 |
|
|
|
June 1st, 2012
03:46 PM ET
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human originsBy Dan Merica, CNN (CNN) - Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today - only a 2-point difference from 2012. "Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982," wrote Gallup's Frank Newport. "All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins." The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents. Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age Not surprisingly, more religious Americans are more likely to be creationists. Nearly 70% of respondents who attend church every week said that God created humans in their present form, compared with 25% of people who seldom or never attend church. Among the seldom church-goers, 38% believe that humans evolved with no guidance from God. The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs. Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats. According to Newport, a belief in creationism is bucking the majority opinion in the scientific community - that humans evolved over millions of years. "It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution," writes Newport. "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief ... that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature." The USA Today/Gallup telephone poll was conducted May 10-13 with a random sample of 1,012 American adults. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Generally speaking, to a large portion of the scientific community, the ideas of a 6000 year old earth and a six literal day creation are absurd. To some believers, without extensive scientific training, the ideas of an earth billions of years old and evolution are also absurd. Both sides are making assumptions and accepting the work of others.
To the scientific community I would like to point out my unlearned observations about the measurement of age. The methods I have read about are assuming observable conditions are near constant or known variations. One thing that is discussed but can’t be duplicated is unknown conditions the further back in time we go.
To the young earth creationists, I would like to make some comments about using the bible to calculate age. With what we think we know about the complexity of the universe and life itself, God only devoted a very small portion of scripture to the creation, and it reads like a very brief overview. He told us what he wanted us to know. He created. He left the details for us to discover, or not. Taken as a whole isn’t scripture more about God’s relationship with us, not a detailed account of how everything came to be, other than he made it.
Respectful debate can be both fun and interesting. There is really no purpose to all the hateful and matter of fact comments. There are some things we do not know. No matter how strongly you believe it, or repeat it.
Love God, and your neighbor as yourself.
You're right, the Bible was meant to illustrate man's relationship with God, like the other ancients had their stories about their gods. Doesn't the creation story actually teach why the Sabbath was established, and the Adam and Eve story why women were to be subservient to men? The Eve story pretty much has the same message as the Pandora myth.
Cq
Given that according to the Bible Adam and Eve were the first man and women your Pandora would have been the TiVo event not Genesis.
Women are equal to men in Gods eyes is a better summary whereas use of subservient is misleading. God is orderly and just as the Father is over the Son and the Son is the head of the church so to the Man is the head over the women. Submissive servant posturing is the example we have from Christ yet Christ is the head of the church. He who is last shall be first and Christ came to serve not be served. Eve is the weaker vessel and man has certain strengths. In union they are better and the design was for union. Man is designed to be in union with Christ and since Neanderthal has looked to the heavens. Sorry that do not see the need for union which Adam and Eve had with God.
Man needs constant reminder of what great things God has done so the Sabbath is the day to recognize what God created was “very good” then rested. Sabbath was but one part of the Genesis story.
Your observation is unlearned, Robert. Its unlikely that atomic decay or the process by which rocks form has magically changed - that would kind of throw a wrench in the whole science thing. Also, scientists typically use meteorites to date the age of the earth and solar system, since they are closed systems and unaffected by geologic processes. This has been done thousands of times to consistent results.
Chubby Rain
Not so fast. The meteorite, Northwest Africa 2364 just changed the age of the solar system by up to 2 million years.
@fred,
That appears to related to the precision of the instruments, not changing rates of decay.
"However, recent advances in instrumentation now allow scientists to make more precise measurements, ..." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825112300.htm)
@Robert Brown,
"The methods I have read about are assuming observable conditions are near constant or known variations."
I would suggest that these are not just as.sumptions, because of the ramifications of a changing radioactive decay rate would most likely be very noticeable. Basically, radioactive decay is a release of energy and if the rate of that release were higher in the past then there should be evidence of that. A, probably weak, analogy might be the difference be gunpowder and high-explosives like TNT, which relates to the rate of combustion through the material being exploded. This would likely have been seen in things, not just like the burn rate of stars, but also in the intensity of that burning. In other words I think there would be quite a bit of evidence it the rate of atomic decay had been different in the past.
"One thing that is discussed but can’t be duplicated is unknown conditions the further back in time we go."
I'm not sure what you mean by unknown conditions. I think the conditions are fairly well known, until we look back to the very beginning of the universe, e.g. the 'inflationary period', but that wouldn't have any impact on the age of the Earth, geologic timescales, or Evolutionary time lines.
MEII
How can one group of geologists conclude evidence exists for a global flood yet another group concludes the opposite? Is there an unbiased authority that could shed some light and say global flood is possible but not probable? Those of us who are not geologists, paleontologists or physicists find it impossible to weigh the data and come up with any conclusion. We know serpents probably did not talk but understand the symbolic reason for reference to serpent. In the same way we understand the symbolic reason for the flood yet, a global or local flood cannot be ruled out at the conceptual level without hard science that is universally agreed upon.
Fred, so we found an older rock? How does that support the young earth theory? 2 million years out of 4.5 billion years is 0.04%. This difference is pretty insignificant.
Because the "scientists" that believe there is evidence of a global flood are "creation scientists" and largely ignored/discredited by the scientific community. As for an authority on whether or not a global flood occurs, that really doesn't exist in science. Science is about constantly questioning what is known, so an argument from authority is irrelevant without supporting evidence.
@fred,
"How can one group of geologists conclude evidence exists for a global flood..."
What group says the evidence exists for a global flood?
"Is there an unbiased authority that could shed some light and say global flood..."
Yes, the evidence, which does not support a global flood as described in the Bible.
"...a global or local flood cannot be ruled out at the conceptual level without hard science that is universally agreed upon."
I think the evidence is fairly conclusively against a global flood. Local floods are fairly common and show up quite often in the geologic record. I don't know that any significance is tied to one flood over any other, until more recently, of course.
"A key problem for 'flood geologists' is the order and sequence of fossil remains in the geological record.
...
Modern taphonomic studies clearly distinguish the patterns of deposition of organic remains after severe modern flooding from those produced by other processes. The fact that the bulk of the fossil record does not show evidence of the sudden, catastrophic deposition expected from a massive flood means that most of the fossiliferous strata were laid down by some other geologic process."
(http://ncse.com/rncse/24/1/questioning-flood-geology)
It's only Wikipedia, but it states it pretty well.
" The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.
...
In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[69]"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology)
fred
Eve and Pandora, it's the same theme. Give a woman some responsibility and, sure as shooting, she'll screw it up. So, men, that's why you have to be in charge, 'cause you can't trust a woman not to cause a disaster ... like Pandora, or Eve did. In modern terms, it's a "cautionary tale."
Presumably, you believe the story that God told all of this to Moses but that, like everything else related to the Bible, requires blind faith in order to accept. Moses, if there even were such a person, could have dreamt, or invented, it all and his followers wouldn't have been the wiser, right?
ME II
chubby rain
Thanks ! William Parkinson the author cited in flood geology is part of the National Center for Science Education that specifically states its goal of removing any form of creationism and anything related to it. However, I see many articles over the years on that site (also anti creationism) so I will check them out tonight.
@fred,
Not sure what your point is. The link itself pointed to the NCSE website, yes. And the "National Center for Science Education" supports science education, yes. Creationism is not science, so no, they would not support that.
"[NCSE] specifically states its goal of removing any form of creationism and anything related to it."
I'm not sure where you heard/read this, but with the addendum of "... from the science classroom" I wouldn't disagree. Again, Creationism is not science.
Cq
The myth of Pandora first appeared about 750 BC in Hesiod's poem and the Jars of Good and evil can reach back into the Iliad of say 850BC. I am not at all amazed no one questions the Iliad yet Genesis is scoured constantly by the skeptics. Pandora if anything was inspired by the oral tradition of the Hebrew not vise versa. Further, the only similarity is the entry of evil and being made by Zeus.
The theme of Adam and Eve is unity between man and women with God. The image of God and purity of relationship enveloped in eternal love was reflected in the complete perfection of creation. Just as Lucifer rejected God man rejected God also. The woman was the weaker of the two in certain aspects and Satan attacks when focus moves off God desire and onto self.
Now, it is not just Moses that recorded what was going on with Adam and Eve. Many right up to Jesus mentioned the relationship. So, if I do not believe Moses I must also burn the entire Bible not just the parts that don’t fit.
fred
Textual criticism dates each work as accurately as we can get, so far. Surely you've read the conclusions as to why Genesis was written in stages around the 5th century BCE?
Why do you assume that Genesis came first? Do you have any scholarly work that indicates a much older tradition for it over the Greek myths, or is this just more presumption based solely on the fact that it doesn't jive with what you believe?
Aren't you the least bit skeptical of the tradition that Moses, as the author of the Pentateuch, actually wrote about his own death?
Cq
“Surely you've read the conclusions as to why Genesis was written in stages around the 5th century BCE? “
=>the Bible has been under attack for years yet no firm evidence has been produced to support these skeptics.
“Why do you assume that Genesis came first?”
=>if anything these Hebrews were sticklers on getting scripture right and passing it along. The the 5th century BC (note how the scholars you seem to trust found it necessary to impose BCE over BC in hopes that someday the light that came into this world is not so noticeable) may be valid for some copies yet the oral tradition was in the hearts and minds long before that time.
Yes, it is an assumption based on the nature of the Hebrews. You also know very well that much was lost in captivity and destruction of the temple. Jesus, Paul and others made reference to Genesis yet you could argue we do not really know what scrolls they were looking at and I agree.
“ Do you have any scholarly work that indicates a much older tradition for it over the Greek myths”
=>no just scholars that argue against skeptics claims yet I see no real evidence to support any of their arguments. I also do not see real evidence to support the ideas of the skeptics. The arguments seem to break down philosophically with nothing of substance to hang onto. We need some real evidence.
“Aren't you the least bit skeptical of the tradition that Moses, as the author of the Pentateuch, actually wrote about his own death?”
=>if a serpent can talk Moses can write. I have heard the standard line the Joshoa wrote it as an obituary to Moses last works. There is no more hard evidence for that then for Moses not being the author.
Ask yourself why the professors in school never question the Iliad or other writings before their class and you will see the bias against God and Bible attempting to brainwash young minds to a liberal thought with less evidence than they demand of Moses
fred
And the "oral tradition" behind the Greek myths probably predated any written accounts by hundreds of years too. As to the rest, can you offer any scholarly work that proves the consensus wrong? That's all I'm asking. I've studied the Greek classics and there is a lot of conjecture about what the myths originally meant to communicate, just as there is about the Bible. There is no actual conspiracy to match your paranoid theory that academics are somehow biased against the Bible.
They might be biased against the untrained armchair theologians of evangelical America whose only criticism of their work is that it doesn't match what they were taught the Bible says, but they aren't biased against the book itself. Do you see the distinction, between what the Bible is and what the Bible is popularly thought to be?
Cq
“Do you see the distinction, between what the Bible is and what the Bible is popularly thought to be? “
=>Possibly not. The Bible is a story about God redeeming a people to everlasting life. To the believer it is the Divine Word of God and to the non believer it is a stumbling block.
“can you offer any scholarly work that proves the consensus wrong”
=>If you mean before the 7th / 8th century BC, no.
ONLY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS OF THIS BLOG–
From the topic commentary: "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief (creationism) that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature."
The cause? The Three B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in religion especially the Abrahamic religions!!
The cure?
There is no cure for it brings hope, love, promise!!
Tell us all what is your hope in life? What is your purpose? What are your goals?
There is a cure for your problem and that is Jesus Christ!!
Says who, Leo? What makes you such an arrogant SOB that you think you know anyone else's life? Get off your little altar and stop worshipping your own opinions about what others need, want, think, do, and are. You don't have a clue.
Leo
What's your goal, Leo? Do everything you are told to do, judge everyone you are told to judge, and believe everything you are told to believe, no matter how ridiculous, just to have a chance at getting into a place that nobody can prove even exists?
again, you can't force a belief system on people. No matter how valid you think it is. So why bother arguing? Do you really believe you will "educate" somebody? With everybody wanting to teach the public right and wrong theories, it is amazing we don't have more teachers. What is so wrong with live and let live?
Evolution, which is what the article is about, is not a matter of faith or belief. It is a well supported, docu.mented, tested, scientific theory...
What good is a god that gives you everything you want ? But a god that gives you hope, now that is a god.
Tom...still making friends I see! LOL...as Buzz Lightyear would say, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell!"
So let's get on with this discussion, shall we? What about this article from 2007 in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/09fossil.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin
...it seems that there's a question about linear evolutionary theory here. I'm just now looking, so it certainly is possible an explanation has been published in the last 5 years that I haven't found yet, but I find this article very interesting. The fact that the harder science looks, the more confusion they uncover makes me laugh. Evolutionists think they have it all figured out, but the reality is that nobody really gets it. The more we learn, the less we understand. The more we uncover, the more apparent the hand of God is.
Nope. My friends have brains.
Too bad about you and yours.
Your little joke makes me laugh, though, Jeffy. "Evolutionists think they have it all figured out."
Very revealing. Tells a lot about you that you imagine scientists ever 'think they have it all figured out."
Right...I lack intellect because I have a differing viewpoint...right!
Truth is, I don't have that different of a viewpoint. I can get behind evolution to a degree. It's the start of the whole thing that you can't explain. It's the way things have come about since that have holes. In those holes is the presence of God. Choose to cling to science, that's cool. I don't have an issue with it. I just have an issue with you not allowing me the same benefit.
You can believe whatever you want. You have every right. How am I stopping you, exactly? By ridiculing your inability to imagine that simply because we don't yet know how the universe began, goddidit? I have every right to THAT benefit, Jeffy.
Poor thing. Must be painful to be so thin-skinned.
Where do you get the ridiculous notion that I think I can "explain the whole thing"? I can't. I simply don't see where you get to the conclusion that that means it "must have been God." Where's your evidence that's the case? Only in the fact that you don't know?
Don't you ever read history? People used to be unaware that there were bacteria and viruses that caused diseases. They couldn't explain why people got sick; they couldn't know THEN about germs. Did that mean germs didn't exist? That Satan made people sick? That's what some people believed at the time.
Were they right? Of course not. What makes you think you are?
Thin skinned? LOL! There's only one person getting angry here skippy!
I could care less if you give my thought that God was there in the beginning and throughout the evolutionary process any merit. It's unprovable and a circular argument. You continue to disparage and I'll continue to respect. The more you post, the more intolerant you sound.
It's cool though...when science reveals another step in the evolutionary process that only opens up more questions...like this article did in 2007...you'll be able to say, "Yeah, but science will...."
It's a good thing science was never wrong in history, huh? LOL!
Come on Tom, sell crazy someplace else!
...and I've got as much proof that God did it as you do in your theory. You can't answer the question that the universe came from nothing to create something any better than I can. You cling to science and I think that God did it. So what? Where's the difference? Because science proved a few things along the way? Fingerprints of God if you ask me. How else can you explain the perfection of how the world works and how it all came about in just the right sequence to work our for our good?
So the Bible is always right, Jeff?
Of course, science doesn't have proof; it never did. What scientists theorize and hypothesize and conclude is constantly under examination. All scientists continue to experiment and do research. That's the difference. Religion and its believers refuse to ever envision any other possible scenario than the one the Bible and their God tell them is the 'correct one'. That's why you are so put out that others don't see everything your way and that some of us don't find a need to use an invisible being to explain what we don't yet understand.
The earth didn't come about to suit us. We evolved to survive in its atmosphere. There are most likely other planets that are also hospitable to forms of life, probably quite different from ours. You can believe that some invisible guy put the earth here if you want. I don't believe it. And you've produced nothing convincing thus far to persuade me that it's anything but desperation to have some sort of 'answer'. I don't need an answer. I can live with the mystery that doesn't necessarily include some Deus ex Machina to explain how life began. If you do, fine, believe what you want. But don't pretend it's based on science. Or that it should be taught in schools as fact.
Tom...I absolutely LOVE science. The problem solving, the theorizing, the hypothesizing, the experimenting, the data collection, the re-assessment, the constant logic of the whole process. It truly is amazing. Where you and I will always differ is that you think science is self contained. I simply think that God is the maker behind the science we see everyday. Man can prove a lot, but I do not think man will ever prove the origin of our universe and what kick-started the evolutionary process. It takes us back to the beginning. You cling to science, I to God. Neither provable, therefore neither right or wrong.
"In those holes is the presence of God."
Where? I don't see anything that indicates an invisible creature in the gaps. There are many holes in our understanding of nature; so what? Our knowledge is incomplete; who ever said otherwise? I simply don't find the need to fill the holes with some magical explanation.
I never suggested it be taught in schools. Never said my theory is based on science either. I just said that I think God is the thing behind it all. Not provable, certainly not something that should be in a classroom. God belongs in church and in the witness of His believers. I'm on here talking to you right now. You and I disagree, but we're engaged in conversation. We aren't as different as you would like us to be. I have no issues with much of what you say on these blogs. My issue is that you think I'm dumb for believing that God is an acceptable answer to what science cannot (nor will not) be able to prove.
"You can't answer the question that the universe came from nothing to create something any better than I can"
Except, of course, that this is a lie. The initial singularity existed at the beginning of this universe. We hypothesize that a couple femtoseconds after the expansion started – planck epoch – that gravity calved off from the other 3 primordial forces. This resulted in time starting. We cannot know (with our current math and physics) what happened before time started.
Why do you fundiots lie?
Believe what you will, Jeff. You need a god to explain what we don't understand and assume we will "never" find any explanation. "Never" is a very long time; I imagine some of the short-sighted physicians of the 13th century were just as sure that medicine would "never" change and that their belief in "humors" as the cause of disease was the only possible explanation.
You can claim your belief is equal to the discoveries of science, but you're comparing apples and oranges. I don't "cling" to science. I don't have a need to "cling" to something for reassurance. If you do, fine.
I think you're uneducated, Jeff. I think you need religion because you don't have a very deep understanding of the world and it scares you to death.
Primework...that's a little above me. Can you explain that to me again? I don't mean to be ignorant, but I did not follow your post.
You apparently think you're somehow 'witnessing' to me, based on your posts. I'm immune, Jeff. I grew up and figured out that religion didn't make sense. I have no need to believe there's some omnipotent being controlling all. If you find comfort in the idea and can manage to suspend common sense and realistic thought, go right ahead and believe. But your attempts to convince me that it's sound thinking are wasted.
Tom...maybe. I suppose it's possible I need to have something more than myself to believe in. I don't feel uneducated. I feel like I have a fairly good handle on a myriad of topics. I don't agree with you on this topic, but I'm not closed off to whatever science may reveal in the future. I simply think the more we look, the more questions we have.
My issue with those that refuse any belief in God at all is why? What scares you so much to admit the possibility, however small of a possibility you may think it to be, that there is a God?
A conversation is nothing more than a witness Tom. If we were talking football and I was talking about why the Steelers were the best team in the NFL, I'd be witnessing just the same.
As much as we disagree, I love the conversation. I love to engage in anything that challenges my own beliefs. If there is an answer out there that I'm simply not aware of, I want to know. Talking on boards like this is amusing, enlightening, educational, and ridiculous all at the same time.
I'm not 'scared', dearie. I've lived long enough to be scared of very little. Furthermore, why would you imagine that 'belief' in something supernatural is a choice? I can no more 'believe' in a god than I can in a leprechaun.
I'm sure you do. I don't have anything more to discuss with you. I don't care to debate something that I find absurd.
Tom...you spend an inordinate amount of time debating this very issue on these blogs. Kind of funny based on your statement, "I don't care to debate something absurd." If you don't, what the h.e.l.l are you doing in here? LOL!
Tom...we're all scared of something. When the lights are out and you're alone with your thoughts, the nothingness has to be there. You may put on a brave face and tell me on these blogs you aren't scared of anything...I know that's not true. I've been in the room of those dying...those with faith and those without. The difference is terrifying. Those with faith go with a peace in the room I can't explain to you on these blogs. The non-believer goes much different. Not always the same, but there's always fear. Sometimes anger, sometimes silence, but always fear. There's an emptiness that I cannot explain, nor do I want to try. If nothing else, that alone tells me there's more to our lives than the time we spend on this earth.
Go find another pal, dear. I've watched people close to me die in pain, so don't even bother to tell me what happens to them.
I'm not interested in your beliefs or thoughts on the matter.
Oh, and by the way, you're full of sh!t. The loved ones I watched die were faithful Christians to the end. They suffered horribly and were NOT at peace unless given sufficient morphine. So stick that in your craw.
Tom...obviously I'm not talking about those with disease or injury. There is a difference that I've experienced myself. In death there is a peacefulness with believers and a fear with unbelievers. Am I seeing something more because of my faith? Perhaps. I must concede that point as I don't know what happens. I just know what I see.
Tom, the bottom line is that God did send His son to die for everyone of us. Everyone. Even those that have spent a lifetime with their proverbial middle finger in His face. Don't believe if you don't want to...that's between you and God after all...but don't for one minute think he doesn't love you.
I wish you well Tom and I apologize if I brought up some unpleasant memories...that was not my goal at all.
"He" doesn't exist. Believe in the fairy tale all you need to, Jeff, if it makes you feel better.
Thank you Tom, I will.
Peace to you and yours...
@Jeff, While I was extremely tempted to take the bait about god murdering his own son can getting humans to do it for him thereby scapegoating every wrong doing by man and supplanting their personal responsibility, I decided to focus on your belief that "evolutionists think they have it all figured out."
If you took a moment to reason through this statement you would come to see the truth that this is not an honest statement. No evolutionists thinks they've got it all figured. No scientist thinks they've got it all figured. This kind of arrogant reasoning is reserved the blissfully self-deluded and of course religious folk. To say god did it, is exactly that kind of reasoning. "I know god did it."
Compare this to the scientists assertion that "we know what the evidence is point to." Nobody is making anything up in their imagination about natural selection. In fact, it's quite obvious to even the simplest mind that all life is connected and is a version of another similar life form. It is so obvious in fact, that it makes christians make preposterous claims like, "the evidence was planted by the devil to trick us into doubting god." This kind of "it was the one-armed man" argument is the one of the last refuges of the young earth history deniers.
@GodFreeNow...you're just grabbing one piece of my statement and running with it. Obviously I was making a sweeping statement challenging the arrogance of those so closed off by the possibility of God (or an intelligent designer if you prefer).
You...and you'll have a lot of company based on what's being posted on this blog...don't give any higher power any type of place in this discussion, yet the more work that science does to uncover more steps in the process, the more questions they uncover along the way. While I would never discount what science successfully uncovers and proves, I also am fully content in God being a part of the entire process in one way or another. What I don't understand is how you do not even give it the remotest of possibilities. There is an obvious intelligence in the way life on this planet was formed and how it has evolved. Why do you...and so many...quickly dismiss the possibility of an intelligent designer?
Jeff
It is possible that some creator being had a hand in evolution, but all of the evidence clearly demonstrates that none was needed. The diversity of life on this planet is neatly, logically, and eloquently explained by the theory of evolution. It explains everything we see, and is supported by many different kinds of evidence. Any "creator" involved in this process would have had to make each species and place them, along with the fossils and the rest of the evidence, in such a way so as to exactly make it appear that he or she hadn't been there at all, right down to installing weird, wasteful, and even detrimental flaws in the bodies of living creatures, including us. Now, please explain, what kind of being would try to deceive us into thinking that everything happened exactly was evolution theory explains, and create such flawed life forms? Some kind of trickster god? Considering how much suffering there is due to predation and disease in nature, something that a creator would have designed into the creatures he or she made, perhaps "sadistic" or even "evil" would best describe this being?
Cq
Amazing science always finds itself on the wrong path then pats self on back when the next rabbit hole is found and all scientists like a herd are going down that new path or rabbit hole. The universe went from being 6 days old to 6000 then 25 billion and now 13.8 billion. In 1978 the science community was abuzz with the next ice age, then the man made global warming, then just man made climate change and now we have………………..ooops it looks as if it has more to do with the sun than man.
Evolution does not answer the question of origin of life yet you assert it proves no God necessary. Sounds contradictory at best or a tale to justify what science cannot discover. Perhaps Jesus had it right when He said “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.”
@Fred – No scientific process, nor intelligent person ever argued that the earth was 6 days old. That was, and always has been a childrens tale. Along the lines with the Earth being created out of the corpse of Ymir.
fred
And, in relation to man's idea of God, we have tribal people preferring YHWH to other gods, then thinking that YHWH is their god, but still just one amongst many. Then we have the effort to rid the people of worshipping all other gods, often failing, and then we have a more, or less monotheistic belief in one god only to have a splinter group redefine that god as having a "son". Various factions of this splinter group debate the issue of this man's divinity for a couple of centuries until the political powers unilaterally decide the issue for them. Then, God goes through the long process of being envisioned as some old man in the sky with a beard to "Love".
So, either the theologians are just making all this stuff up off the top of their heads, or there is a definitive God out there that totally escapes believer's efforts to conceptualize, in which case they have no right to presume to know what it wants, right?. Science is focusing ever upon the actual answer, but in 200 years believers will likely be thinking of God as something nobody alive today has ever thought up, and you question how accurate science can be?
Cq
“in which case they have no right to presume to know what it wants, right?.”
=>Are you confused about what God wants? Do you not have a clear picture of what God wants? I think you know very well why Jesus spoke in parables and the Bible provides the perfect maze for skeptics to find exactly what they seek and believers to find exactly what they seek. That in itself is Divine and should hold you in awe of the Living God.
As to the vision of God in 200 years it has been 2,000 years since Jesus reflected the Glory of God. Interesting that Jesus reflected the same image Moses and Isaiah wrote about. There will be artists out there painting blue eyed images or whatever but God and Jesus have not had their image captured as far as I know.
Jeff, Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm on the other side of the planet so my replies are not timely. So, atheists do have a place for god. I know that seems hard to fathom, but like I said, we do accept the POSSIBILITY of a god. What we doubt is the NECESSITY of a god. In fact you use the words "higher power." Well yeah... we believe in a lot of higher powers... like gravity, or the strong and weak forces. These are powers that we have limited control over at best. A higher power could be a comet barreling toward our planet. We just don't ascribe human intelligence to those powers. And power does not equal consciousness. Even saying that and returning to a quote I used in an earlier post from Lawrence Krauss, when discussing the possibility of god, "god should be a last resort, not a first."
If you ask me why I question an intelligence guiding a design, It's because over 97% of life that ever existed is extinct. It's because I see the rampant mistakes in nature, and know that if humans are quite capable of analyzing and identifying mistakes, we must be either smarter than god, or witnessing change by progression. It's because evolutionary steps are always related to overcoming limitations. Limitations by their very nature do not point to intelligent design.
fred
The question is, why aren't you confused about what God wants? He's supposed to be incomprehensible after all!
If the Bible is such a "perfect maze" then how can you be so sure that you're not the one lost within it?
Jesus did not fulfill all of the messianic expectations.
@GodFreeNow...no worries...I was out yesterday! Not sure if you'll read this...I'll try and catch up with you on a different article if I miss you here.
I understand your point of the possibility of God vs. the necessity of God. This world is unique and is deeply flawed. I could give the religious answer and tell you it is because of the fall of man, but that statement has very little merit in here. Really, it has little merit anywhere. The truth is, I don't know how to answer your question. Yours is the most compelling I've heard yet to dismiss a creator.
That said, I can't do it. Pardon me for going into a religious mode here, but I can't deny God when I feel the relationship with Him in every part of my being. It's unexplainable, unverifiable, unprovable, and downright crazy talk for anyone that doesn't have that relationship. I don't mean to end our conversation with an "I feel this way and you can't tell me I can't!" statement, but I think that's where we're at!
My faith does not tell me to hate, to be intolerant, or to stop educating myself. It does not tell me to put my head in the sand and ignore thoughts and opinions I don't agree with. I will do some work on these questions you have raised here because they certainly give credibility to a universe with no 'need' for an intelligent design at all.
@GodFreeNow...here's a link to the best answer I could find:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/natures-flaws-and-cruelties
...it is very in depth and talks over me at times. I cannot summarize it for this blog, but I would encourage you to take a look when you have the time. I would love to have you...and anyone else so compelled...post your thoughts on this.
I just wanted to take a minute and apologize for my intolerance and overall behavior on here. I don't know why I feel such a need to lash out at differing views.
I'll continue to overreact at the slightest controversial comment, but I won't ever acknowledge that I may be wrong. It is just who I am. Thank you.
Oooh, I must have really hurt your feelings, honey. Have a cookie.
For a nonbeliever to believe in evolution,they must also believe in magic.
I'd ask you to explain that, but I doubt you have a clue what it means.
Naa, but some powerful being "poofing" everything into existence out of nothing sure looks like magic to me.
cq
that's exactly what naturalism is. physical reality forming from the complete absence of any reality. nothing short of magic.
amazing discussion, if u call it that,,, from both or all sides. obviously, everyone is wrong. from the biblical perspective,,, the big daddy in the sky did it all. that feels safe and if u can believe u get a warm fuzzy feeling. not for me, but i understand the sentiment. i used to believe in santa claus too. from the scientific perspective, evolution, in it's early renditions, is full of holes. we know so very little about much of the universe. in the words attributed to Aristotle, the more u know the more u know u don't know. our knowledge base is continually changing and continually growing. there is validity in the argument that science has become it's own religion. we just don't know so we continue to pursue knowledge. refinement of current theories is constant. we must come to understand how limited we truly are, particularly at the present time.
God doesn't dwell in the sky..His actual place(or location) is in heaven according to the bible.
How immature to resort to childish views on a matter you don't know..
At death atheists believe
If God doesn't dwell in the sky, then why was he so concerned about the Tower of Babel?
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
Genesis 11:4-5
It is jaw-droppingly amazing that some people like At Death thiests ... believe that they actually know where their god lives. As in, you know his address. Where he watches the game, etc. A concept that is so massively complex, that you insist it's incomprehensible (that's why major parts don't add up), but you actually know where to find him? Isn't that slightly arrogant? Almost to the ridiculous scale?
Mister Jones
What's even more amazing is that so many absolutely know what God supposedly thinks despite his being "incomprehensible."
All the commentary here is worth exactly what we paid for it.
Wow, 1,000 people for a poll. Now if you had 5,000 or more then maybe the poll was valid. But this is junk.
The numbers have been pretty consistent in the other polls taken over the last 20 years, so I'm sure it's fairly accurate. If they really wanted to skew it, they could have just polled everyone in the south.
Not necessarily. Depends on the variation. You don't really know stats do you ?
@Fluffy the Gerbil of Doom, What's the variation of "everyone"?
@Evolutionists
Do you have any quotes that aren't outdated, taken out of context, or found in creationist texts?
I don't care really. I'm copying and pasting from wherever with one goal - to show that there are multiple SCIENCE people that do not support evolution. If they don't, why do I need to? Get your own house in order before you make fun of a Christian because you don't like their conclusion. Your scientific conclusion is under just as much scrutiny.
Were the magic words used to create turtles different from the one to create tortoise or were they the same? What about Lions and Tigers, same magic words or different ones?
So you don't care that the quotes you are posting are dishonest quote-mined out of context? All you have to do is Google the author and quote-mine to see the original. Lying won't make evolution go away idiot.
Wayne - Argue with scientists, not me. I don't pretend to understand, you shouldn't either. The scientific community is divided on this issue, be careful where you put your faith. Faith, LOL, that's all your belief in evolution is!
Here's a book for you:
http://www.amazon.com/In-Six-Days-Scientists-Creation/dp/0890513414
Not that you'll read it, but you should.
It's obvious you don't understand. Otherwise you would not post 30 year old quotes out of context. Do you even care that a link has already been posted proving that every thing you copied and pasted without understanding was dishonest?
Do you know that there are scientists that fly the christian flag that accept evolution?
Wayne - Of course there are. What does that prove? That there are people on both sides of this argument that can't come to a consensus. These people do it for a living and are smarter than either of us. Yet you're willing to totally discredit the other side.
Read "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong" by Jonathan Wells. Not that you'll actually read it. I'm sure you'll just Google the rebuttal. Such a shame you won't do your own work on the subject.
You are right I'm not going to read a book about how 50 people (many of scientists whose expertize is irrelevant to the fields concerning the age of the earth, or evolution) believe that a magic man waved a wand and created the whole universe in 6 days.
@Evolutionists...,
Gould on being quoted by Creationists:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." ( as quoted on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html)
Just saying that the quotes you find may not be what the author or speaker intended. I'm not saying that all scientist agree with the Theory of Evolution, but if it even mattered, the vast majority of the scientists that work in the field / discipline do. (see project Steve: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve).
So it's alright to commit the sin of lying if it's to discredit something you personally disagree with?
Answer just one question for me and maybe I'll change my mind and consider your books.
Can you show me one verifiably accurate argument, positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution?
Of course Chubby, it's the Christian way. He's already made it clear he does not care if he has to lie. Lying is the only way to defend creationism.
ME II - I probably should have qualified my quotes fully first, but I don't have that kind of time on a blog that moves as quickly as this one does. If I have misquoted or taken things out of context, that is not my intention. My goal is to show that there are intelligent people on both sided of this argument that cannot agree. It amazes me how quickly people discredit a creationist viewpoint when there are also issues with the evolutionist viewpoint.
Wayne - Dr. Wells has two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.
If his resume is not worth your time to pick up his book, then don't read it.
@Evolutionists - Your Thoughts?
Every single person you dishonestly quote mined accepts evolution. They may or may not agree on what drives it or the specifics of it. There is no question that they accept decent with modification. You should be ashamed and embarrassed for what you tired to do.
I'll ask you one more time
Can you show me one verifiably accurate argument, positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution?
I know all about wells. He's such an expert but when it was time to testify for the side of intelligent design in the Dover trial he was nowhere to be found. In fact the only ID proponent that had any balls to represent the side of ID was embarrassed off the stand.
Wayne - Your question is not something anyone can do. Miracles - by definition - defy explanation. Would you like to be the one to discredit the near death experiences from so many referencing the same type of experience? I would qualify that as a miracle, though I doubt you would see it that same way. The flood. Noah's Ark was reportedly found in Turkey, but no more exploration can be done because of the Turkish government. Why? What's really up there? If it's nothing, why hide it?
@Evolutionists....,
"...can't come to a consensus."
Okay that is wrong. There may very well be individual scientists out there that don't accept TOE but there is absolutely consensus from those who study the subject.
"Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations" http://ncse.com/media/voices/science
One of more prominent is from AAAS,
"AAAS BOARD RESOLUTION ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY"
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry."
@Evolutionists...?,
"It amazes me how quickly people discredit a creationist viewpoint when there are also issues with the evolutionist viewpoint."
That is because the creationist viewpoint is not science, it's religion, i.e. faith.
From the National Academies of Science in 1984:
"It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its account of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its docu.mentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid. "
)http://ncse.com/media/voices/national-academy-sciences-1984)
ME II - So it's a popular theory. If you gathered up a group of Packer fans, they would have consensus that the Packers were Super Bowl favorites and could tell you why they though that. Don't sell that in Chicago though.
My point is there are prominent professionals - such as Dr. Wells - that do not support the evolutionist point of view. Admittedly, these people are all smarter than I am. If they have differing viewpoints, why can't I have a differing viewpoint as well? The minute I have a thought that is contrary to evolution, I immediately become an idiot on these blogs. That seems very narrow minded.
"Wayne – Your question is not something anyone can do. Miracles – by definition – defy explanation."
That's great that you are being honest for once. So why would anyone accept magic over something that can be show to be true?
" Would you like to be the one to discredit the near death experiences from so many referencing the same type of experience?"
What the hell does this have to do with evolution? What ever near death experiences someone may have had, it doesn't disprove evolution or prove creationism. Let's stay on topic please.
" The flood. Noah's Ark was reportedly found in Turkey, but no more exploration can be done because of the Turkish government. Why? What's really up there? If it's nothing, why hide it?"
Noah's ark is nothing more than the retelling of an earlier fable that got blown out of proportion to some incredibly silly. I can prove Noah's ark didn't happen very easily.
So you admit you can't answer my question because it answering relies on something you can't show to ever have happened. You don't see any problems with that?
Turds are smarter than you are. You are a dishonest, lying sack, Ev. Grow up and do some REAL research using sources that are valid and current and stop quote mining to support your nonsensical beliefs.
@Evolutionists - Your Thoughts?,
I only quote those organizations to point out that there is consensus and little to no debate, within mainstream biology, that evolution happened and is happening. There might be debate on the details of how it happens, but not that it does.
ME II - There are also those that believe in an Intelligent Designer as having a hand in the evolutionary process. Many creationist points of view do not discredit all of evolution, but they do incorporate a faith component. I do not understand why that is hard for a scientific mind to comprehend. Our basic DNA shows an incredible complexity I cannot dismiss as random chance.
Tom - Your contributions are noted, thanks for your time in this conversation. You can move along now.
"Many creationist points of view do not discredit all of evolution, but they do incorporate a faith component."
There is no reason to do that.
Wayne - My purpose of a near death experience is that it is called miraculous. I am simply trying to illustrate the presence of miracles. Perhaps it was not a good example, but that was my intent. Miracles such as people being clinically dead and then awakening hours later defy any science a doctor can put forth - but they happen. Time and again we hear of stories where something defies all explanation - a miracle. Yet we talk about the miracle of creation and discredit it so quickly. Why? Science and God can co-exist. I do not believe that evolution does not have any merit. I do, however, believe God is at the source and observable throughout the process.
You can believe whatever you want. But don't pretend it's a fact. It isn't. You have no basis for your claim that a god caused the universe to be except for one: the Bible.
Pretending that near-death experiences are "miracles" attributable to some sky-fairy is ridiculous. If such were the case, then why would this all-powerful being allow innocents to be hacked to death in Syria and never lift a finger, while reviving some boob in Ohio after a coronary?
@Evolutionists
Scientists are not divided on believing in evolution although there is some debate about some of the mechanisms involved.
"Our basic DNA shows an incredible complexity I cannot dismiss as random chance."
Only about 2% of our genome is translated into protein. Almost half of the genome consists of transposons from viruses. Why would a creator make half our DNA viral?
@Evolutionists - Your Thoughts?
What theists call miracles i call, we don't know the cause of event X yet. Not knowing the answer to something now does not mean it's a miracle. Also the world miracle could be used in any number of situations that don't require any supernatural explanation "the miracle on ice" for example.. There is a difference with that, and one day 6,000 years ago, life popping into existence ex nihlo by a few days of spell casting by your magical genie.
@Evolutionists - Your Thoughts?,
"So it's a popular theory."
I agree that science is not a popularity contest, but you brought up the question of consensus. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that there is really little debate on the matter.
"The minute I have a thought that is contrary to evolution, I immediately become an idiot on these blogs. That seems very narrow minded."
The difficulty is that many Christians claim that creationism or Intelligent Design is sound science and a valid alternative the Theory of Evolution. This is completely incorrect. If they want to say, this doesn't make sense to me, or I don't believe it, that is one thing, but to claim that the concepts promoted by people like Dr. Wells and the Discover Insti.tute are valid "scientific theories" is blatantly inaccurate. This has been stated by most respectable science organizations and it's even been upheld in a court of law, i.e. Kitzmiller v. Dover BOE.
Now if you want the details of why it's not a scientific theory, there are plenty of resources, if you're interested.
"There are also those that believe in an Intelligent Designer as having a hand in the evolutionary process."
It's fine to believe that, if you want, but there is no evidence to support that and the TOE doesn't require it.
"Our basic DNA shows an incredible complexity I cannot dismiss as random chance."
Neither can scientists. Evolution is not random, that is what natural selection and other processes accomplish. They 'select' those traits that will be passed on moreso than others. Keep in mind though that it's not a conscious 'selecting', but natural ones, e.g. food resources, predation, climate, etc.
Tom - Still here? Just want to chat with a 'turd' I see. Those on here that disagree with me but at least speak with respect I'll chat with. Again, you can go now.
Darwin's Ghost - This is where I have not done a good job of explanation. I do feel that evolution is the mechanism that God used throughout human history. I think he is the beginning and is seen throughout the entire process - some of the debate you reference I choose to answer with God.
chubby - I do not know, but it worked, right? A favorite quote of mine is, "If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid."
@Evolutionists....?
That being said there are a lot of people on here that will start name calling at the drop of a hat, or less, on both sides.
ME II - So I see. It is unfortunate that a good conversation - even where there is disagreement - turns to name calling from either side. I have a difficult time with that kind of intolerance, which led to my initial posts of quotes from scientists. I should have been slower to post as you pointed out that some of my quotes were out of context - something I did not intend.
I do believe that God had a hand in evolution and was present from the beginning of that process. Of course this is an unprovable theory and would never consti.tute any kind of scientific theory. It is what I believe though.
I have enjoyed chatting with you on this board and I would welcome any reading (books, papers, or otherwise) that you could refer me to.
Yeah, bonehead, and I can stay, too. You don't have any say in the matter. You've posted drivel and expect to be treated with respect? Not on your mother's corset cover. I have no time for people who lie. And that's precisely what you did. You quoted out of context; you claimed scientists are in disagreement on evolution. They are not.
As for name-calling, dearie, I didn't call you a 'turd'. Apparently, you can't read much of anything.
@Evolutionists, Wait a second... you believe in the literal telling of the story of Noah's ark, but you think there's a grand conspiracy by the Turkish Govt to hide the facts?
Just to put this in perspective. There is only one country that polls lower in the acceptance of evolution and that is Turkey. Surely the evidence of Noah's ark would support their beliefs.
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."
Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289.
DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of N.H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35
"The Quote Mine Project"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
30 years ago ? Give us a break.
Richard Dawkins: ...if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Apparently, what he said went right over your head.
Haha right. I guess he totally missed it. That's what you get when people of lesser intelligence trying to sound smart by copying perspectives of other people of less intelligence.
@Evolutionists, Do yourself a favor and actually read these author's books. Reading any one of Dawkins' books would be an immense help to you in forming your arguments. Just so you know, most have audio versions now so you don't have to feel like you're studying.
:D, GFN.
– B. Leith: "The main thrust of the criticism [of Darwinism] comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without." (_The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism_, p.11)
– Francis Crick, Nobel Prize recipient for discovery of DNA structure: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." (_Life Itself_, p.153)
– S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea, Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now [1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?" (_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_ p.352)
You do realize that no matter how many quotes you throw out, there is still mountains more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism, which is zero evidence mind you unless you count the bible as a historical doc. which it obviously isn't. (There was no global flood, etc.)
Argue with Dawkins. He's one of you. Check his quotes in my latest post.
Problem with you science guys is you can't even agree with each other, unless it's to discount Christianity. Not that you actually have the answer yourself, you just don't like the one we suggest.
You act like evolution was Darwin's idea, which displays your ignorance. Evolution was talked about by scientists way before Darwin, but Darwin did the research and put forth a great theory that many Christians can't handle.
Rick James - Blah, Blah, Blah.
These are quotes from science guys that don't support evolution, not Christians. Your argument is with them, not me.
First two quotes are from 1982 - before modern genetics.
Third quote is examining outdated models of evolutionary theory. That book looks at the history of evolutionary theory.
– John T. Bonner: "We [evolutionists] have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." (cited in _The Twilight of Evolution_, Henry M. Morris, p.91)
– Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)
– H. Lipson, physicist: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all... I know that [considering creation theory] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ("A Physicist Looks at Evolution", _Physics Bulletin_, 1980, p.138)
– T. Rosazak: "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance." (_Unfinished Animal_, p101)
– Charles Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in _Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation_, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)
"The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance"
Is it more likely that God gives kids cancer or is that the result of chance. What about the 99% of organisms that are now extinct? If there is a God, he is really bad at this whole creation thing.
For someone who says they don't have time to do proper research, you do spend a lot of time posting. I suspect that accounts for the poor quality of your posts. Outdated. Out of context. Factual errors.
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer of DNA)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
First quote: I can't say with certainty how life began, but neither can you. The fact that I can't say for a fact how life began without a god doesn't mean it was god.
Second quote: I don't know when this quote was from, but now there are such things as transitional fossils, you can look them up if you want. If you want to ignore these then that's on you.
Third quote: I really don't know much about the transitional fossils of horses, but this guy sounds like he's just unsure about the validity of some of the information. That being said, he's just a curator, not an evolutionary specialist (neither am I though)
Fourth quote: Same as my second explination, there are transitional fossils, I don't know who this guy has been talking to but everyone I know that has done some kind of archeological digs believe in gradual evolution.
Side note: Quotes from radical specialists who speak out against what the rest of the scientific community believe usually don't help people prove a cause.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
= "I don't see right now how it happened, so hmmm, I'll just make me up a fairy tale, cuz that makes me feel all warm n fuzzy, yeah, that's the ticket".
First quote continues:
". . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
This is about the panspermia hypothesis of abiogenesis, not evolution, which he later discounted as further biological evidence was made known to him.
Quote 2 and 4:
Gould was arguing for his punctuated equilibrium model. A model OF evolution, not countering evolution. Which was subsequently included as an aspect of understood evolutionary history, but not in as significant a manner as Gould sometimes argued (he took it too far at times.)
Quote 3:
Eldridge simply made a lot of arguments against certain misrepresentations he thought existed about evolution, but not ever against the validity of the theory itself. For example errors he considered to exist in school textbooks due to sloppy wording. Some horse evolution images (and even texts that mistakenly copy from the images) imply that certain fossils represent direct descendants, when that is not what they really necessarily represent.
In other words; all none those quote-mines are challenging the validity of the theory of evolution in the least, and most certainly not supporting creationism.
Well, you just can't fix stupid.
What's sad is that dopes don't even try.
Maybe someday we'll come up with a gadget to assist the Hard-of-Thinking!
If thinking hard persists for more than 8 hours see your physician!
HEy, WIzzer, have you found anything in the law or the Bible that requires that a married couple be able to procreate in order to have a valid marriage? ANything in the law? No?
There goes your argument against gay marriage. Are you going to take 3 or 5 posts to rebut that?
D I S T U R B I N G ! ! ! ! ! ! !
america why are you so dumb?
It's spelled Amercia, get it right.
Well done, 'Mitt Romey'. Well done.
We got tired of picking up the slack for the rest of the world for the last half-century.
jk