Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong (now this is weird)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong ^

[chessplayer]

What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?

[metmom]

Why do you hate the idea of God creating man as a separate creation from the rest of the animal kingdom so much?

And why does it irk you so much that people believe the Genesis account?

Why does it bother you that they prefer to believe what God said in His word over the ideas and interpretations of man?

What justifies your mockery and derision of those who believe that God created as He said He did in His word?

[allmendream]

A believer.

I am a believer in God.

A Christian to be more specific. I believe that God created the universe and life in it, and I am most certainly not a creationist (young Earth, six day, or otherwise).

Belief in God has nothing to do with if someone accepts the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation, or if they are a creationist.

[70times7]

[shibumi]

"If you were providing the works from the pen of Thomas Jefferson as “something of use derived from creationism” one must therefore assume that you think the beliefs of Jefferson were either creationist or inspired by creationism. As such your statement that Jefferson's beliefs are irrelevant is preposterous."

I believe the empirical evidence of the document itself, that it says what it says.

No matter what sophistry you apply, you cannot escape that fact.

[allmendream]

Once again you mistake me.

I don't hate the idea of God creating man, or any other animal, as a “separate” creation. There is just no scientific evidence to support it, nor is it a useful presupposition that leads to further knowledge.

What irks me is people who rejoice at a headline “everything you've been told about evolution is wrong” dancing in the streets like Palestinians on 9-11.

I would prefer that people understand that to be a conservative or a Christian doesn't necessitate that they abandon reason and scientific knowledge in favor of a limited Biblical interpretation.

[metmom]

That’s not an answer to the question.

If someone believes that God created the universe and life in it, they believe in creation. That makes them a creationist.

Someone who believes in creation.

It’s not that hard.

If you wish to disparage certain brands of creationists, then specify. But to broad brush label and deride creationists as a whole just because one variety of creationist irks you so much is disingenuous.

[Fichori]

It occurs to me, that many an Evolutionist would without hesitation, nay, perhaps even eagerly, sacrifice the Declaration of Independence upon the alter of Darwinian Evolution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Well, I know most of us do.

Indeed, a man cannot serve two masters... and I think we’ve seen that very plainly on this thread.

[allmendream]

YES IT IS an answer to your question.

What I would call someone who believes that God created the universe and life it? A believer.

I believe that God created the universe and life in it.

I am a believer.

What is wrong with the word “believer”?

More specifically I am a Christian.

What is wrong with the word “Christian”?

If you want to differentiate between people of WHATEVER faith status on their acceptance of the theory of evolution, those that reject the theory are CREATIONISTS.

They call themselves that.

You called them that by proxy when you mentioned YEC. That stands for what again?

Disingenuous indeed.

[metmom]

A believer is someone who believes in God. It doesn’t address their position on creation.

You just hate what you think the image of a creationist is because of the disparagement that people like you heap on them that you’ll do anything to avoid being even remotely identified as a creationist even though you claim to believe that God created the universe.

It’s rather inconsistent to claim to believe in creation and a creator and deny being a creationist.

I guess that leaves you in the ID camp then. You believe that God, who I presume you think is intelligent, created the universe, which would by default include design, unless you hold to the view that He just threw everything together and hoped it amounted to something orderly and complex.

[allmendream]

It is not at all inconsistent, as being a creationist entails rejecting the theory of evolution, as explained in the most commonly accepted definition that I provided from Miriam Websters.

I, like most people with any sort of education, accept the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

Thus I am not a creationist.

ID posits an incompetent creator who created a physical process of biological evolution not sufficient to the task. But of course you are just feigning ignorance of this matter. Of course you know that I am not a cdesign proponentist.

[metmom]

So, you reserve for yourself the right to define terms as you see fit, but deny the same to others.

Gotcha......

[allmendream]

I reserve the right to use commonly accepted definition of words, such as that provided by Miriam Websters. The word that conveys the meaning that people understand the word to mean. Not what you ‘think’ the word should mean.

[metmom]

“It is not at all inconsistent, as being a creationist entails rejecting the theory of evolution, as explained in the most commonly accepted definition that I provided from Miriam Websters.”

I found only one definition of creationism that you posted, that did not define *creationist*, did not list the source, and did not say anything about rejecting evolution.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2475048/posts?page=259#259

Is this the definition to which you were referring?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

Main Entry: cre-a-tion-ism

Function: noun

Date: 1880

a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis

— compare evolution 4b

— cre·a·tion·ist - noun or adjective

(I left out the pronunciations as as the HTML used in them screws up the clickability of the links)

The Merriam-Webster definition does not match yours close enough for you to claim that it justifies or supports yours. You are adding details and requirements to the definition that are not found in the dictionary, just as you add details and requirements of the Genesis account that are not found in the Bible.

You at least are consistent in your making up details and insisting that they are true and should have been part of what you refer to.

[metmom]

The word that conveys the meaning that people understand the word to mean. Not what you ‘think’ the word should mean.

Backatcha.

The Merriam Webster definition does not specify the details for the terms creationism or creationist that you do. You've added to that.

[Quix]

Naw.

ID is an earnest effort to turn the

RELIGION OF SCIENTISM

back to some level of integrity about facts, evidence, logic, etc.

[Quix]

Thanks for all your fine pings.

Probably won’t get to them all with responses, but I appreciate them.

[betty boop]

You are adding details and requirements to the definition that are not found in the dictionary, just as you add details and requirements of the Genesis account that are not found in the Bible.

Thank you ever so much, dear sister in Christ, for pointing this out! Evo "experts" on the Bible and theology usually miss this sort of thing.

But then their orthodoxy [read: groupthink] spares them the difficulty of thinking about such things in the "first-person," in the first place, so to speak — for they have been indoctrinated. Meaning: Somebody else — some panel of self-designated experts — has done their thinking for them. After which all the acolyte has to do is simply say "Yea Master!" to be received in good standing by the Master and the other acolytes.

As for the rest of us, we are just so much inconvenient grime that must be wiped away, before the shining Utopia can stand forth, in its alleged glory.

We live "in interesting times"....

[kosta50]

WHY can't you simply answer my questions, kosta???

I did, betty boop. Do you really think I was going to pull out a dictionary definition? I simply asked you if God is "natural."

Do you mean to tell me that our understanding of what is 'natural' is so divergent we can't even discuss it? And, conversely, supernatural is everything hypothetical that is 'above' or outside of nature.

Please feel free to define your terms and if we disagree I will use a dictionary to settle this non-issue.

[betty boop]

I simply asked you if God is "natural."

Oh, so THAT was what it was all about?

RE: Your question above, here is my answer: NO.

[Alamo-Girl]

So what??? Are the only "good" endeavors scientific ones? And all other endeavors are thus "bad?"

Indeed.

"Science" originated as a branch of philosophy.

The word "science" itself is simply the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. Until the 1840's what we now call science was "natural philosophy," so that even Isaac Newton's great book on motion and gravity, published in 1687, was The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis). Newton was, to himself and his contemporaries, a "philosopher." In a letter to the English chemist Joseph Priestley written in 1800, Thomas Jefferson lists the "sciences" that interest him as, "botany, chemistry, zoology, anatomy, surgery, medicine, natural philosophy [this probably means physics], agriculture, mathematics, astronomy, geography, politics, commerce, history, ethics, law, arts, fine arts." The list begins on familiar enough terms, but we hardly think of history, ethics, or the fine arts as "sciences" any more. Jefferson simply uses to the term to mean "disciplines of knowledge."

Beginning of Modern Science and Modern Philosophy

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!