointing out that creationists tend to oppose speciation, unless they need all the animals on board a boat to splinter off into new species within a few hundred years.
Thus creationists tend to believe in speciation and adaptation of living things much faster (when they need to) than any scientific evidence could support.
You seem to still be suffering under the delusion common among creationists that Darwin's theory is about the origins of life.
It matters not at all if all life was created contemporaneously or related by common descent - once here on Earth and imperfectly replicating using DNA, they are subject to adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation. A process that leads to novel biological solutions to environmental problems.
So now that we have established that adaptation through change in DNA during environmental stress is a beneficial trait, what is going to stop this change from accumulating in distinct species? THAT is what you have failed, time and time again to explain. That and how this fits within the creationist model, when creationists believe that mutations are a bad bad thing that only leads to the loss of information?
Is not an accumulation of DNA differences EXACTLY what you are proposing when you say that “created kinds splintering into various species through adaptation”?
What is the mechanism whereby you propose that they accomplish this?
How do “created kinds” splinter into various species in your world?
I simply pointed out that your statements are not different scientifically when using the term 'adaptation' instead of your favored term 'evolution'. That is a reasoned argument between the two of us, no appeal to popularity at all.
"Your delusions of adequacy in logic are amusing."
Your attempts at passing off confused thinking as logic truly are amusing.
"No, calling evolution adaptation is not a “night and day” difference, and saying so doesn't make it so. Evolution is adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation. If you want to change the name, Darwin's theory becomes the ADAPTATION of life through natural selection of genetic variation."
The point being that substituting the creationist term 'adaptation' into your statements arguing in favor of 'evolution' did not change the scientific basis of the statements is the difference between night and day.
"Darwin's theory would explain how ANY living organism using DNA would splinter into various species, created from nothing or not."
And without invoking any one of several logical fallacies, how is that different from created kinds splintering into various species through adaptation, simple inbreeding and/or genetic drift?
"It is not different at all from how creationists assume that created “kinds” splintered into various species; it provides the MECHANISM for how they change. Thus my pointing out that creationists tend to oppose speciation, unless they need all the animals on board a boat to splinter off into new species within a few hundred years."
OK, now you apparently maintain that there is no difference between created kinds splintering into various species through adaptation, simple inbreeding and/or genetic drift and Darwin's theory. So, without engaging in logical fallacy, how is Darwin's theory different from creation?
"Thus creationists tend to believe in speciation and adaptation of living things much faster (when they need to) than any scientific evidence could support."
Please try to stay focused on our discussion rather than raising strawmen based on the fallacy of appeal to popular opinion.
"You seem to still be suffering under the delusion common among creationists that Darwin's theory is about the origins of life."
You don't seem to understand that I am not talking about the origins of life at all.
"It matters not at all if all life was created contemporaneously or related by common descent - once here on Earth and imperfectly replicating using DNA, they are subject to adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation. A process that leads to novel biological solutions to environmental problems."
So again you appear to maintain that there is no difference between Darwin's theory and what we would observe were all life created with a broad ability to adapt within created kinds.
"So now that we have established that adaptation through change in DNA during environmental stress is a beneficial trait, what is going to stop this change from accumulating in distinct species? THAT is what you have failed, time and time again to explain. That and how this fits within the creationist model, when creationists believe that mutations are a bad bad thing that only leads to the loss of information?"
Again, this is the fallacy of negative proof where you think you can rationally believe something until it is proven impossible. That is, was and always will be a logical fallacy.
"Is not an accumulation of DNA differences EXACTLY what you are proposing when you say that “created kinds splintering into various species through adaptation”?"
Is your use of this logical fallacy the only difference between Darwinism and creation?
"What is the mechanism whereby you propose that they accomplish this? How do “created kinds” splinter into various species in your world?"
As far as I can tell, your definition of evolution only differs from creation in that you add the fallacy of negative proof to the creation model and call it 'evolution'. Is that correct?
First of all, God does not lie. Whatever God says, IS.
My problem is I do not see that "telling us so and so begat so and so at a certain age" tells us anything about the age of the earth.
Then there is the problem of the way humans experience/understand time. Yet God is speaking to us from eternity. What is "a year" from God's perspective?
I believe that God gives us four revelations: The Holy Scriptures are His only revelation to us given in human language. There are three other revelations: the Book of Creation (the natural world); the Revelation of Christ Incarnate, the Logos, Who is our Savior; and the revelation of the Holy Spirit within us....
Now since God is Truth, none of His revelations can contradict any other.
So when Bishop Usher tells us that the age of the earth is 4,004 years, this would appear to be contradicted from the side of the Book of Creation.
The following are not "facts"; but they are best estimates based on the burgeoning empirical evidence we have:
The age of the universe = approximately 13.7 billion years.
The age of the earth = approximately 4 billion years.
Earliest record of specifically human life — possibly the caves at Lascaux in the French Pyranees: As far as we know, man is the only creature that creates art. There is art in these caves. There is also an indication that the men who created this art were conscious of human mortality (see the figure of the dead man — the only human depicted). Therefore these men were self-conscious. Anyhoot, the dates for the Lascaux cave paintings are uncertain. I have seen estimates in the range of ~42,000 B.C to ~24,000 B.C.
Right off the bat, there seems to be a conflict between what the Holy Scriptures say, and what the Book of Creation reveals. Since both are revelations of God, any perceived contradiction between them likely owes to the insufficiency of the human mind to grasp divine Truths.
We see through a glass darkly... and the "time problem" we have always with us, for we are mortal and God is not.
To say that something is "un-Biblical" is to say it falls outside of accepted doctrine. But doctrines are the constructs of men, not of God. And God's Word and Power is not reducible to what human minds can grasp.
There is the danger of bibliolatry if we put doctrine before God Himself. All God's revelations are direct appeals to human souls. He is not giving us "doctrines," but inviting us into intimate relationship with Himself.
In the end, the single most needful thing is to love God with all one's heart, and soul, and mind, and strength; and one's neighbor as oneself.
Just some ruminations of a believer and lover of God, FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing, BrandtMichaels! May you and all your dear ones have a blessed Christmas and a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year!
That is my point, there is no difference between “kinds” separating into distinct species and Darwinian “adaptation”, unless you are willing to propose a different mechanism. So long as your accepted mechanism of “adaptation” is natural selection of genetic variation; the mechanism is exactly the same.
Do you propose a different mechanism whereby created “kinds” separate into different species other than natural selection of genetic variation?
If so, I await your explanation of this mechanism.
Otherwise, the mechanism we seem to be agreeing upon for how living things would separate into distinct species is exactly what Darwin proposed, and exactly what our bacteria expressing error prone DNA polymerase demonstrating, natural selection of genetic variation.
That is the point. When you make statements that 'such and such' scientific fact supports evolution, it really does not unless you engage in logical fallacy. Therefore, it is not science but your philosophy of choice that drives you to conclude that 'evolution' did 'x'.
"That is my point, there is no difference between “kinds” separating into distinct species and Darwinian “adaptation”, unless you are willing to propose a different mechanism. So long as your accepted mechanism of “adaptation” is natural selection of genetic variation; the mechanism is exactly the same."
That is exactly the point. There is no scientific difference between the observations and your choice of philosophical worldview. Therefore, you cannot say that science supports evolution any more than you can say that science supports creation. It is all a philosophical choice.
"Do you propose a different mechanism whereby created “kinds” separate into different species other than natural selection of genetic variation? If so, I await your explanation of this mechanism."
Again, the fact that you have admitted that there is no scientific difference between observations in an evolutionary vs a creation model is key. To claim that science 'supports' evolution you have to add in one of several logical fallacies.
"Otherwise, the mechanism we seem to be agreeing upon for how living things would separate into distinct species is exactly what Darwin proposed, and exactly what our bacteria expressing error prone DNA polymerase demonstrating, natural selection of genetic variation."
What exactly did Darwin propose that was unique? Change? Are you proposing that no one noticed phenotypic change before Darwin? I don't think so.
All Darwin proposed was that the change we observe would accumulate and create all the different species. That is the fallacy of appeal to negative proof and is, was and always well be a logical fallacy.
So, as I said, the only thing Darwin contributed to creation was logical fallacy and you think that helps you? Your delusions of adequacy in logic truly are amusing.
Scientific observation supports adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation.
It seems that it is YOU who is admitting that there is no scientific difference between the mechanism Darwin proposed for speciation and the one you propose.
What Darwin proposed that was unique was that it was selective pressure upon variation within a species that would lead to adaptive changes in that species.
THAT is evolution. Which you seem to agree with 100% so long as I don't CALL IT evolution but “adaptation”.
Darwin also proposed that this “adaptation” is what lead to different species.
You too seem to agree when you talk of created “kinds” separating into distinct species.
So now that you have mentioned that created “kinds” can separate into distinct species; what mechanism do you propose OTHER than natural selection of genetic variation to explain this?
No explanation necessary? No scientific explanation likely, no, probably not, because after all, before you could derive a scientific explanation you would first have to deny the existence of God, according to your own definition of science.
So unless you propose an explanation OTHER than “adaptation” through natural selection of genetic variation - Darwin is the one who originated the theory for that mechanism.
What is amusing is that you project your own inadequacies onto others and are quite proud of yourself for doing so.
"Scientific observation supports adaptation through natural selection of genetic variation."
Which you have admitted is identical in both evolutionary and creation models.
"It seems that it is YOU who is admitting that there is no scientific difference between the mechanism Darwin proposed for speciation and the one you propose."
It seems to me that you are admitting that the observed mechanism is identical in both evolutionary and creation models.
This is after you said "Why do bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase and express it at times of cellular stress?” Evolution has an answer. Creationism, as usual, has nothing." in post #270.
You now say, "Of course they are identical in both models." You are funny.
"Darwin also proposed that this “adaptation” is what lead to different species. You too seem to agree when you talk of created “kinds” separating into distinct species."
So you agree that all Darwin added to observable variation was the logical fallacy of appeal to negative proof. Good.
"So now that you have mentioned that created “kinds” can separate into distinct species; what mechanism do you propose OTHER than natural selection of genetic variation to explain this?"
I thought you already agreed that the mechanism is the same under both models? Are you denying that now?
"No explanation necessary? No scientific explanation likely, no, probably not, because after all, before you could derive a scientific explanation you would first have to deny the existence of God, according to your own definition of science."
I'm still waiting for you scientific references that appeal to the existence of God as an explanation for any scientific observation.
"So unless you propose an explanation OTHER than “adaptation” through natural selection of genetic variation - Darwin is the one who originated the theory for that mechanism."
Again, all Darwin did is add the logical fallacy of appeal to negative proof to the obvious phenotypic change that is observed in all populations.
For some reason, evolutionists seem to think that adding logical fallacy to observations equals some new, previously undiscovered truth. LOL!
Before Darwin nobody had proposed that this was the mechanism whereby speciation would occur.
This is Darwin's model, not a creationist model. Saying it is YOUR creationist model is true if you accept that adaptation to environmental conditions is through natural selection of variation and you are a creationist.
A creationist who accepts Darwin's theory that life adapts through selection of genetic variation?!?!?!?
You don't want to call it “evolution” you want to call it “adaptation” but we seem to be defining it the same way, a change in DNA that leads to a better (adaptive) outcome.
You don't want to give Darwin the credit he is due for PROPOSING the mechanism. But Darwin did indeed propose the exact mechanism the bacteria is demonstrating.
It seems that you are desperate to validate evolution. Darwin knew nothing of genetics and proposed nothing except adding the logical fallacy of negative proof to the age-old observation of natural variety.
It also seems to me that you have admitted that the observed mechanism is identical in both evolutionary and creation models.
This is after you said "Why do bacteria have error prone DNA polymerase and express it at times of cellular stress?” Evolution has an answer. Creationism, as usual, has nothing." in post #270.
There truly is no end to the misrepresentation evolutionists must go through to retain their paradigm. Rather humorous really.
"Before Darwin nobody had proposed that this was the mechanism whereby speciation would occur."
Darwin knew nothing of Mendel's work on genetics and simply proposed adding the logical fallacy of negative proof to the age-old observation of natural variety.
"This is Darwin's model, not a creationist model. Saying it is YOUR creationist model is true if you accept that adaptation to environmental conditions is through natural selection of variation and you are a creationist."
Darwin's model is simply adding the logical fallacy of negative proof to the age-old observation of natural variety.
"A creationist who accepts Darwin's theory that life adapts through selection of genetic variation?!?!?!?"
Rather, an evolutionist misrepresenting every statement in his favor. Nothing new about that either.
"You don't want to call it “evolution” you want to call it “adaptation” but we seem to be defining it the same way, a change in DNA that leads to a better (adaptive) outcome."
Except that I don't add the fallacy of negative proof like Darwin did.
"You don't want to give Darwin the credit he is due for PROPOSING the mechanism. But Darwin did indeed propose the exact mechanism the bacteria is demonstrating."
All Darwin did was add the logical fallacy of negative proof to the age-old observation of natural variety. Now you may think that adding fallacies to scientific observation is some new, previously undiscovered truth but not everyone is that lacking in critical-thinking skills.
So yes, as long as the “creationist model” is to agree with Darwin that speciation takes place via natural selection of variation, then this is all part of THAT “creationist model”.
No matter how many times you repeat your silly mantra about logic of negative proof, Darwin's model of speciation was natural selection acting upon variation.
Apparently the “creationist model” you are proposing is that, (GASP!) speciation takes place by natural selection acting upon variation!
You are really funny!!!!
Have a very merry Christmas!
Creation has everything that evolution has minus the logical fallacy of appeal to negative proof. All Darwin did was add a logical fallacy to the variety that was observed for millennia. Evolutionists apparently believe that common knowledge plus logical fallacy equals some new, previously unknown truth. That is sad.
So, as long as there is no difference between the science behind the model then creation is just as scientific as evolution. You already admitted this. The fact that you continually pretend that you can ignore the fact that Darwin’s ‘theory’ is based on logical fallacy only shows how weak the ‘theory’ is.
You have a Merry Christmas too!
I always enjoy reading your posts.
Once again, you hit the nail right on the head.
I think evolution is science, while biblically based "creationism" is not.
And I have no doubt where the Universe came from: God made it.
And I'm so sorry if you consider that an insult.
Have you considered therapy?
Perhaps your minister would recommend a good one?
The Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations teach "theistic evolutionism," meaning that God creates through the laws of nature.
There are dozens of methods, radiometric and otherwise for dating ancient materials.
No doubt, each method has certain pitfalls that must be watched for.
But when you have used many different techniques, and they all point towards the same conclusions, then it would not be scientific to just assume that all are in error.
Interesting to note that your ideas are based on Genesis, and not science, and that you are as scornful of the late Pope, as of anyone else who takes science seriously.
Another post succinctly hitting the nail right on the head.
Your arguments are all a bit 0ne-sided. Have you not read?
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264681/posts
Neither is it scientific to ignore some of the evidence nor to downplay major problems and assumptions made w/ long-age dating techniques.
Here’s a hint for you: Anything that can not be re-produced is not science. Both evolution and creation are not scientific theories, neither can they be re-produced.
Creation ‘science’ simply points out the philosophical nature of the argument while also producing all the hidden, glossed-over and ignored evidence that evolution does not care to let be seen ‘in the light of day’.
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.