Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

[HitchSlap]

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you.

 

[Tree of Life]

Many who deny ToE do not really have a great understanding of it. Do you think it's possible to have a thorough understanding of ToE and still reject it?

 

[razzelflabben]

Don't forget about those that understand it reasonably but because they don't believe in it, their objections are twisted and otherwise perverted till it appears that they don't understand because no one is listening to them only the reinvented version that can be argued against.

 

[xianghua]

Many who deny ToE do not really have a great understanding of it. Do you think it's possible to have a thorough understanding of ToE and still reject it?

Dr Richard M. Sternberg is a good example since he hold a phd in molecular evolution and still reject it basically:RichardSternberg.org | Biography

 

[Aman777]

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you.

As usual, scientific papers are long and boring, like this one. Does it falsely teach that Humans (descendants of Adam) evolved from the common ancestor of Apes? If so, it's provably wrong since the godless inventors of the False ToE forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's Earth. ll Peter 3:6 This invalidates ALL of their false ideas and shows them to be incomplete, untrue and nothing but Fantasy.

 

[Skreeper]

Dr richard Richard M. Sternberg is a good example since he hold a phd in molecular evolution and still reject it basically:RichardSternberg.org | Biography

Sternberg has come under a lot of critisism for not following the peer review process properly. So I wouldn't put my money on him being an honest fellow. Also he's a co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture which makes him even more untrustworthy..

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't forget about those that understand it reasonably but because they don't believe in it, their objections are twisted and otherwise perverted till it appears that they don't understand because no one is listening to them only the reinvented version that can be argued against.

Well, that's the thing about 159 year old theories, they're unaware of razzelflabben's objections. Oh, and 159 years!

 

[HitchSlap]

As usual, scientific papers are long and boring, like this one. Does it falsely teach that Humans (descendants of Adam) evolved from the common ancestor of Apes? If so, it's provably wrong since the godless inventors of the False ToE forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's Earth. ll Peter 3:6 This invalidates ALL of their false ideas and shows them to be incomplete, untrue and nothing but Fantasy.

BTW, This is how I imagine your posts sound.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, that's the thing about 159 year old theories, they're unaware of razzelflabben's objections. Oh, and 159 years!

see, this is what I am talking about...I said nothing about 159 year old theory knowing anything I said that things get twisted like you are doing here then no one can hear what is really being said...so if you can't respond to what I said, DO NOT RESPOND AT ALL!!!!

 

[HitchSlap]

see, this is what I am talking about...I said nothing about 159 year old theory knowing anything I said that things get twisted like you are doing here then no one can hear what is really being said...so if you can't respond to what I said, DO NOT RESPOND AT ALL!!!!

Well that's my point, nothing of substance or value is ever said by creationists. Instead, all we get is 'i believe my bible to be literally true, therefore whatever facts you may think you have are subservient to my interpretation of the bible.'

This is basically a five year old telling a cardiothoracic surgeon he's doing it wrong because he watched an episode of Scrubs. Creationists never put in the time it takes to fully understand the theory - and I mean really understand. All we ever get is regurgitated PRATT's from the 3 or 4 creo sites out there.

 

[sfs]

Do you think it's possible to have a thorough understanding of ToE and still reject it?

Yes. Todd Wood understands evolution and the evidence for it, and he still rejects it. What he doesn't do is lie about the evidence.

 

[sfs]

Sternberg has come under a lot of critisism for not following the peer review process properly. So I wouldn't put my money on him being an honest fellow. Also he's a co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture which makes him even more untrustworthy..

Does Sternberg reject common descent?

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes. Todd Wood understands evolution and the evidence for it, and he still rejects it. What he doesn't do is lie about the evidence.

Would you say he rejects it on scientific grounds or on broader theological and philosophical grounds?

 

[mozo41]

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you.

seeing her primary research interests are in the development of imaginative cognition and the role that imagination plays in learning and scientific thinking and reasoning ...

what is her genesis of how we reason, as in how do we form thoughts ?

Ms/Mrs Weisbreg must have summed this up in a sentence somewhere, and seeing you respect her opinion i thought you may know this, and so i ask ...

 

[HitchSlap]

seeing her primary research interests are in the development of imaginative cognition and the role that imagination plays in learning and scientific thinking and reasoning ...

what is her genesis of how we reason, as in how do we form thoughts ?

Ms/Mrs Weisbreg must have summed this up in a sentence somewhere, and seeing you respect her opinion i thought you may know this, and so i ask ...

Wasn't in the the article, and I don't know.

Good luck.

 

[mozo41]

Wasn't in the the article, and I don't know.

Good luck.

this reveals much

 

[Monna]

Dr richard Richard M. Sternberg is a good example since he hold a phd in molecular evolution and still reject it basically

Actually, as I read Dr Sternberg, he says "Within this context one can accept all that is empirically valid in evolutionary biology, while not axiomatically dismissing the position that structures as well as their “real” instantiations have an intelligent cause." (RichardSternberg.org | Biography)

If your read the development of his thoughts (http://www.richardsternberg.com/pdf/sternintellbio08.pdf) you will find that Sternberg is NOT a proponent of "Intelligent Design" as described by some groups, but "that the universe emanates from Nous (mind). So in this sense my thinking is compatible with intelligent design broadly defined." Reading that paper will also open minds to the many diversities of thought within "evolution." As I read it, nowhere does he say he does not accept evlolution in broad terms, but that he has differences with many of the branches of evolution on how most scientists have chosen to describe the way it works. I don't find any explicit statement in the paper in which he ascribes design to God (as defined by any religion) - indeed he refers to philosophers who existed before Christ and outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. He is not kind in his remarks about Francis Collins' concept of god.

 

[mark kennedy]

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you.

I understand that there is a difference between evolution and what is labeled the theory of evolution. I get that evolution is a phenomenon in nature but it doesn't meant that life cannot start as a miracle. I can accept natural science without accepting an all consuming naturalistic assumption regarding natural history. That might seem unenlightened but we need not suspend theistic conviction with regards to origins in order to understand natural science.

God created life, evolution begins there. It's not that complicated, a child could understand.

 

[Gene2memE]

Dr Richard M. Sternberg is a good example since he hold a phd in molecular evolution and still reject it basically:RichardSternberg.org | Biography

Dr Sternberg DOESN'T reject evolutionary biology - for example, he accepts deep evolutionary timescales of billions of years, common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation via reproductive isolation, and Mendelian genetic hereditary - he just holds an ID position that evolution is a process guided by a mind which layed down certain laws.

In his own words:

"... thus, my position assets that the cosmos is fundamentally intelligible in such a way that can be logically, mathematically and scientifically recognised to be such; and moreover - following Proclus - that the universe eminates from Nous (mind). So in this sense my thinking is compatible with intelligent design broadly defined."

From page 10 of 'How My Views on Evolution Evolved' by Dr RM Sternberg.

What's most telling is he still refers to himself as an Evolutionary Biologist.

 

[pitabread]

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it.

Americans who understand how evolution works are more likely to accept it

This flies in the face of creo's here who claim to understand ToE, but know it's false. IMO, this study is right on the money, and those here who claim to "understand" ToE, yet repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, this study is for you.

This coincides with other stats that correlate education with acceptance of evolution. Creationists are, on average, less educated than non-creationists. Given that understanding the ToE is borne out of education, the results are not surprising.