Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design-Gallup Poll

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Seems to be good news for science. And given that conservative Protestant Christian denominations are now declining in numbers, that trend is likely to continue.​

Sure, if you equivocate science with the naturalistic assumptions of atheism.

No. Rather, you are conflating the unorthodox ideas of creationism with Christianity.

Belief in God is steadily declining as well:

And has been for a few decades. It pretty much tracks the rise of modern creationism. For obvious reasons. If people think that Christianity requires creationism, thinking people will assume that it is a false religion.

This is the real danger of creationism; it's a powerful atheist-maker.

 

[mark kennedy]

Barbarian observes:
Seems to be good news for science. And given that conservative Protestant Christian denominations are now declining in numbers, that trend is likely to continue.​

No. Rather, you are conflating the unorthodox ideas of creationism with Christianity.

You mean like the Nicene Creed, John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 5 that explicitly describe God as Creator? It's not just Creation, its any hint of God acting in time and space.

And has been for a few decades. It pretty much tracks the rise of modern creationism. For obvious reasons. If people think that Christianity requires creationism, thinking people will assume that it is a false religion.

As usual, you are barely making a statement, it's fallacious, and not one positive thing to say about the Christian faith. Creationism is an evidential apologetics effort that simply rose up against Darwinian atheistic materialism after decades of constant siege. BTW, the culture wars are over, look around, the creationists are have left the theater. Your performing to rows of empty seats.

This is the real danger of creationism; it's a powerful atheist-maker.

Ok, so now defending the clear testimony of Scripture and the miracles of redemptive history is an atheist maker while defending Darwinism as an article of faith is a much better way for Christians to behave themselves.

I'm so glad this controversy is dead.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

You mean like the Nicene Creed, John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 5 that explicitly describe God as Creator? It's not just Creation, its any hint of God acting in time and space.

You are conflating Creation and Creationism yet again

 

[KWCrazy]

Even worse, many Christians have come to believe them and adopted a position that is not only anti-atheist, but anti-science as well, because they have come to equate science with atheism.

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. It can neither confirm nor deny the supernatural creation of the universe in six days. It can neither confirm nor deny the supernatural special creation of man. Science can, however, be misapplied to promote an agenda by those for whom naturalism is the only acceptable world view. Science is only a tool which can be used for good or for evil.

 

[gluadys]

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural. It can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. It can neither confirm nor deny the supernatural creation of the universe in six days. It can neither confirm nor deny the supernatural special creation of man. Science can, however, be misapplied to promote an agenda by those for whom naturalism is the only acceptable world view. Science is only a tool which can be used for good or for evil.

It is essential for Christians to oppose a view (sometimes called "naturalism", sometimes "materialism", sometimes "atheism") which denies the reality of a divine Creator.

But there is no need to oppose science in the name of opposing those philosophies. Science is misused when called on to support those philosophies. Scripture is misused when called on to support a view incompatible with science.

You are conflating science with a philosophy of naturalism. That leads to throwing out the baby (science) with the bathwater (philosophy).

 

[KWCrazy]

You are conflating science with a philosophy of naturalism. That leads to throwing out the baby (science) with the bathwater (philosophy).

Not at all. I have a deep abiding respect for science. I think it's a shame that it gets trashed by the unsaved and contorted into something which it is not. We can learn a great deal by studying the world around us. We've learned how to communicate with others when we don't even speak the same language. We've learned how to fly all over the world safely and how to prolong life by decades. We've learned to improve the quality of life and increase our free time through greater productivity. These are the things we can learn through science. We can also learn how cells work, how viruses mutate and how to heal many human maladies.

That said, people with an agenda attempt to use science to disprove the uncompromising truth of the Scriptures. They say that the six day creation is a myth, that the great Flood never happened, and that most of the miracles in the Bible are just stories to entertain. Again, science cannot disprove the supernatural creation of anything. What science DOES prove is that ALL theories of the natural auto-creation of the universe without the hand of God is an absolute impossibility. Science is not God. With science, if something is impossible it cannot be done. With God, all things are possible.

 

[gluadys]

Not at all. I have a deep abiding respect for science. I think it's a shame that it gets trashed by the unsaved and contorted into something which it is not. We can learn a great deal by studying the world around us. We've learned how to communicate with others when we don't even speak the same language. We've learned how to fly all over the world safely and how to prolong life by decades. We've learned to improve the quality of life and increase our free time through greater productivity. These are the things we can learn through science. We can also learn how cells work, how viruses mutate and how to heal many human maladies.

So far, so good.

That said, people with an agenda attempt to use science to disprove the uncompromising truth of the Scriptures. They say that the six day creation is a myth, that the great Flood never happened,

IOW, you totally lose your deep and abiding respect for science when respecting science means you have to toss out one particular, sectarian way of interpreting scripture.

It is the very same science you describe in your first paragraph which confirms the great flood was not world-wide, that the time from the beginning of the earth to the world we know complete with fruit trees and domestic animals was much, much more than six days.

There is no respect for either science or scripture in insisting that your interpretation of scripture is so sacrosanct that you must simply close the door on science and say the rapid creation of the modern world (by which I mean the world as it has been within the last 10,000 years or so) and a world-wide flood were produced by miracles, including the miracle of erasing all evidence of said miracle and replacing it with evidence to the contrary.

It is clearly not respectful of science, but it is not respectful of scripture either for it makes the God of scripture into a charlatan.

and that most of the miracles in the Bible are just stories to entertain. Again, science cannot disprove the supernatural creation of anything. What science DOES prove is that ALL theories of the natural auto-creation of the universe without the hand of God is an absolute impossibility. Science is not God. With science, if something is impossible it cannot be done. With God, all things are possible.

Science make no claim about the nature of the Biblical stories. I certainly don't believe the early chapters of Genesis or other miracle stories in the bible are nothing more than entertainment. There is serious teaching in these stories, teachings much more important that when or in what form the earth first came into being or what the actual extent of a flood was.

You are correct to say science cannot disprove the supernatural creation of anything. But that gives us no right to say that what science does prove is illusory. Science does not prove that God is necessary to the existence of the universe, for it cannot prove anything about God, either positive or negative. So, nothing science can prove makes God unnecessary either. Science cannot say anything is impossible, but it can say some things are impossible within the limitations of natural events. In and of itself however, that is not a licence to jump to a supernatural explanation without a rational warrant for doing do. Merely defending literalism is not, IMHO, a sufficient warrant for raising the "miracle" flag.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are conflating Creation and Creationism yet again

No, your equivocating evolution and science with Darwinism again. Creationism is based on the doctrine of creation which is essential doctrine, not subject to modernist interpretations. Creationism is the evidential apologetics effort intended to relate the scientific evidence to Christian theism, it's based on the doctrine as that foundational premise. I have always maintained that distinction because of the central importance of Creation to the historicity of Scripture and the promise of new birth in the Gospel. To worship Christ as Savior is to worship him as Creator and you know it:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed)

 

[KWCrazy]

IOW, you totally lose your deep and abiding respect for science when respecting science means you have to toss out one particular, sectarian way of interpreting scripture.

I believe you meant to say that pigs are really donkey's with curly tails. I can't take what you wrote as representative of your true intent because that's just one rigid literal way of interpreting things.

Reading things as they are written is not subjective sectarian interpretation. It is simply taking the meaning of the words as they are written in context. I interpret the Scriptures the same way that Jesus did; as the inspired word of God; worthy of instruction. Most of us regard the Ten Commandments as the basis of modern Christianity. That includes the fourth Commandment where God Himself inscribed on a stone tablet that He made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. That IS what the Scriptures actually teach. anything else is false doctrine.

It is the very same science you describe in your first paragraph which confirms the great flood was not world-wide, that the time from the beginning of the earth to the world we know complete with fruit trees and domestic animals was much, much more than six days.

Sorry, it does no such thing.
Science is the study of the physical world around us. Science does not study the past. Geology looks at formations and the composition of rocks and makes assumptions which are not provable because they cannot be tested. Archaeology studies lost civilizations for information about those who lived before us. These fields offer clues into what happened earlier in our existence, but beyond offering theories about what might have happened science can prove nothing about that which it cannot study.

The thing is, Jesus was there. If it were not true He would have told us. Instead He told us to trust in the Scriptures, not the teachings of man.

There is no respect for either science or scripture in insisting that your interpretation of scripture is so sacrosanct that you must simply close the door on science and say the rapid creation of the modern world (by which I mean the world as it has been within the last 10,000 years or so) and a world-wide flood were produced by miracles, including the miracle of erasing all evidence of said miracle and replacing it with evidence to the contrary.

You DO realize that there is no evidence for miracles, right?
Miracles are supernatural. They defy science. Freezing time for a day is a miracle. You won't find a scientific explanation for it. Jesus walking on water was a miracle. You can't replicate it or falsify it. The great flood was a supernatural act. Amazingly, though, its doubters claim that it was a local flood; that low lying ground with immediate run-off to the sea somehow produced the kind of flood described in Genesis. Now THAT would be a miracle!

It is clearly not respectful of science, but it is not respectful of scripture either for it makes the God of scripture into a charlatan.

Only to those who call His word mythology and lies. Personally, I'll stick with the word of God, but you you can trust Bill Nye if you prefer.

I certainly don't believe the early chapters of Genesis or other miracle stories in the bible are nothing more than entertainment. There is serious teaching in these stories, teachings much more important that when or in what form the earth first came into being or what the actual extent of a flood was.

Agreed. The biggest thing that they teach us is that God is Lord; not subject to natural law. He froze time for a day because He could. He made the universe in six days and used it as a model for the behavior of man.

But that gives us no right to say that what science does prove is illusory.

Science doesn't deal with proof. Science doesn't prove anything.

Science cannot say anything is impossible, but it can say some things are impossible within the limitations of natural events. In and of itself however, that is not a licence to jump to a supernatural explanation without a rational warrant for doing do.

To me, the word of God is warrant enough. Having personal knowledge of things which naturalists would claim to be impossible, I know that God is Lord of the impossible. If God said He froze the sun in the sky for a day, then it happened. Period. God doesn't lie.

 

[Erth]

There is no contradiction between the statements "God created humans in their present form" and "Humans evolved, God guiding".

God created humans in their present form, meaning God made humans what they are. But there is no contradiction between that and evolution guided by God.

I find the poll to be useless and hence I will not vote.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is no contradiction between the statements "God created humans in their present form" and "Humans evolved, God guiding".

God created humans in their present form, meaning God made humans what they are. But there is no contradiction between that and evolution guided by God.

I find the poll to be useless and hence I will not vote.

There is a profound difference between Adam being created and evolving from apes, there can be no question about that. That is the whole basis for the Creation, Evolution controversy in the first place. God is no where described as the Guider, God is worshiped and praised for being the Creator.

 

[theFijian]

There is a profound difference between Adam being created and evolving from apes, there can be no question about that. That is the whole basis for the Creation, Evolution controversy in the first place. God is no where described as the Guider, God is worshiped and praised for being the Creator.

You're correct, 'guide' is the wrong word, 'sustain' is better Biblically.

 

[theFijian]

You are conflating Creation and Creationism yet again

And conflating accepting the current theory of evolution (branded Darwinism for extra effect) with atheism. It's what his what his whole shtick stands or falls on. He has to keep pushing this erroneous conflation otherwise his whole argument goes nowhere.

 

[mark kennedy]

You're correct, 'guide' is the wrong word, 'sustain' is better Biblically.

God as 'sustainer' is used in tandem with, not in counter distinction to 'Creator'. Just to be clear, you do know that a miracle cannot be a naturalistic cause and effect chain right? A miracle and a naturally occurring phenomenon are two different things, I just want to clarify this before it starts going in circles.

 

[mark kennedy]

And conflating accepting the current theory of evolution (branded Darwinism for extra effect) with atheism. It's what his what his whole shtick stands or falls on. He has to keep pushing this erroneous conflation otherwise his whole argument goes nowhere.

Define evolution scientifically. Not your opinion but how is it determined based on direct observation or empirical demonstration? I'm not the one conflating this issue, Darwinians are the ones confusing the issue by equivocating evolution with an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I didn't define Darwinism, Charles Darwin did and you don't get to equate evolution with an unproven presupposition.

Let me ask you a better question, are miracles and naturally occurring phenomenon discernibly different or, are they the same thing? If there is a difference then what are the characteristics and indicators you can reasonably use to determine a distinction?

It's called equivocation if you equate two different things, so are they two different things or not?

 

[gluadys]

Define evolution scientifically. Not your opinion but how is it determined based on direct observation or empirical demonstration? I'm not the one conflating this issue, Darwinians are the ones confusing the issue by equivocating evolution with an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I didn't define Darwinism, Charles Darwin did and you don't get to equate evolution with an unproven presupposition.

There is no a priori assumption of universal common descent.

Universal common descent is:
1) an inevitable logical conclusion from the theory of evolution, and
2) a conclusion justified by the evidence.

Let me ask you a better question, are miracles and naturally occurring phenomenon discernibly different or, are they the same thing? If there is a difference then what are the characteristics and indicators you can reasonably use to determine a distinction?

They are not the same thing, but interestingly, they are not necessarily discernibly different. God can, if God chooses, duplicate any natural phenomenon using miraculous means, such that there is no way to discern whether the event is natural or miraculous. For example, there was no way for Joseph to discern (apart from an angelic message) whether Mary conceived naturally or miraculously. Nothing in the phenomenon of her pregnancy presented indicators of its miraculous origin. That is why Joseph had to be told about it via an angel.

Now here is a question for you.

Are miracles and naturally occurring phenomena equally the work of God or is God a non-actor in respect of natural phenomena?

It's called equivocation if you equate two different things, so are they two different things or not?

It is called equivocation when you switch between two different but legitimate meanings of the same word assigning the contextually inappropriate meaning.

 

[The Barbarian]

Define evolution scientifically. Not your opinion but how is it determined based on direct observation or empirical demonstration?

Change in allele frequency of a population over time. We can observe what happens to a population by phenotypes, or by genetics when conditions change. So far, it's always confirmed Darwin's theory.

I'm not the one conflating this issue, Darwinians are the ones confusing the issue by equivocating evolution with an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Common descent is not a necessary consequence of Darwin's theory. If, for example, God magically poofed a number of different organisms into being, and they evolved into separate bushes of taxa, that would be consistent with evolutionary theory as Darwin proposed it. Of course, when we got around to checking, the anatomical, fossil, genetic, and other data all confirmed common descent.

I didn't define Darwinism, Charles Darwin did and you don't get to equate evolution with an unproven presupposition.

It comes down to evidence. Linnaeus first noticed this, when he became aware that one could construct a tree of life based on phenotypes.

Let me ask you a better question, are miracles and naturally occurring phenomenon discernibly different or, are they the same thing?

Nature is just as miraculous as anything else in our universe. It's just that God makes it knowable and predictable. Otherwise, we couldn't survive here.

If there is a difference then what are the characteristics and indicators you can reasonably use to determine a distinction?

Often, one can't. Why worry about it?

It's called equivocation if you equate two different things, so are they two different things or not?

Not according to most dictionaries.

 

[mark kennedy]

Change in allele frequency of a population over time.

Not so fast, does anyone disagree or want to expand on this definition of evolution from a legitimate scientific source?

 

[gluadys]

Not so fast, does anyone disagree or want to expand on this definition of evolution from a legitimate scientific source?

I agree with it. It speaks to the underlying process of evolution. Other phenomena commonly included in the definition of evolution are actually effects of this process under different conditions. Or causes of the change in the frequency of the alleles in the population.

 

[Assyrian]

Not so fast, does anyone disagree or want to expand on this definition of evolution from a legitimate scientific source?

No, the definition is fine. What I disagree with is your keep trying to restrict the wide field of evolutionary science and all it has discovered to a simple definition of the process.