Poll: Nearly half of America is creationist

posted at 5:01 pm on June 2, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

What the heck… it’s been a while since we last opened up the flood gates on this topic and according to Gallup surveys, we’re no closer to a consensus now than we ever were. The subject at hand is our old friend, evolution vs. creation.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

It will come as no shock to anyone that the answers given tracked tightly with the religious views of the respondent, and that a majority of registered Republicans fall in line with creationist views.

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

What’s interesting about the Gallup survey as compared to some others I’ve seen in the past is the phrasing of the questions. You tend to get more clearly splintered results if you pose seriously confrontational questions such as, “Did God create man from dust or did man evolve from ape-like creatures?” Gallup’s choices are a bit more subtle, asking which phrase best describes your feelings.

  • Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
  • Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.
  • God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

You’ll notice that none of the choices go so far as to say, for example, “There is no God so the question is pointless” or, at the other end, “The Bible is literal and God created man from the dust and woman from one of his ribs.” I think such polls provide more value if they add in a couple more choices along those lines and forget about trying to be nuanced or avoid offending anyone.

My own views have “evolved” over the past five decades, (if you’ll pardon the phrase) and I’ve seen a number of theories. As a young man, I once lost my faith entirely (and still struggle with it at times) and rashly published a letter declaring that “God is the answer to a collection of questions which man is either too stupid or too frightened to answer. On the day that science answers the final question, God will be dead.”

I confess, I regret having penned that one now, but the young are frequently rash and foolish. But there are other theories which have come down the pike and stuck around. A very popular one which echoes a couple of the Gallup choices is along the lines of The Blind Watchmaker theory. It essentially states that the universe may well have begun with the Big Bang and men may have evolved from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed it, like the greatest software programmer ever, freeing Him up to move on to other projects once our reality was set in motion.

But I still have plenty of friends who come from the “six days and a rib” school of thought, and you have to respect them as well. At the opposite end of the scale you find people like my friend Doug Mataconis, who simply seems to be waiting for the day when all this creationist nonsense “evolves” out of our society.

This is why, as I noted the other day, I am skeptical of the argument advanced by Richard Leakey that increased discoveries in the field of anthropology would lead to an end to the evolution debate in the near future. The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture. It’s not going away any time soon, at least not in this country.

But returning to my original question, does the phrasing of the survey really impact the results for a strictly non-political topic such as this? Since the Hot Air faithful have never been shy about sharing and debating their feelings in a vigorous fashion, let’s toss up our own poll and compare it to the historical results as well as Gallup’s. But we’ll give you a bit more ammunition to work with in the answers. Have at it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12

In science, GODDIDIT is not a “possibility.”

The supernatural has no place in science.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

.
The “supernatural” created science.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM

How did blood clotting gradually evolve over time?

Any evidence at all will do.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Let me Google that for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Correction. (face-palm)

Those odds are nil -0-

However, the odds of The Living God speaking things thinking into existence by faith are 1:1
[Heb. 11:1,3] : )

listens2glenn
on June 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 5:20 PM

WE CROSSED 1000+ ! ! !
.
.
.
.
.
Hooray.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 5:22 PM

and the fact that nowhere in the scientific literature is a specific evolutionary path for any of a myriad of life-critical biochemical processes described.

Absolutely false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA350.html

How can I put this? You’re not being truthful.

I went to PubMed and searched for “flagella evolution.” Here are a few of the titles that turned up: Most of them seem to just have the words “Flagellum” and “evolution” somewhere in the paper, as they don’t address the issue.

The involvement of the antennae in mediating the brood influence on circadian rhythms in “nurse” honey bee (Apis mellifera) workers.

Morphostasis in a novel eukaryote illuminates the evolutionary transition from phagotrophy to phototrophy: description of Rapaza viridis n. gen. et sp. (Euglenozoa, Euglenida).

Bacillus manliponensis sp. nov., a new member of the Bacillus cereus group isolated from foreshore tidal flat sediment.

The chimeric genome of sphaerochaeta: nonspiral spirochetes that break with the prevalent dogma in spirochete biology. (This looked promising, but the abstract showed that it was talking about traits that were gained via chimeric cross-phylum gene transfer, not the evolution of a flagellum from a protoflagellum.)

Diversity, Evolution and Molecular Systematics of the Psalteriomonadidae, the Main Lineage of Anaerobic/Microaerophilic Heteroloboseans (Excavata: Discoba). (again, initially promising, but it is only describing structures, not explaining how they evolved step by step.)

So, there’s another big steaming pile of fail from GoodLt.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If you want a debunking of Behe’s bacterial flagellum argument just go watch this two hour video by Ken Miller, one of the lead witnesses in the ID trial in Dover.

Ken Miller – ID Debunked

Also, while you’re on pubmed… Why don’t you go look up the articles that Behe has submitted for peer review. If he’s got the goods like he claims I’m sure they’ve been peer reviewed and replies are there.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM

The Lenski experiments have seen over 50,000 generations of bacteria being born and dieing. The bacteria they have in this experiments today is totally different than the bacteria they had when they started the experiment.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Call me when it’s not a bacteria anymore. Wait until it’s a beaver.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM

How did blood clotting gradually evolve over time?

Any evidence at all will do.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Let me Google that for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Very interesting, but conjecture hardly rises to the level of evidence. But I’ll let Behe speak for himself: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:32 PM

C’mon, Cabbage, you know that Behe can’t get published. He’s a heretic!

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

T

he Lenski experiments have seen over 50,000 generations of bacteria being born and dieing. The bacteria they have in this experiments today is totally different than the bacteria they had when they started the experiment.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Call me when it’s not a bacteria anymore. Wait until it’s a beaver.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I’d be satisfied if they evolved into a hydra or a coral polyp.

Well, that’s it folks. I’m outta here.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Call me when it’s not a bacteria anymore. Wait until it’s a beaver.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Maybe after several hundred billion generations it might be (bacteria live about a day or two). They’re only on generation 50,000+

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM

We’re now up to 1,000+ posts on this thread!

TigerPaw on June 4, 2012 at 5:42 PM

C’mon, Cabbage, you know that Behe can’t get published. He’s a heretic!

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

BS! YOU and I both can submit papers for review. Anyone can…

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Those odds are nil -0-

However, the odds of The Living God speaking thinking into existence by faith are 1:1
[Heb. 11:1,3] : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM

The odds for both are 0, on other words.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:46 PM

The point is that there is the possibility that “goddidit”

In science, GODDIDIT is not a “possibility.”

The supernatural has no place in science.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Right. Much more credible that random mutations unguided by an intelligence but repeated over millennia accumulated to turn a single-celled organism into a gorilla.

So you’ve replaced a belief in God with a belief in random changes over long periods of time. And this is progress.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM

.
The odds for both are 0, on other words.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:46 PM

.
Not in any words coming from me; you speak for yourself.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Much more credible that random mutations unguided by an intelligence but repeated over millennia accumulated to turn a single-celled organism into a gorilla.

Evolution says no such thing. Only creationists say such stupid things that no scientist says.

Your argument boils down to: “This are complex. Things are complex. Things are complex. Therefore: Goddidit.”

News flash, homie. Just because something is complex doesn’t mean it could not have arisen by natural processed without supernatural assistance.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:52 PM

So you’ve replaced a belief in God with a belief in random changes over long periods of time. And this is progress.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Genetics confirms that organisms alive today have connections to organisms that lived in the past.

You are related to your great ancestors, and there is evidence in your genes that your immediate family members share that is unique to your immediate family.

That this confounds you so is hilarious.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Seems a silly argument to engage in.

No amount of argument is going to argue anyone here into or out of their belief in a god (whichever one they happen to believe or not believe in).

And I’m the first one to enjoy a good theological debate, but I have always found evolution vs. creation to be a silly theological debate to have. It always boils down to one thing… either you believe in a god or you don’t.

gravityman on June 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

No amount of argument is going to argue anyone here into or out of their belief in a god

You can’t reason somebody out of something they were not reasoned into.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Much more credible that random mutations unguided by an intelligence but repeated over millennia accumulated to turn a single-celled organism into a gorilla.

Evolution says no such thing. Only creationists say such stupid things that no scientist says.

Evolution claims that every living organism evolved from single-celled creatures. Therefore, evolution does say such a thing. Therefore, accusing creationists of saying something stupid when they echo was evolutionists say is … kinda stupid.

Your argument boils down to: “This are complex. Things are complex. Things are complex. Therefore: Goddidit.”

News flash, homie. Just because something is complex doesn’t mean it could not have arisen by natural processed without supernatural assistance.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:52 PM

No, my argument is that you don’t have either observation or experimental proof for your assertion. Oh, and that “Goddidit” is a lot more plausible than “nothing did it. It just happened. But that isn’t hard to believe at all, because it happened very gradually over eons of time.”

All you’ve done is build your own god out of random chance and eons of time. No matter how far-fetched, no matter how little evidence, eons of time + random chance = everything we see.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

And I’m the first one to enjoy a good theological debate, but I have always found evolution vs. creation to be a silly theological debate to have. It always boils down to one thing… either you believe in a god or you don’t.

gravityman on June 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

And the name calling. Don’t forget the name calling!

tom on June 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Oh, and that “Goddidit” is a lot more plausible than “nothing did it.

Please provide some evidence for that assertion.

Because the evidence we do have is on the side of evolution for the explanation for life’s diversity.

The debate in the scientific community on this is over, and has been for 150 years.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Evolution claims that every living organism evolved from single-celled creatures.

You need to go back and learn what evolution actually is and what it says.

The nonsense you’re posting is the nonsense that creationists spew.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 7:00 PM

All you’ve done is build your own god out of random chance and eons of time

What are the odds that the invisible skybeing popped life into existence by magic?

Let us know.

No matter how far-fetched, no matter how little evidence, eons of time + random chance = everything we see.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Evolution is not “random chance.”

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Maybe after several hundred billion generations it might be (bacteria live about a day or two). They’re only on generation 50,000+

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Okay, I’ll give you an easier target. Call me when it’s a Paramecium. Then it’ll be macroevolution.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Seems a silly argument to engage in.
No amount of argument is going to argue anyone here into or out of their belief in a god (whichever one they happen to believe or not believe in).
And I’m the first one to enjoy a good theological debate, but I have always found evolution vs. creation to be a silly theological debate to have. It always boils down to one thing… either you believe in a god or you don’t.
gravityman on June 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I’ve been reading the comments with interest and I agree with you to a point. A debate between two parties who have their minds set and only are trying to prove themselves right and the other side wrong is boring as the evidence used is selective. But a real debate-team style debate between open-minded, perhaps even undecided parties who are actually curious to weigh all the available evidence as a whole can be very informative.

I think that is why it hit me, while reading these comments, that I tend to take more seriously the apologetics that have come to that position from either an undecided or atheist background and did their own research to come to a conclusion themselves or in the process of proving something got their mind changed. The author of The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith come to mind, forget the name, but I got a lot out of those books.

Also someone here posted an interesting blog several pages back, jandyongenesis@blogspot.com I spent a good deal of time reading after they posted it. I don’t agree with every conclusion the author came to, but she is clearly interested in weighing relevant information in her field when coming up with her conclusions, and thus I find her views very engaging to read. Unlike a bunch of people throwing insult laden comments with google links attempting to prove something.

However I do think that as long as this debate goes on, one’s views on the matter will be influenced by their already held beliefs that cannot be argued away, and in fact, that is one of the wonderful things about faith. That doesn’t mean, however, that those beliefs weren’t arrived at in a reasonable and logical way, whatever they may be. Even so, not everyone can simultaneously be right, so I suppose the debate will go on indefinitely.

rose-of-sharon on June 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Let me Google that for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Well over 100+ years, and still the best evidence anyone can produce for macroevolution is “I can imagine”.

Even when presented with evidence AGAINST evolution, the answer is the same. Fossil record doesn’t have transitionals? “I can imagine Punk Eek.” Irreducible complexity? “I can imagine a step-wise progression.”

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 7:28 PM

The debate in the scientific community on this is over, and has been for 150 years.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM

.
The “scientific community” you refer to are atheists.

I believe creation scientists have no less credibility or credentials than the scientists you embrace, yet they believe contrariwise to each other.

The debate on this isn’t over any more than the debate on man-made global warming, except for those who WILL NOT ACCEPT any belief in the spirit world. That would include yourself, so I guess for you the debate on evolution vs creation is over.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Nice poll. Six possible answers five of which are variations of “God created man” then a single one size fits all answer for all agnostics, atheists, polytheist and the rest.

Scrappy on June 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Every single scientist that believes in creationism competes with the title of “scientist” with amoebas.

There’s nothing in common between the debate about AGW and debate about evolution.

Anyone that for a microsecond thinks that 100+ years is enough to identify the macro-evolution changes does not understand a concept of scale. These are probably the same people who think they would be able to count from one to a billion in their life time.

Ju-Ju of the mountain on the left is very disappointed that you worship the wrong Ju-Ju.

EvilCapitalist on June 4, 2012 at 7:51 PM

All you’ve done is build your own god out of random chance and eons of time

What are the odds that the invisible skybeing popped life into existence by magic?

Let us know.

No matter how far-fetched, no matter how little evidence, eons of time + random chance = everything we see.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Evolution is not “random chance.”

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Evolution is supposed to occur by genetic mutation. In fact, it’s the only way it can happen, since acquired characteristics are not otherwise inherited. If those genetic mutations are not performed or guided by an intelligence, then they are random.

Random chance over eons of time.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

News flash, homie. Just because something is complex doesn’t mean it could not have arisen by natural processed without supernatural assistance a designer and creator.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Sorry, but yes it does. There are no natural processes that produce extremely complex living organisms by random means from a pile of primordial ooze….and even it were, you’re still left with trying to explain where that primordial ooze originated from.

You are the one believing in fairy tales. You are the one believing that natural processes are capable of coordinating random molecules into living material. There is no evidence to support your claims, and I am afraid that you can’t fall back on the old “evolution doesn’t have to explain how life arose” canard. When you deny an intelligent designer/builder, it FORCES you to explain how this life that supposedly evolved arose.

You weren’t around when life arose on planet earth, and neither was I or anyone else alive today. We are all forced to use our intellect to explain how we got here, and none of us can observe first hand “how it all happened.” Something that we can’t see now, is not necessarily “supernatural. Random processes, and stop kidding yourself, without energy applied to direct these “processes’” they are RANDOM, cannot produce such order and complexity. It’s impossible. Maybe one day you’ll figure that out, but I doubt it. You’re too stubborn, and, based on some of the sheer idiocy that you swallow from the mouths of evolutionists, you’re not smart enough either.

JannyMae on June 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Evolution is supposed to occur by genetic mutation. In fact, it’s the only way it can happen, since acquired characteristics are not otherwise inherited. If those genetic mutations are not performed or guided by an intelligence, then they are random.

Random chance over eons of time.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Exactly. Evolutionists speak of their theory as if it has an order And an active “process” to it, that it does not, and cannot have. The ludicrous explanation for the way the eye “evolved” is one of the best examples of them trying to put an order and a purpose to an unguided, natural process that can’t possibly do what they claim.

And all because they don’t want to believe we were deliberately designed and built. Sigh….

JannyMae on June 4, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I understand the frustration (from both sides) but this argument is stupid. Some people are guided by feelings and other subconscious processes, and some are guided by logic/analysis. Its a physical limitation of the brain, and not one that can be overcome by an anonymous internet debate among laymen. You can’t teach a fish to fly.

powerfactor on June 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Evolution is supposed to occur by genetic mutation. In fact, it’s the only way it can happen, since acquired characteristics are not otherwise inherited. If those genetic mutations are not performed or guided by an intelligence, then they are random.

Random chance over eons of time.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

And the whole argument for macroevolution being “microevolution on a larger scale” falls flat on its face due to the fact that no mutation has ever been observed to add genetic information, only subtract or rearrange it. For macroevolution to be true, protozoa would have to possess more genetic information than higher organisms like man, horses, dogs, etc.

Benedict Nelson on June 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 7:28 PM

I don’t know how it all began, scientists are trying to figure it out.

Look, if you expected science to give us all the answers to the wonderful questions about what we are, where we’re going, what the meaning of the universe is and so on, then I think you can easily become disillusioned and look for some mystical answer to these questions…

Look, the way I think of what we’re doing is we’re exploring, we’re trying to find out as much as we can about the world and the universe we live in. If it turns out that there’s a simple ultimate law that explains everything (god did it), so be it! That would be very nice to discover, but I believe that cards been played way too many times.

If it turns out its like an onion with millions of layers upon layers of discoveries and we just get sick of looking at the answers then THAT’S the way it is, but whatever way it comes out, it’s nature, and thats the way it is. Evolution is apparently the way a god (if he exists) made us. Why can’t you Evangelical Protestant creationists just give it up and join the rest of us in the 21st century like the Catholics do?

Evolution is a fact. Scientists aren’t arguing, or maybe I should say that only about 10% of the scientists on this planet are arguing over its validity, the rest of them are finding out more and more about it everyday. You see, there are positive scientists who try to learn new things, and then there are negative scientists who are credentialed but only seek the science that disproves another science because real science keeps telling us that Santa Claus isn’t real.

So far as we can tell, life is active all across this universe. About half way through its mission, the Kepler telescope has found over 2000 confirmed planets orbiting around other stars in our galactic neighborhood. Some of them are good candidates for life since they orbit in the “Goldilocks” zone around their host star… A place where it’s not too hot, and not too cold, but just right for water to exist in both liquid and frozen form.

This raises an interesting question… If we do find some day way in the future that there is other life or sentient life in the universe, does Jesus’ sacrifice here on this planet suffice to save all their sins as well or would god need to sacrifice Jesus on EVERY planet in the universe that has sentient life? How would the sentient life on that planet know about Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice in the Middle East of Earth?

It’s OK to say you don’t know. You see, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live NOT knowing and accepting that, than to have “answers” which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things that I don’t know anything about such as whether it means anything to ask, “why are we here”?.

I don’t HAVE to have an answer, I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things. By feeling lost in the mysterious universe without having any “purpose”, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.

YOU make your own purpose.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Evolution is supposed to occur by genetic mutation. In fact, it’s the only way it can happen, since acquired characteristics are not otherwise inherited. If those genetic mutations are not performed or guided by an intelligence, then they are random.

Random chance over eons of time.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

And the whole argument for macroevolution being “microevolution on a larger scale” falls flat on its face due to the fact that no mutation has ever been observed to add genetic information, only subtract or rearrange it. For macroevolution to be true, protozoa would have to possess more genetic information than higher organisms like man, horses, dogs, etc.

Benedict Nelson on June 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

And it gets even worse, when you remember that they are counting on the 1/10 of a percent of genetic mutations that may arguably be beneficial, while ignoring that most of the mutations will either add no benefit or be actually harmful. By the time those few beneficial mutations have a chance to accumulate into a major new organism, the “new and improved” DNA would carry so many negative mutations that it would be much worse than the original.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 9:55 PM

tom on June 4, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Exactly right! And if you dare to call them on it, their responses invariablty degenerate into the likes of this gem, from earlier in this thread:

Wrong you complete utter tool if you are a fool that believes in creationism YOU ARE PASTE EATING MORON .like real life i WIN and you are a loser that reads comics and weighs 350 pounds all of it lard fat boy. Now that you simpleton is an ad hominem attack since you don’t know the differences you mama’s boy creationism believing inbred hillbilly snake handling god believing religious fanatic.

Your Mamma loves me on June 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

See what I mean? :)

Benedict Nelson on June 4, 2012 at 10:22 PM

There are no natural processes that produce extremely complex living organisms by random means from a pile of primordial ooze….and even it were, you’re still left with trying to explain where that primordial ooze originated from.

There is such a process and it’s called evolution. There is a massive fossile record that show plenty organisms, and we could trace their evolution until today.

You are the one believing in fairy tales. You are the one believing that natural processes are capable of coordinating random molecules into living material. There is no evidence to support your claims, and I am afraid that you can’t fall back on the old “evolution doesn’t have to explain how life arose” canard. When you deny an intelligent designer/builder, it FORCES you to explain how this life that supposedly evolved arose.

Evolution is not a random process but the passing of the changes in gene structure from one generation to another. So, let me put it in some plain english to you. Let’s say that we have a group of dogs that are strained on an island where the animals they can hunt are arboreal, aka live in trees. The few male dogs that have the capacity to claimb in the trees (a rare thing but it happends and we are talking in abstract) we’ll have a better chance to survive and to reproduce, to feed for their offsprings. They’ll have a better chance to pass their genetic abilities to the next generation. And so forth. In time, we talk about decades or hundreds of years, a new specie of dogs that can climb trees appears.

You’re too stubborn, and, based on some of the sheer idiocy that you swallow from the mouths of evolutionists, you’re not smart enough either

I have one degree and a master, and I work on a second degree right now. And I bet I am not the only one in the same situation. You just managed to offend a lot of people which had solid college degrees from USA and from abroad, and which happend to be also conservatives.

clemycali on June 4, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Evolution claims that every living organism evolved from single-celled creatures.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

No, it doesn’t.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Nice poll. Six possible answers five of which are variations of “God created man” then a single one size fits all answer for all agnostics, atheists, polytheist and the rest.

Scrappy on June 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Not even that. The sixth choice also contains supernatural cosmic forces with the use of the word “inevitable”. There is no choice in the poll that simply states. “There is no god. Man is an outcome of evolutionary processes.”

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 11:29 PM

clemycali on June 4, 2012 at 10:43 PM

The process you are referring to as “evolution” is more properly known as “microevolution”, “adaptation”, or “natural selection”. By any name, it is indeed a scientifically proven and observable process. Creationists have no problem with that. However, none of this leads to macroevolution. When all is said and done, the dogs in your example will still be dogs. They will not evolve into lemurs, or bats, or humans, because no new genetic information is produced by their adaptation. Macroevolution would require mutations that increase genetic information rather than decreasing or rearranging it. This has never been observed in nature to date.

Benedict Nelson on June 4, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Nice poll. Six possible answers five of which are variations of “God created man” then a single one size fits all answer for all agnostics, atheists, polytheist and the rest

I had issues too with the poll. I have issues with the ilustration of the story too. Man hasn’t evolve from chimp as it’s portrait in the drawing. Chimps are our cousins and not our grandparents. We had a common ancestor about 3.5 millions of years ago and then we parted ways. I don’t even know why people like to perpetuate this myth of the chimp as our ancestor.

clemycali on June 4, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Wrong you complete utter tool if you are a fool that believes in creationism YOU ARE PASTE EATING MORON .like real life i WIN and you are a loser that reads comics and weighs 350 pounds all of it lard fat boy. Now that you simpleton is an ad hominem attack since you don’t know the differences you mama’s boy creationism believing inbred hillbilly snake handling god believing religious fanatic.

Your Mamma loves me on June 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

.
See what I mean? :)

Benedict Nelson on June 4, 2012 at 10:22 PM

.
Holy balls . . . . . I missed that one yesterday.

Apparently Ed and Allah missed too, as I believe that would have drawn the “Hammer”.

Thanks for re-posting that Benedict’; I needed a good laugh. : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Evolution claims that every living organism evolved from single-celled creatures.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

No, it doesn’t.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Yes it does, look at “3500-2800 Prokaryotic cell organisms develop.”

Meet your great, great Grand-Daddy.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Yes it does, look at “3500-2800 Prokaryotic cell organisms develop.”

Meet your great, great Grand-Daddy.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Well, life could stem from a more primitive organism like a virus… That is, if a virus wasn’t a parasite that needed a more sophisticated host. Oh well.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Thanks for re-posting that Benedict’; I needed a good laugh. : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 11:47 PM

No problem l2g! Always glad to provide laughs for fellow HotAirians, especially at the expense of trolls. :)

Benedict Nelson on June 5, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Evolution claims that every living organism evolved from single-celled creatures.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

No, it doesn’t.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Yes it does.

didymus on June 5, 2012 at 12:47 AM

What a silly, incoherent religion. How can free will exist in a universe created by an omnificent and omnipresent God? Such a God would by definition know exactly how his creations would behave before they were created.

Then when they behave exactly as He intended, he has to send a Savior which is actually an aspect of Himself, to die (but not really die!) and somehow this is the only way that He can bring Himself to forgive His creations for behaving exactly as He designed them and knew they would.

It’s beyond preposterous.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 6:51 AM

Well, when you create beings with free will, a rebellion of any kind is a risk. And did happen. Christ dying for selfish creatures to give them a chance at freedom and eternal life is the ultimate selfless act. He knew many would reject his gift, but he also knew that there will be many who accept him and his sacrifice and was the only way he could save them.

dec5 on June 5, 2012 at 3:13 AM

You say we have free will, but you believe in original sin?

Those two are irreconcilable.

“Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

The point of Christ’s sacrifice is to cover the sins of man who will never be able to live up to the Law or the Ten commandments under his own power. The Earth was brought into sin by the act of one man. A whole race was brought into sin because of Adam. And a people can be saved by a gift of one man who knew no sin, was flesh, and yet was the creator of this world…and punished for mans sins. This shows the character of a loving God.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.”

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Man by himself cannot save himself, He needs help. And he has it.
His faith in Christ can save him, and the proof of his true faith will manifest itself by the gift of the spirit. A selfless nature that comes naturally with the right motivation. You don’t become a good person just to go to heaven. That won’t work. Man’s works alone will not save him. He needs to love and follow Christ because Christ first loved every individual.


1 John 4:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 We love him, because he first loved us.

dec5 on June 5, 2012 at 3:46 AM

Well, when you create beings with free will, a rebellion of any kind is a risk. And did happen. Christ dying for selfish creatures to give them a chance at freedom and eternal life is the ultimate selfless act. He knew many would reject his gift, but he also knew that there will be many who accept him and his sacrifice and was the only way he could save them.

dec5 on June 5, 2012 at 3:13 AM

You’re missing the obvious point. Free will cannot be a feature of beings created by an omniscient God. He would know EXACTLY how his creation would develop. It’s not a matter of risk, it’s a certainty.

If you believe your God is omniscient then your religion is absurdly based on a logical impossibility.

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 5:56 AM

Well, when you create beings with free will, a rebellion of any kind is a risk. And did happen. Christ dying for selfish creatures to give them a chance at freedom and eternal life is the ultimate selfless act. He knew many would reject his gift, but he also knew that there will be many who accept him and his sacrifice and was the only way he could save them.

dec5 on June 5, 2012 at 3:13 AM

You’re missing the obvious point. Free will cannot be a feature of beings created by an omniscient God. He would know EXACTLY how his creation would develop. It’s not a matter of risk, it’s a certainty.

If you believe your God is omniscient then your religion is absurdly based on a logical impossibility.

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 5:56 AM

Still going, eh? dec5, thanks for picking up the slack.

DarkCurrent, you make have missed my post earlier on the difference between contradictions and paradoxes.

Here’s an example:

Statement A: At this moment, it is a cool summer morning.

Statement B: At this moment, it is a cool winter evening.

“It’s a logical impossibility!” you might say.

Certainly it is difficult to imagine how it can be winter and summer at the same time, or morning and evening at the same time.

But if you change your perspective and go out into space, you will see that the Earth is round, with a tilted axis. So while it is a summer morning in Ohio, it is a winter evening in New Zealand.

Not only CAN A and B both be true, they MUST be true.

That is the nature of paradox: the evidence shows that A and B ARE true, but only by changing your point of view can you begin to understand how. You don’t abandon logic; far from it. But you DO have shift your viewpoint.

From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture teaches that God is Large and In Charge, AND that man is accountable for his free choices.

In order to understand how both statements can be true, you have to change your point of view.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 8:45 AM

That is the nature of paradox: the evidence shows that A and B ARE true, but only by changing your point of view can you begin to understand how. You don’t abandon logic; far from it. But you DO have shift your viewpoint.

From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture teaches that God is Large and In Charge, AND that man is accountable for his free choices.

In order to understand how both statements can be true, you have to change your point of view.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Great. Now explain how an omniscient God can create beings with free will without simply resorting to ‘it’s a paradox’.

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Btw, skydaddy, since I live on the other side of the planet from most of the HA population I didn’t find your example paradox very paradoxical ;)

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM

A thought came to me last night as I was mulling over yesterday’s conversation. Attacks tend to be proportionate to the perceived threat.

It’s very interesting that proponents of intelligent design (ID), old-Earth creationism (OEC), and Young-Earth Creationism (YED )have one thing in common: skepticism that Darwinian methodology explains the origin and variety of life on Earth. There are wide differences in WHY these groups doubt Darwin. IDers see “irreducible complexity” especially at the molecular level that apparently resists Darwinian explanations. OECs like myself are simply unconvinced that the process that accounts for the difference between Arabians and Clydesdales also accounts for the difference between algae and Arabians. TECs have an unshakable faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and so all evidence must be made, like Procrustes’ guests, to fit that model.

All they have in common is skepticism of Darwin.

And yet, the pro-Darwinists lump them together, painting them all as crypto-fundamentalists. Some, like Dawkins, lump them in with folks who believe in UFOs, ESP, and Bigfoot (the better to disparage them, I suppose. If your opponent is clearly a moron, you don’t have to actually address his argument.)

But isn’t it interesting that you don’t see the coordinated, vehement attacks on UFO fans, self-professed psychics, and crypto-zoologists that you see on people like Behe and Johnson (not to mention the personal attacks here)?

If Darwinianism was such “settled science,” if it were actually as “incontrovertible” as its proponents claim, if Darwin-skeptics really are comparable to Bigfoot-believers, then why are Darwin skeptics treated so differently? Why don’t the pro-Darwinists just shake their heads condescendingly and lay out the evidence that proves beyond any possible doubt or argument that what they claim is true?

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:03 AM

If Darwinianism was such “settled science,” if it were actually as “incontrovertible” as its proponents claim, if Darwin-skeptics really are comparable to Bigfoot-believers, then why are Darwin skeptics treated so differently?

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:03 AM

You assume they’d be treated differently here. Has it ever been tested? Has there ever been a UFO-belivers vs. non-believers thread on HA?

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Great. Now explain how an omniscient God can create beings with free will without simply resorting to ‘it’s a paradox’.

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Easy. God says, “I’m going to create beings that have free will. I know in advance that they will choose to reject me, and that makes me very sad, because by rejecting me they give up the chance to be together with me forever in Paradise. So I’m going to do something about it. My perfect justice and holiness (part of my nature as God) require that rejecting Me is punished by eternal separation from Me. But because I love these beings I’ve made, I will also make it possible for them to accept me and trust me, and for those that do, I will take their punishment upon myself, like a judge who pays the fine for an indigent defendant who pleads guilty.”

He gives us choices, while knowing in advance what choices we will make, and yes, we are accountable for those choices.

How can this be? I don’t think we can fully understand in this life. Our brains are too finite, too limited. But Scripture is very clear that one day all will be made clear. We have that promise.

So, yeah, there’s room for doubt, because there has to be room for faith. God wants us to trust him, to choose to love and follow him. He could have programmed us to love Him, but that’s not a free choice, so it’s not actually love.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:16 AM

You assume they’d be treated differently here. Has it ever been tested? Has there ever been a UFO-belivers vs. non-believers thread on HA?

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM

HA comments threads are hardly a representative sample of the scientific population. :-)

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Why don’t the pro-Darwinists just shake their heads condescendingly and lay out the evidence that proves beyond any possible doubt or argument that what they claim is true?

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:03 AM

They do, but creationists just keep coming back with, “what about the bacterial flagellum!” when its already been explained countless times how it can be reduced to its parts and those parts still have functions. They do, but creationists keep coming back with, “you can’t explain the blood clotting process!” when its been explained countless times.

If you want a good explanation for the wrongs of ID, just go watch Ken Miller, the star witness of the Dover trial who eviscerated Behe and Co on their signature arguments, the flagellum and blood clotting, etc…

Intelligent Design theorists argue that by analyzing a system, they can determine whether its natural structures are the product of ID. Not only is this scientifically unfeasible, it also discourages further research in cases where natural phenomena have been attributed to intelligent agency.

In other words, ID doesn’t go far enough scientifically and it never will. “Welp, this is all intelligently designed, yep, god did it!”

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Btw, skydaddy, since I live on the other side of the planet from most of the HA population I didn’t find your example paradox very paradoxical ;)

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM

You see the point, though? Another example is the wave-particle duality of light. For centuries light was known to be a wave. Then physicists observed it acting like a particle. How could such a thing be? They had to change their viewpoint – develop new mathematics. Once they did that, they opened up entirely new vistas of understanding.

That’s how paradox works: The evidence shows that both A and B are true.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

You see the point, though? Another example is the wave-particle duality of light. For centuries light was known to be a wave. Then physicists observed it acting like a particle. How could such a thing be? They had to change their viewpoint – develop new mathematics. Once they did that, they opened up entirely new vistas of understanding.

That’s how paradox works: The evidence shows that both A and B are true.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

I understand your point, but I see it as nothing but a weak attempt to distract from the incoherent nature of the Christian religion. Just more of the ‘God works in mysterious ways’ BS that’s been around for centuries.

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 9:27 AM

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

You’re oversimplifying and misconstruing the issues, exactly what you accuse “our side” of doing. I’ve listened to Miller, and I’ve noted Behe’s responses. Given that Behe has point-by-point refutations of Miller’s arguments (not to mention the fact that Miller didn’t actually address Behe’s core argument), I find Miller unpersuasive.

What Behe et al are saying is, “Gosh, some things in nature sure look like they were designed. Darwinian processes don’t seem to provide a good explanation, and there’s no strong, convincing evidence that they do. Maybe they were designed. Can we detect other examples of design in nature?”

The response of Miller et al is a collective, “Shut up. There is no design in nature. WE KNOW that modern complex life evolved from simple beginnings, because we have unshakable faith in the non-existence of design. There’s no such thing as irreducible complexity; it’s not a scientific concept.” (Never mind the fact that materialistic naturalism is a non-scientific concept as well.)

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I understand your point, but I see it as nothing but a weak attempt to distract from the incoherent nature of the Christian religion. Just more of the ‘God works in mysterious ways’ BS that’s been around for centuries.

DarkCurrent on June 5, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Christianity is actually quite coherent, which is why I decided years ago (after years of study and thought) that it was true.

It is internally consistent (does not contradict itself), externally verifiable (e.g., consistent with external reality, verified by sources outside itself), and – unlike EVERY other world religion – empirically falsifiable (find the body of Jesus of Nazareth, and the whole thing comes apart).

Yes, it has at its heart several paradoxes, but then why should the nature of Ultimate Reality be immediately and completely obvious to fragile, finite meat-sacks who eke out a brief existence on a (rather unusual, as far as we can tell) rock orbiting an unexceptional star in a ho-hum galaxy?

I find the attitude of, “‘God works in mysterious ways’ BS” to be laughably self-aggrandizing. BS? Really? So you think you are in a position to dictate to God how He should reveal himself? “Ant, meet boot.” Or more correctly: “Pot, meet Potter.”

When I became a parent, I came to understand God so much better. It’s no wonder He’s described as a Father in Scripture. The happy joy of a grubby smootch. The pain of a teenager’s angry rebellion. The quiet satisfaction of pride in a child’s accomplishments.

And how many times do parents do things that their children not only don’t understand, but cannot possibly understand?

Same with God.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:49 AM

However I do think that as long as this debate goes on, one’s views on the matter will be influenced by their already held beliefs that cannot be argued away, and in fact, that is one of the wonderful things about faith. That doesn’t mean, however, that those beliefs weren’t arrived at in a reasonable and logical way, whatever they may be. Even so, not everyone can simultaneously be right, so I suppose the debate will go on indefinitely.

rose-of-sharon on June 4, 2012 at 7:24 PM

The debate will go on as long as the religious devotees insist that empirical questions must be reduced to ‘belief’. There is no place in science for ‘belief’. The question of the origin and history of life on Earth is an empirical one, and to pretend that you know the answers is an absurd conceit.

Evolutionary theory is an century-and-a-half attempt to account for the evidence as it has been unfolding, including the growing (but always fragmentary) fossil record, the great diversity of life forms on the planet, the revelations of molecular biology and genetics, etc., etc. Despite the entertaining proclamations of some who like to spar with the religionists (like Richard Dawkins), evolutionary theory makes no reference to Christian or any other theology. Every new discovery, and every proposed hypothesis, leads to new questions, new avenues for research, and new discoveries. That is how science progresses.

The problem I have with the Creationists (of whatever stripe) is that they effectively short-circuit that process, by introducing a matter of belief, a Final Cause, a deus ex machina. They can’t seem to abide open questions. But it is the open questions that impel scientific inquiry and ultimately understanding forward.

How can we explain the plain evidence of the fossil record? There really is no competitor to the theory of Natural Selection that does not shut down the ongoing inquiry. Can we explain how every organism, every organ and every biological feature evolved? Of course not. But we can explain a lot of them, and the list grows longer every day.

Can we explain how life originated on Earth? No, but one day perhaps we will. That is, if the religionists do not stop science in its tracks.

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM

There is no place in science for ‘belief’.

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Tell that to all the “scientists” who explain irreducible complexity (among other things) with “It’s not irreducibly complex because I can imagine it could have happened”. That’s belief. That’s faith that if you can imagine a solution, it must be true.

Until someone reproduces macroevolution in the lab, macroevolution will remain a faith-based hypothesis.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Given that Behe has point-by-point refutations of Miller’s arguments (not to mention the fact that Miller didn’t actually address Behe’s core argument), I find Miller unpersuasive.

And did you look up the responses to the responses or just accept every point Behe gave because it supports your philosophical and theological viewpoint?

What Behe et al are saying is, “Gosh, some things in nature sure look like they were designed. Darwinian processes don’t seem to provide a good explanation, and there’s no strong, convincing evidence that they do. Maybe they were designed. Can we detect other examples of design in nature?”

It’s funny but it never ceases to amaze me how creationists and religionists always try to see design in nature to match up with their preconceived notions regarding god. “Look at the design in nature, the perfection of the eye, the gracefullness of the human hand, etc. It’s all just so perfect!”

What about the recurrent laryngeal nerve which connects the brain to the larynx? Was that designed by your creator too, cause it’s got a funny story that nerve. In every example of this nerve in all animals including humans, the nerve leaves the brain and passes right by the larynx, goes down the neck and into the chest cavity and loops around a major artery of the heart and comes all the way back up to the larynx. No intelligent designer would ever have designed it that way. Take for instance the giraffe whose recurrent laryngeal nerve travels about, I guess about what? 12 feet from it’s brain in its head down into the main body cavity, again wrapping around that same major artery (as in other animals) and going all the way back up the neck when the true distance between the brain and larynx of the giraffe is mere inches.

Some intelligent design that is skydaddy.

The response of Miller et al is a collective, “Shut up. There is no design in nature. WE KNOW that modern complex life evolved from simple beginnings, because we have unshakable faith in the non-existence of design. There’s no such thing as irreducible complexity; it’s not a scientific concept.” (Never mind the fact that materialistic naturalism is a non-scientific concept as well.) “When you can look at this stuff dispassionately and without any preconceived notions, especially not injecting theological suppositions into the mix, then you will be doing real science”

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 9:37 AM

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM

. . . Until someone reproduces macroevolution in the lab, macroevolution will remain a faith-based hypothesis.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM

A ‘faith-based hypothesis’ is an oxymoron. There is no such thing in science.

If not Natural Selection, how else would you explain the fossil record?

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM

No intelligent designer would ever have designed it that way. …

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Behe dealt with the Argument from Imperfection in his book. A. You have to psychoanalyze the designer in order to claim that it’s a bad design. There may be design objectives of which you are unaware due to imperfect knowledge of the system. B. It is possible to infer design without any knowledge of the motives of the designer.

As regards the pharangeal nerve looping around, let me tell you a true story.

A buddy of mine had a Triumph Spitfire. Nice little British sports car. One day the electrical system caught fire, as electrics-by-Lucas are wont to do.

So, being handy with the schematic and a soldering gun, he set about to rebuild the system. He’s working along, making good progress. The next thing on the schematic is a 5-ohm resistor between two points on the dash, call them Point A and Point B.

He locates Point A, goes down-under-behind and locates Point A on the back of the dash. There’s a wire to the firewall. He traces it. It comes out in the engine compartment, runs up to the front of the frame, loops around, and back to the firewall. Back under the dash, my buddy locates it and traces it to the back of the dashboard. It’s Point B.

He double-checks the schematic: Point A -> 5ohms -> Point B. he looks back at the car. About three meters of sixteen-gague, yeah, that’d be about five ohms of resistance.

Now, say what you like about British electrical engineers, but you can’t claim that the system wasn’t deliberately designed that way.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM

If not Natural Selection, how else would you explain the fossil record?

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Creatures suddenly appear fully formed, continue unchanged or with trivial variations for very long periods of time, then become extinct.

That is actually what the record shows. All the “natural selection” happens in the gaps.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

And it gets even worse, when you remember that they are counting on the 1/10 of a percent of genetic mutations that may arguably be beneficial, while ignoring that most of the mutations will either add no benefit or be actually harmful. By the time those few beneficial mutations have a chance to accumulate into a major new organism, the “new and improved” DNA would carry so many negative mutations that it would be much worse than the original.

Welcome to natural selection. Bad mutations by definition die off as that’s the only requirement for a mutation to be considered bad.

EvilCapitalist on June 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM

“When you can look at this stuff dispassionately and without any preconceived notions,

Such as the presupposition that all complex life evolved from simpler beginnings despite the lack of incontrovertible proof* to the contrary?

especially not injecting theological suppositions into the mix,

Such as the theological premise that the material world is all that exists?

then you will be doing real science”

As examples of “incontrovertible proof” let me suggest “true proven facts” such as:

The acceleration of gravity on earth is ~10m/s^2. You can test it yourself.

Salt water conducts electricity. You can test it yourself.

The earth is round. You can repeat Erasthones’ measurements yourself, or look at video shot by astronauts.

The planets circle the Sun. You can repeat the observations and double-check the calculations of Copernicus and Galileo.

All Darwinists have is a collection of evidence that they have arranged to fit their story. The evidence has more gaps than solid pieces, but we are asked to believe the story nonetheless.

And when we find evidence that doesn’t fit the story and ask, “might there be another story?” you don’t question the story. You deny that the evidence is evidence. You deny that any other story could be valid. You attack the person who presented the evidence and asked the question.

That’s not science. That’s a religious institution circling its wagons. The only difference between the modern Darwinist institution and the Inquisition is that the worst the Darwinists can do to heretics is blackball them from the profession.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 11:29 AM

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM

LOL! Really?

I get what you’re trying to do and it just doesn’t work skydaddy… The length of the laryngeal nerve just doesn’t equate to ohm resistance in a length of wiring in a Triumph Spitfire, it just doesn’t!

LMFAO!!!

There is no other use for the laryngeal nerve other than to connect the brain to the larynx, that is it. There is no reason for the nerve to travel say 18 feet or so down and up a giraffe’s neck to get to the larynx when the larynx is as I said a mere few inches from it’s origin point on the brain stem, it doesn’t branch off to connect to anything in the body cavity at all, and how do you explain the different lengths in other animals with more “normal” necks where the nerve travels way less than it does in the giraffe?

You’re grasping at straws and it shows.

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Such as the presupposition that all complex life evolved from simpler beginnings despite the lack of incontrovertible proof* to the contrary?

You should look up Jack Szostak at the Howard Hughes Medical Research Unit who’s doing the seminal work on this subject or how life was simpler and more primitive at first and eventually developed into the “complex” life we see today.

Such as the theological premise that the material world is all that exists?

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Do you have some proof to the contrary showing that there is anything other than the material world, other than theological suppositions and inanities?

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM

If not Natural Selection, how else would you explain the fossil record?

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Creatures suddenly appear fully formed, continue unchanged or with trivial variations for very long periods of time, then become extinct.

That is actually what the record shows. All the “natural selection” happens in the gaps.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Well now, that’s an interesting hypothesis. Of course all organisms that we know of are progeny of other organisms, so you are proposing that new ‘creatures’ appear sui generis, without any antecedents (parents). As this is contrary to our experience with all living creatures, it seems unlikely. Then the new creature, if it reproduces sexually, must have a mate, so at least two of the creatures must appear simultaneously. Has this ever been known to happen?

Furthermore, the fossil record in many instances shows a very clear progression from lower to higher strata of what appear to be ancestral forms, giving way over eons to more modern ones. Take a look at the fossil record of the horse and (by evolutionary theory) its ancestors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Under your hypothesis, Hyracotherium from the early Eocene had no genetic connection with its successor Mesohippus in the late Eocene, nor Mesohippus with its successors leading to the modern horse. Each variant, despite the clear evolutionary modifications in teeth, hooves, legs, etc. just ‘appeared’.

Now how, plausibly, could this have happened? Were they dropped from outer space? Did they emerge from the soil?

I will grant this hypothesis greater plausibility than the one I proposed in this thread a couple of days ago (that a demon on Arcturus actually created the Earth and all of us, including the fossil record, a couple of weeks ago), but not much greater. ;-)

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Take a look at the fossil record of the horse and (by evolutionary theory) its ancestors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

You can’t be serious. First and foremost, they’re all horses. Second, based on this same type of imagination, the modern wolf evolved from chihuahuas.

You’re totally missing the point, anyway, when you cite the evolution of a horse into another type of horse.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

You’re grasping at straws and it shows.

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Not at all.

YOU brought up the Argument from Poor Design (which is logically the same as an Argument from Incredulity, a fallacy), and I refuted it with a clear example of a designed system that was not “optimally” designed.

Ipso facto, the possible existence of a “more elegant design” does not mean that a given system (regardless of its inefficiency) was not in fact designed.

This is not complicated logic.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Do you have some proof to the contrary showing that there is anything other than the material world,

1. There are no naturally atheist human societies. Zero. it is the natural condition of Man to try to connect with the supernatural.

2. There is a region in the brain that lights up on an MRI when the subject is praying/meditating/whoo-hooing, regardless of religious faith.

3. The Euler Equation provides a nice tidy package of the five fundamental constants (0, 1, e, i, pi) and four fundamental operations (addition, multiplication, exponentiation, equality). e, and pi are irration numbers that go on forever after the decimal point without repeating. Yet, they are very useful for describing the real world. i is the square root of negative one, aka “the imaginary number” which cannot exist in reality, yet is indispensable for fractal mathematics, which describe the real world.

4. The human brain is finite, fragile, and fallible. Is it really logical to suppose that the finite, fragile, and fallible human brain is capable of apprehending, much less comprehending All Of Ultimate Reality?

The Greeks had a word for that: hubris.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

That is the nature of paradox: the evidence shows that A and B ARE true, but only by changing your point of view can you begin to understand how. You don’t abandon logic; far from it. But you DO have shift your viewpoint.

In order to understand how both statements can be true, you have to change your point of view.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 8:45 AM

.
I just started reading the newer comments, and THAT is a great analogy.

I’m stealing it. : )

listens2glenn on June 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

4. The human brain is finite, fragile, and fallible. Is it really logical to suppose that the finite, fragile, and fallible human brain is capable of apprehending, much less comprehending All Of Ultimate Reality?

The Greeks had a word for that: hubris.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

.
I believe Adam and Eve had the “capability of apprehending, and comprehending All Of Ultimate Reality”, before the fall.

The change in the earth’s environment after the flood meant exposure to short-wave radiation, and less oxygen saturation of our blood.
Definitely the reduced oxygen negatively affects the brain (big time), but I can’t confirm what the affect of the shortwave radiation would be to our brain. We certainly know it has a negative impact on the rest of the body, however.

listens2glenn on June 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

You can’t be serious. First and foremost, they’re all horses. Second, based on this same type of imagination, the modern wolf evolved from chihuahuas.

You’re totally missing the point, anyway, when you cite the evolution of a horse into another type of horse.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

So when does a ‘horse’ stop being a ‘horse’? Hyracotherium is widely thought to be an ancestor, or a close relative of an ancestor, of the modern horse, but it’s clearly a different species. There are possible animals ancestral to Hyracotherium, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenacodus Are they ‘horses’, too?

Taxonomy is intricately tied up with paleontology and evolutionary reconstruction. First you fellows dodge the question of ancestry by inventing spontaneous generation (no parents), then you dodge the question of speciation by giving every putative ancestor one name. This is sophomoric—and lazy.

MrLynn on June 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I’m not using the Argument from Incredulity, I’m not arguing with a fallacy and you provided an apples to oranges comparison that I already showed you was a false one. There is just no comparison between a Triumph Spitfire and the laryngeal nerve.

I suppose you’ll next claim that Evolution is as likely as a tornado swooping through a junkyard and assembling a 747 from all the junk?

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I’m stealing it. : )

listens2glenn on June 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Feel free! :-)

I don’t have a literal view of Genesis, so I’m not concerned about pre and post-Flood “stuff.” (I find the notion of several ancient large-scale, regional (but not global) floods pretty easy to square with both the physical evidence and with Scripture. Too much of what is called “creation science” IMO is bad science.) YMMV.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Taxonomy is intricately tied up with paleontology and evolutionary reconstruction.

Taxonomy is the arbitrary application of labels based on some observable or testable characteristics. There are many different definitions of species, some of which are mutually exclusive. (At one point I saw a biology website listing seventeen different definitions.)

One definition is, “members can inter-breed and produce fertile offspring” – they why are Canis lupus and Canis domesticus classed as separate species?

First you fellows dodge the question of ancestry by inventing spontaneous generation (no parents)

False. I never said that animals appear without parents. I said, “Creatures suddenly appear fully formed [in the fossil record].” Now please explain how this is different from Punctuated Equilibrium or Hopeful Monsters (both put forth by Darwinists to explain the fact that the fossil record comes nowhere close to confirming random-mutation-plus-natural-selection-over-time.)

So when does a ‘horse’ stop being a ‘horse’?

When does a pile of sand become a beach? Taxonomy is arbitrary.

I’m not using the Argument from Incredulity, I’m not arguing with a fallacy

LOL! Direct quote from you:

No intelligent designer would ever have designed it that way.

False.
That IS an argument from incredulity, almost by definition: “I don’t see how that could be so, therefore it isn’t so.” Feel free to look it up.

…and you provided an apples to oranges comparison that I already showed you was a false one. There is just no comparison between a Triumph Spitfire and the laryngeal nerve.

False again.

I provided a specifically analogous example: an electrical conduit taking a long path where a long path does not appear to be required.

You’re losing on points, my friend. :-)

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

And it gets even worse, when you remember that they are counting on the 1/10 of a percent of genetic mutations that may arguably be beneficial, while ignoring that most of the mutations will either add no benefit or be actually harmful. By the time those few beneficial mutations have a chance to accumulate into a major new organism, the “new and improved” DNA would carry so many negative mutations that it would be much worse than the original.

Welcome to natural selection. Bad mutations by definition die off as that’s the only requirement for a mutation to be considered bad.

EvilCapitalist on June 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Only if the bad mutations are bad enough to kill off every organism that has them, which would also kill off any beneficial mutations in those organisms. Natural selection is more like a club than a scalpel. It doesn’t filter out individual bad mutations while leaving the good ones. And since every individual with a good mutation is likely to have multiple bad mutations, natural selection will generally act to eliminate all mutations.

This is a good example of why evolution is postulated to be so slow. It doesn’t depend just on beneficial mutations. It depends on beneficial mutations that are not linked to any bad mutations.

tom on June 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM

This is a good example of why evolution is postulated to be so slow. It doesn’t depend just on beneficial mutations. It depends on beneficial mutations that are not linked to any bad mutations.

tom on June 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Except that the fossil record shows that it’s not slow. Great changes happen very quickly – too quickly for the transition forms to be preserved, because, um, you know, fossils are really really rare. And, uh, maybe there were a whole bunch of changes at once (completely by accident, of course.)

Because if you don’t believe in evolution you’re a dangerous anti-science fundamentalist! Or something like that.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Except that the fossil record shows that it’s not slow. Great changes happen very quickly – too quickly for the transition forms to be preserved, because, um, you know, fossils are really really rare. And, uh, maybe there were a whole bunch of changes at once (completely by accident, of course.)

Because if you don’t believe in evolution you’re a dangerous anti-science fundamentalist! Or something like that.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

It’s always very slow. Too slow to be observed.

Except, of course, when it must have happened very rapidly — too rapidly to be observed, or to have left any trace.

On thing is for sure, though. Natural selection is a very slow process taking generations, If it’s part of the process of evolution, then evolution can’t occur too quickly.

tom on June 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

There are many different definitions of species, some of which are mutually exclusive. (At one point I saw a biology website listing seventeen different definitions.)

One definition is, “members can inter-breed and produce fertile offspring” – they why are Canis lupus and Canis domesticus classed as separate species?

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

This is one of my favorite points.

I recall a discussion where someone said cited an example where a single mosquito colony split into two, and due to mutations, the second colony could no longer produce offspring with the first. This, he said, is called speciation and proves evolution.

Then when I pointed out that you can cross a lion with a tiger — two animals with more differences than two mosquitoes from the same colony — and get an offspring, he said that’s possible because they have a common ancestor, which proves evolution.

So when two species can not produce offspring, that’s proof of evolution. And when two species can produce offspring, that’s proof of evolution. Therefore all evidence is proof of evolution because the evolutionist interprets all evidence as proof of evolution.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

LMFAO! I’m not losing any points skydaddy. You are, you just don’t see it that way, of course.

You didn’t provide me with a specifically analogous example, because not all cars take the same circuitous route to transfer electricity that the Triumph Spitfire does.

The difference, my friend, is that not all models of cars take that same route. In all animals the laryngeal nerve takes the same route where the laryngeal nerve starts at the brain and goes down into the body of the animal, circles around the aorta, and goes back up to the larynx. This is an example of common descent, not intelligent design.

The other difference is that a car is clearly a designed artifact made my animals, while animals are not made by animals, they’re procreated by animals and the only “designing” going on is at the time of conception when mother and fathers chromosomes link up.

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 2:16 PM

In other words skydaddy, if some animals had a laryngeal nerve that went straight from the brain to the larynx, and all other animals had a laryngeal nerve that DIDN’T, then you might have a point.

But the reality we see, which is that the laryngeal nerve always starts at the brain, goes around the aorta in the body of these animals, and then back to the larynx is proof positive that we all share a common ancestor because the “code” for the creation of the laryngeal nerve is the same in every animals DNA.

THAT’S common descent, not intelligent design.

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM

By the way, Steven Hawking said, “the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…”

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

But the reality we see, which is that the laryngeal nerve always starts at the brain, goes around the aorta in the body of these animals, and then back to the larynx is proof positive that we all share a common ancestor because the “code” for the creation of the laryngeal nerve is the same in every animals DNA.

THAT’S common descent, not intelligent design.

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM

The blueprints for a car are similar to the blueprints for a truck. That’s common design, not descent. In other words, all designers reuse what works. Including the Designer of life on earth.

It’s all in the interpretation.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Therefore all evidence is proof of evolution because the evolutionist interprets all evidence as proof of evolution.

The Rogue Tomato on June 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM

BINGO!

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Changing arguments because you’re losing, eh? :-)

Your initial argument was that the nerve could not have been designed because “No intelligent designer would ever have designed it that way.” I refuted that with a clearly designed system with a precise analogue – a seemingly-unneeded long circuit path.

So now you change horses – or giraffes, as the case may be. You originally said this:

how do you explain the different lengths in other animals with more “normal” necks where the nerve travels way less than it does in the giraffe?

But now you say this:

In all animals the laryngeal nerve takes the same route where the laryngeal nerve starts at the brain and goes down into the body of the animal, circles around the aorta, and goes back up to the larynx.

Emphasis added. Which is it? I make no claims of expertise in comparative anatomy, but it seems clear that different lengths in other animals with more “normal” necks is very different than In all animals the laryngeal nerve takes the same route w. Pretty much the opposite.

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

However, let’s try a little thought experiment. (You Darwinists are madly fond of them.)

Suppose a massive L.A. mudslide buries Jay Leno’s garage, and a million years in the future it is excavated. Among the cars it will be noted that there are many, many common structural elements: four tires, internal-combustion engine in the front, a steering wheel provided for only one seat, and so forth.

This is an example of common descent, not intelligent design.

Right?

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM

In other words, all designers reuse what works.

Heck, they even re-use stuff that doesn‘t work. *koff* Windows *koff*

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM

The New Testament teaches more than that “God” created everything — its writers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, state that Jesus (as God) created everything, and sustains the universe.

Yes, the same Jesus who spent His first hours in a stable, and who ate, slept, cried, died and rose again from the dead — created everything that is.

“All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” — John 1:3

For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers, all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.” — Colossians 1:16-17

That is the standard to which Bible-believing Christians must hold: It isn’t enough to proclaim that the universe was created by “God” — we must narrow that name to mean Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible.

KyMouse on June 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM

KyMouse on June 5, 2012 at 2:47 PM

One step at a time. First we have to get folks to allow the possibility that the universe just didn’t happen by itself, completely by accident. ;-)

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Skydaddy, we must be clear about what we believe, in whom we believe, and why. Otherwise, people will think we mean that we’re all talking about the same “God.” We aren’t, and being clear is crucial. We aren’t talking about some impersonal life force, for example.

You said you don’t have a literal view of Genesis; what about those verses, Colossians 1:16-17 and John 1:3? The writers are emphatic about Jesus’ role as Creator. Clearly they mean that we are to take their claims literally –

“…by Him were all things created…and by Him all things hold together…”

KyMouse on June 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM

KyMouse, I believe with all my heart that John was speaking truthfully when he said that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things were made, and nothing that was made was made without Him.” The Risen Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, has certainyl changed my life.

I also believe – without contradiction – that the beginning of Genesis was never meant to be taken as a literal eyewitness account of Creation. It is structured as poetry – as a call-and-response liturgy, really. You can easily imagine it as a children’s puppet show, designed to teach that God is responsible for the world, and the sun and moon, the stars, the air we breathe, and every living thing.

The Church understood that clearly for nearly two thousand years.

It was only with the rise of the Fundamentalist movement in America in the mid-1800s – spurred on by atheists’ gleeful seizing on Darwin as “a weapon with which to finally kill God” – that large numbers of believers became extremely vocal about insisting on a literal six-day creation in the recent past.

And my fellow-worker in Christ, I believe that has been a grave error on the part of the church. It isn’t where people came from that’s the issue. It’s where they’re going. People are dying and going to Hell every day, and we’re arguing about the age of rocks?!?! Whatever happened to the Rock of Ages?

How does the old hymn go? “My hope is built on nothing less / Than the first chapter of Genesis.” Hm? Not in my book. “Jesus’ blood and righteousness,” remember? And that has NOTHING to do whether Gen 1 is a literal or allegorical account.

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

skydaddy on June 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I haven’t changed the argument at all my friend. It appears you’re appearing to make it as if I have though.

In your example “showing” that I changed the argument you appear to have overlooked some things. In the first sentence you pointed out and bolded the following as if it was somehow different than what I said in the second… Not true.

You first bolded “different lengths in other animals with more “normal” necks” and then bolded this from the second, “In all animals the laryngeal nerve takes the same route” AS IF THEY SOMEHOW CONTRADICT EACH OTHER?

I don’t see how they do. The first sentence doesn’t contradict the second because whether your neck is 6 inches, or 8 feet as in the giraffe, it still goes from your brain, down your neck into your main body cavity and circles around the aorta, and then comes back up to the larynx. In ALL animals it does this, the giraffe is just the most extreme length and a perfect example to show that the path was inherited from a common ancestor with the rest of the animal kingdom. This can be nothing more than proof of common descent.

Your LA mudslide thought experiment is an example of intelligent design with common descent. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on June 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12