placemarker
Posted on 08/31/2006 7:42:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
More adults in the United States believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 51 per cent of respondents think that humans and other living things evolved over time, while 42 per cent say they existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Charles Darwin’s "The Origin of Species" was first published in 1859. The book details the British naturalist’s theory that all organisms gradually evolve through the process of natural selection. Darwin’s views were antagonistic to creationism, the belief that a more powerful being or a deity created life.
In the United States, the debate on the topic accelerated after the 1925 Scopes trial, which tested a law that banned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. In 2004, Georgia’s Cobb County was at the centre of a controversy on whether science textbooks that explain evolutionary theory should include disclaimer stickers.
The theory of intelligent design suggests certain biological mechanisms are too complex to have developed without the involvement of a powerful force or intelligent being.
Last month, Austrian cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said the two views are not necessarily incompatible, declaring, "There is no conflict between science and religion, but a debate between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation. (...) The possibility that the Creator used evolution as a tool is completely acceptable for the Catholic faith."
Polling Data
Some people think that humans and other living things evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?
|
|
||
|
Jul. 2006 |
Jul. 2005 |
|
|
Evolved over time |
51% |
48% |
|
Existed in their present form |
42% |
42% |
|
Don’t know / Refused |
7% |
10% |
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Methodology: Telephone interviews with 2,003 American adults, conducted from Jul. 6 to Jul. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
hey bud!
glad to see you live once more
rabbits are meat.
and I got the 1/3 Prime
*grins*
especially a Jack Chick comic book
Of course not. But earlier polls that seemed to show the opposite results were often hailed by creationists as somehow showing something of scientific importance. In reality, such polls reveal only the quality of education in the country, and the general nature of the population's mindset. And of course, if a majority have no problem with evolution, then creationism is definitely a foolish position for any political party.
Present Form? What does that mean? My 'present form' is unlike anyone else's (and, boy, are others glad for that!) and, tomorrow, will be different from what it is today. Or, does it simply refer to the head, body, arms & legs arrangement?
Also, Christians believe that God created Time before God created Man so the 'since the beginning of time' thing doesn't work for anyone.
* Alien Abductions are occuring with frightening regularity.
* Moon Landing? Hollywood trickery!
*Your personality and the quality of your life are determined by the position of Jupiter and Mars at the moment of your birth.
*A living Plesiosaur resides in a lake in modern-day Scotland.
*And don't get me started on the "so-called Holocaust"
Teach the controversy? No. Teach the best available facts.
Well put. "Teach the controversy" is the desperate cry of people who can't actually articulate a coherent, reasonable position.
Not when they are House Bunnies....
placemarker
Yes.
So it doesn't matter whether the scientific consensus has a truthful basis? I mean it could "come up with" anything at all. But if what it "comes up with" is a description of a phenomenon as it appears -- and observation must be confined to what "appears" -- and then a bunch of other scientists replicate the observation and say "yeah, we saw that too"; and then this consensus properly "informs" the public about their consensus regarding this "appearance" -- then science's job is done???
Strictly speaking, I think the answer is: yes. Science's job is done at that point. And it's quite sufficient from a technical or engineering standpoint.
But human reality involves problems that are not amenable to technical or engineering solutions. The historical record gives ample evidence that "all men desire to know" (or at least the ones that aren't brain dead) -- not just the details of what are at bottom ephemeral phenomenal "accidents," but the TRVTH of reality itself.
If science can't deal with issues of TRVTH, who/what will? Or is science telling us that if it can't do it, then it's just not a problem? So fugedaboudid???
I'm not catholic, but I agree with the Cardinal.
If you believe in God, and you accept evolution, the inevitable result is some form of "intelligent design", maybe not capital "I" capital "D", but certainly lower case "i" and "d".
In my opinion, "intelligent design" means that the evolutionists have won the argument about evolution. Certainly a fair segment of Creationists see it that way, ID bothers them exactly on that account.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, hate ID just as much as the Creationists do, but for other reasons. They are correct in noting that ID interprets scientific data through a particular metaphysical lens. When you believe in God, you can't help it, inevitably you look on in awe at the genius with which this world is put together. But beyond that, if you believe in God you start with certain assumptions about life and purpose.
Evolutionists hate that, these assumptions are not measurable, they are in the end philosophical in nature.
Point taken. I'm comfortable with that, actually. I'm fine with letting the science geeks gather the data, thats what they do, and I'm quite capable of taking it from there, figuring out how it all fits together in the larger mosaic. I have never felt threatened by anything they do, how after all can truth be threatened by truth?
One of the most interesting areas that is beginning to open up is the area of information transfer. With experience in the development of computers, and software, and artificial intelligence under our belt, we are beginning to look back at the mechanics of biological processes with that experience as an analog, and what we are seeing is fascinating. Darwinian evolution is going to be superceded, not because it was wrong, but because he could only observe the effects, and we are beginning to see what is happening under the surface.
The natural world is shot through with intelligence, intelligence is the basic building block of the natural world. Some people see that, some don't, but it doesn't matter to me. Let the guys in the lab coats do what they do, and let the chips fall where they fall, and I'll be happy to watch on in awe.
Thanks -- it was no fun being away.
I have noticed that political parties and politicians in general do not have much of an interest in questions of TRVTH. Even though such questions lie at the very foundation of a society that values liberty and justice -- which these folks are elected to uphold, defend, and preserve.
In short, politicians would rather be popular than honest. So long as that is the case, evolution probably would have appeal for them.
RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Isaac newton.
This is a bit of topic but it's a question I've always been curious about.
Most people assume that God is omniscient and is outside of time. This of course means the past and the future have no meaning for him/her. The implication of this is that God must know all of time as a single 'now' with events in the future just as immediate as those of the past 'were' and the now 'is' (our way of seeing time).
From what I understand God is also a personal god who is vitally interested in each and every person in his creation. This interest coupled with his/her ability to see our future means that God will know both the time and the content of decisions each of us will make in the future. In effect the decisions we make, at least from our standpoint (because we see time as linear), are predetermined.
How does the average Christian deal with the paradox of having free will yet having all decisions predetermined?
Thanks for the ping!
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.