In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

[TLK Valentine]

God isn't something you escape:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)​

Believe what you like, reality isn't a matter of opinion.

Have a nice day
Mark

Then why not post reality, instead of opinion?

 

[MennoSota]

There is no such thing as "our or your" truth no matter how much you wish there was.

As the man Daniel Patrick Moynihan said:
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless says the Preacher...

 

[JacksBratt]

I wanted to point something out.

Creation/Evolution Gallop Poll

In 1982 44% responded the God created man pretty much in their present form. In 2014 is as 42% which doesn't reflect much variance at all while 'God had no part' crowd doubled while the 'guided evolution' crowd lost by nearly the same percentage the 'God had no part' crowd. I think it's obvious what's going on here, 'guided evolution' is transitioning into the exclusively naturalistic camp.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Could this be a result of the kids in school being immersed in the brainwashing of evolution, combined with the belief that God is creator?

The result would be that the school tells them that evolution is a "fact" while the Bible tells us that God created everything. The product would be theistic evolution. A compromise of the Bible and the school curriculum.

 

[bhsmte]

Could this be a result of the kids in school being immersed in the brainwashing of evolution, combined with the belief that God is creator?

The result would be that the school tells them that evolution is a "fact" while the Bible tells us that God created everything. The product would be theistic evolution. A compromise of the Bible and the school curriculum.

Or maybe, it is the result of students being educated on the mountains of evidence for evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

Could this be a result of the kids in school being immersed in the brainwashing of evolution, combined with the belief that God is creator?

The result would be that the school tells them that evolution is a "fact" while the Bible tells us that God created everything. The product would be theistic evolution. A compromise of the Bible and the school curriculum.

Generally the Supreme Court and public policy reflect a consensus but with regards to Creationism and Intelligent Design the only concensus that matter is the one among Harvard and Yale Ivy League elitists. This statistic should be telling us something:

Should evolution be taught in the public schools? 61% said yes 20% said no and 19% said not sure.
Should Creationism be taught 54% said yes, 22% said no and 23% said unsure.
Should Intelligent design 43% yes, 21% said no, 35% said unsure. 2005 Aug 8-11
​

Most scientists and academics are down right hateful toward Creationism in spite of the fact that demographically there is a balanced mix of views on the subject of origins. This is part of a far larger social and legal agenda called the culture war, with the Gay marriage decision Scallia wrote a blistering dissent that goes strait to the heart of the matter:

Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. Scalia's Full Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
​

The fact is that Creationism, Darwinism and Intelligent Design are all views of at the end product of science, rarely are they in conflict over the content of the actual evidence. What is at stake here is the implication of scientific research regarding comparative anatomy, genomics and fossilized relics. The atheist and agnostic insist that you must conform to their views or the scientific and academic world is pitted against you. That has never been a valid test for the truth, just one of the many dangers of power and it's abuse:

"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy." Scalia
​

By making it their own private domain the elite academic and scientific power mongers are doing the same thing to science by insisting all evidence must conform to the naturalistic presuppositions except the brain washing has a tendency to wear off and God hasn't left the throne.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Or maybe, it is the result of students being educated on the mountains of evidence for evolution.

Not once have a heard an evolutionist honestly admit the scientific definition for evolution. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time and something no creationist is opposed to. What you are debating and discussing is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. Calling it evolution is an equivocation fallacy since it blends two very different things and pretends the are the same thing. It is disingenuous at best.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[bhsmte]

Not once have a heard an evolutionist honestly admit the scientific definition for evolution. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time and something no creationist is opposed to. What you are debating and discussing is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. Calling it evolution is an equivocation fallacy since it blends to very different things and pretends the are the same thing. It is disingenuous at best.

Have a nice day
Mark

Uh huh.

You have a nice day too.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, just to the subject of origins,

Why only the subject of origins?

gravity is a matter of providence.

Why can't evolution be a matter of providence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Compromise with atheistic materialism, that's what I mean.

Guided evolution is not a compromise with atheistic materialism.

I'm not the one who polarized the topic but if you don't sell out to the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism you are considered a fool or something worse.

What assumptions?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not once have a heard an evolutionist honestly admit the scientific definition for evolution. It's the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time and something no creationist is opposed to.

You are opposed to mutations changing alleles.

What you are debating and discussing is the a priori assumption of universal common descent . . .

Universal common descent is a conclusion drawn from evidence, not an assumption.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang.

If the universe was created and the first life was created, nothing in the theory of evolution would need to change.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why only the subject of origins?

Because it's transcendent.

Why can't evolution be a matter of providence?

Again you want to equivocate to meanings for the word, evolution in the sense you are using it is really two things. One is the phenomenon in nature by which traits change in populations over time. The other is a philosophy of natural history that assumes a priori universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Adaptive evolution is providence but it's provided at creation and evolution follows.

You are opposed to mutations changing alleles.

I'm opposed to equivocating adaptive traits with genetic mutations.

Universal common descent is a conclusion drawn from evidence, not an assumption.

It is clearly presupposition, transcendent which explains why you seldom need or even know the evidence.

If the universe was created and the first life was created, nothing in the theory of evolution would need to change.

Except that creation in the Hebrew means creation from nothing, something only God can do and never does throw a secondary source.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Generally the Supreme Court and public policy reflect a consensus but with regards to Creationism and Intelligent Design the only concensus that matter is the one among Harvard and Yale Ivy League elitists.

That is completely false. Evolution is allowed to be taught because it has a secular use. Evolution is the theory used in biology. It is the theory that any student acquiring a higher degree in biology must understand.

On the flip side, no scientist uses ID/creationism to do scientific research. There is no secular reason to teach creationism. The only reason for teaching creationism is evangelism.

Most scientists and academics are down right hateful toward Creationism in spite of the fact that demographically there is a balanced mix of views on the subject of origins.

They dislike creationists. Why? Because they seek to undermine science education in the name of a misguided theology.

The fact is that Creationism, Darwinism and Intelligent Design are all views of at the end product of science, rarely are they in conflict over the content of the actual evidence.

Only evolution is scientific, which is why it is taught in science class. It is also the only one that scientists actually use. If creationists are able to apply creationism in a scientific manner and demonstrate that it has scientific merit, then it can be taught in public schools. Until then, it is just religion.

What is at stake here is the implication of scientific research regarding comparative anatomy, genomics and fossilized relics. The atheist and agnostic insist that you must conform to their views or the scientific and academic world is pitted against you.

No, they don't. There are tens of thousands of biologists who accept evolution, and are also theists. This has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because it's transcendent.

How is gravity not transcendent?

Again you want to equivocate to meanings for the word,

No, that is what you are doing.

evolution in the sense you are using it is really two things. One is the phenomenon in nature by which traits change in populations over time.

And we observe that they change due to mutation.

The other is a philosophy of natural history that assumes a priori universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

That is not an assumption. That is a conclusion drawn from evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity

Adaptive evolution is providence but it's provided at creation and evolution follows.

Evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I got something far different. I saw the poll as showing the youth are being brainwashed and told that evolution is a fact, when it is not,

Until you back this claim with evidence, the rest of your argument has nothing to stand on.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is completely false. Evolution is allowed to be taught because it has a secular use. Evolution is the theory used in biology. It is the theory that any student acquiring a higher degree in biology must understand.

Back to your old trolling tactics I see. It doesn't matter what the content is as long as you can feign some bogus indignation. It's melodrama, nothing more. If you want to claim something is false then prove it before you start begging the question of proof on your hands and knees with these pointless rants.

On the flip side, no scientist uses ID/creationism to do scientific research. There is no secular reason to teach creationism. The only reason for teaching creationism is evangelism.

Creationism is a digest of the scientific product, rarely are creationists and darwinians in conflict with regards to what the evidence actually is. The reason creationism is rejected isn't based on merit it's based on the nature of the cause, God is creator and designer. BTW I have never advocated teaching creationism in the public schools and I'm opposed to Darwinian logic because if you can't argue for creation you should not be allowed to argue against it.

They dislike creationists. Why? Because they seek to undermine science education in the name of a misguided theology.

You know less about theology then you do about science and that is a lot. This is more then theology or doctrine, this is at the heart of Christian theism, creation is inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth and a list of promises in the Gospel. What you do or do not believe matters.

Only evolution is scientific, which is why it is taught in science class. It is also the only one that scientists actually use. If creationists are able to apply creationism in a scientific manner and demonstrate that it has scientific merit, then it can be taught in public schools. Until then, it is just religion.

It's always religion since it invokes God as cause.

No, they don't. There are tens of thousands of biologists who accept evolution, and are also theists. This has nothing to do with atheism.

It isn't discernibly different from the atheistic materialism of Darwinism. That's why you are seeing the guided evolution crowd drift into the exclusively naturalistic group, it's one step removed.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

How is gravity not transcendent?

It transcends mass, not all reality.

No, that is what you are doing.

No that's what we are doing, a priori reasoning has never been pejorative. Ever read Kant?

And we observe that they change due to mutation.

Change is inevitable, it is stasis that is rare. Most of the change with an effect from mutations is deleterious. If you bothered to read the scientific research you pretend to defend you would know that by now and should.

That is not an assumption. That is a conclusion drawn from evidence.

Talk Origins argues from evidence, you do not.

Evidence?

You went from pedantic one liners and spam posting to one word retorts. We are swimming in evidence and you are ignoring virtually all of it.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Back to your old trolling tactics I see. It doesn't matter what the content is as long as you can feign some bogus indignation. It's melodrama, nothing more. If you want to claim something is false then prove it before you start begging the question of proof on your hands and knees with these pointless rants.

Do you have no sense of irony?

Notice how all you do is troll and refuse to address my posts.

Creationism is a digest of the scientific product, rarely are creationists and darwinians in conflict with regards to what the evidence actually is. The reason creationism is rejected isn't based on merit it's based on the nature of the cause, God is creator and designer.

That is false. For example, creationism can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy. Evolution can explain it, which is why evolution is the theory that scientists use.

BTW I have never advocated teaching creationism in the public schools and I'm opposed to Darwinian logic because if you can't argue for creation you should not be allowed to argue against it.

Who is stopping your from arguing for creationism? Who is stopping anyone from arguing for creationism?

What you seem to ignore is that those arguments have failed because they don't explain the evidence.

You know less about theology then you do about science and that is a lot. This is more then theology or doctrine, this is at the heart of Christian theism, creation is inextricably linked to the Incarnation, Resurrection and new birth and a list of promises in the Gospel. What you do or do not believe matters.

What we do or do not believe has no bearing on the science.

It isn't discernibly different from the atheistic materialism of Darwinism. That's why you are seeing the guided evolution crowd drift into the exclusively naturalistic group, it's one step removed.

Guided evolution is discernibly different from the scientific theory of evolution. Guided evolution would not produce genetic drift, for example. Guided evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy, as another example. It is different from the theory of evolution in every way.

 

[Loudmouth]

It transcends mass, not all reality.

How does evolution transcend all reality?

No that's what we are doing, a priori reasoning has never been pejorative. Ever read Kant?

It isn't an assumption, no matter how many times you try to troll us. Universal common descent is a CONCLUSION, not an assumption. Until you learn the difference from the two, you are just trolling.

Change is inevitable, it is stasis that is rare. Most of the change with an effect from mutations is deleterious.

And some of them are beneficial, and it is those mutations that are selected for. The negative mutations are selected against. That's how natural selection works.

If you bothered to read the scientific research you pretend to defend you would know that by now and should.

I have no problem with beneficial mutations being rare.

Talk Origins argues from evidence, you do not.

That is trolling. I have presented the evidence to you on multiple occasions now.

You went from pedantic one liners and spam posting to one word retorts. We are swimming in evidence and you are ignoring virtually all of it.

Have a nice day
Mark

That is trolling.

 

[Ronald]

"More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

That's interesting because I was under the impression that half of Christians believed in theistic-evolution. Polls would also tell you something that I do not believe is true, that 80% of Americans call themselves Christian, when only half of them truly follow and believe in Christ. Probably the 42% are the actual true born again Christians and the rest just are the luke warm folks who may not have even read the Bible, only bits and pieces of it, choosing the verses they like and discard the rest. They've probably never attended a good church for any length of time or maybe were just forced into it by their parents and it never really stuck with them, but still they hold onto this association with Christ. OK, that's still better than being against Christ but in many ways they are against him and they don't realize it. Or maybe they are on the fence and on God's list and when the time comes, He will draw them back?
I think the Liberals are an example of these, people who advocate abortion, gay marriage, socialism, big government, etc.
Anyways, that cleared up my misconception about theistic-evolutionists. I just can't understand how a true Christian can misunderstand Genesis and then distort it to fit into Neo-Darwinian Evolution and their fraudulent dating methods.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's interesting because I was under the impression that half of Christians believed in theistic-evolution. Polls would also tell you something that I do not believe is true, that 80% of Americans call themselves Christian, when only half of them truly follow and believe in Christ. Probably the 42% are the actual true born again Christians and the rest just are the luke warm folks who may not have even read the Bible, only bits and pieces of it, choosing the verses they like and discard the rest. They've probably never attended a good church for any length of time or maybe were just forced into it by their parents and it never really stuck with them, but still they hold onto this association with Christ. OK, that's still better than being against Christ but in many ways they are against him and they don't realize it. Or maybe they are on the fence and on God's list and when the time comes, He will draw them back?
I think the Liberals are an example of these, people who advocate abortion, gay marriage, socialism, big government, etc.
Anyways, that cleared up my misconception about theistic-evolutionists. I just can't understand how a true Christian can misunderstand Genesis and then distort it to fit into Neo-Darwinian Evolution and their fraudulent dating methods.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

If you insist that the Bible must be interpreted literally, I think that would suit most atheists. Such a Bible is easily proven to be false. Your choice.