Posted on 10/23/2009 8:18:13 PM PDT by john in springfield
All of the polls I ran across tended to divide the possibilities into these three main ideas. Either that or two-possibility either/or questions, such as:
Do you believe in evolution (yes/no)?
Do you believe in YEC (yes/no)?
Thanks. I think I’ve seen the polls before or similar.
No. I did not run across that particular poll.
Generally, I didn't "leave out" or "include" data "on purpose," except that some things I ran across were less relevant and I only tried to include the more relevant information I found.
Nor did I do my own survey. I just looked for the best readily-available information I could find to shed some light on what I was wondering about.
Another FReeper did a poll about a month ago and FR is split pretty evenly among YEC, ID, EV, and Other. I remember the biggest discussion was that the line of just Evolution versus Young Earth was far too limited. For example, many of us identify as Theistic Evolutionists (position accepted by the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and some Protestant denominations). There are also Young Earth ID’ers and Old Earth ID’ers. Then you have the literalsts in several camps from the 6k literalists (Young Earth Creationists) to the Genesis 1:2 to Genesis 1:2 time gappers (those that hold there were millions of years gap between those to verses but that life is only 6K years old). You also have the Young Earthers who believe that the Earth is both young and old- it was created to be millions of years old, only 6K years ago. I can go on and on with all the theories.
The point of all that is that those who try to divide based on one line- an either or prospect, or measure by said line, really don’t understand all the beliefs out there.
It also goes to show that the stereotypes of all being robots of one thought are also wrong.
It is one of the first hits on google for poll evolution and has been posted on FR numerous times in the past.
It was done, I’m still looking for it.
I have never heard of an IDer on FR and I have polled many potential IDers. Even GGG cannot name even ONE IDer. Metmom is the closest to one that I could guess may be one.
It’s been a couple of hundred years now, and scientists have forgotten that uniformitarianism is a postulate, not a fact. Their belief that the same physical laws apply now as applied in the past is a matter of faith, not of science.
The question scientists ask of the past is not “what happened”, but “what is what would be most likely to have happened, if the current scientific laws held then, as now.”
This postulate rules out the possibility of creation as a supernatural phenomenon.
But, and it’s a big but, scientific research has clearly demonstrated that there are structures all around us that would have taken far more time than the young earth creationist hypothesis would allow for, unless the earth was created already containing features that had the appearance of having age.
In other words, if God created the world 6000 years ago, he created it in such a way that it looked far older. Which means that if God did, in fact, create the universe 6000 years ago, he created it so that it was indistinguishable from one that had evolved over millenia.
And scientists, operating under their fundamental guiding postulate, are studying the history that God created into the universe, rather than the history of the Universe. That is, what would have been the history of the universe, had it actually evolved, instead of having been created by God with an embedded history.
Which leaves us with a philosophical question. Is there any difference? Is what scientists do any more or any less valid, whether the history they study is real, or was simply created by God?
No.
Is faith in a divinely created world challenged in any way by scientific fact?
No.
More information still! Thanks for posting.
Cool. Thanks for the info!
Thanks for the ping!
Heb 11
Heb 11:3
(3) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
I knew something was strange with your data! Your label OEC is incorrect. OEC is NOT theistic evolution.
Again, Good post.
To be fair historic sciences can never prove the past. But they can take what exists today and paint pictures, filling in the dots in a scientific way. And any theory will be improved and evolve and defended by the theorist bias.
Evolution is the best theory we have from what we have here to look at.
Modern Creationism and ID are just scams, the Institutional don’t even believe what they write. Its all “Destroy evolution”
Atheists are a problem because they feed the creationists. They are a like in that they want teach kids that ‘evolution proves there is no God.’
I think a lot of people would not distinguish between the two.
Don’t you think that’s the case?
ColdWater is correct. OEC and TE are very different. OEC is like God walking along side a separate process and nudging it into align with what He wants as the end result. Theistic Evolution is like God being the grand architect, where the end was planned long before the first spark of the big bang took place, so when that first spark happened, it all fell into place- there was no need to correct its course.
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.