Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

Again if you had actually read the links, you would have seen:

Quote:

The National Geographic article refers to this as a survey of US scientists, and said survey was published in the science journal Nature. Apparently this was not just a survey of the readership.

Is there a reason why you apparently won't read this for yourself, or else are intent on mischaracterizing it?

Both National Geographic and Nature apparently felt it was relevant enough to publish. Why don't you read it before you form your opinion of it?

I read it when it was first posted, and therefore formed the opinion that it is unreliable as evidence that "45%" of scientists believe in a direct creation. Stating that any percentage of scientists believe in a deity is not providing evidence that they reject a theory of evolution and assert a direct creation. There are two germane observations to make. The first is that the survey is not limited to either practicing scientists or those who pursue the germane disciplines. The second i've already pointed out--stating the number of scientists who believe in a deity is not axiomatically equivalent to determining how many reject naturalistic explanations and purport a direct creation.

Once again, your only point is to keep an illusion of doubt before the public. Which is why we've been through this crap umpteen times, and likely will go through again, and again, and again . . .

0 Replies

For the members of the reading public:

The member here who refers to himself as "real life" is practicing deceit in two ways.

The first is to take figures which are alleged to indicate what number of practicing scientists believe in a deity, and assert that this same number purport a direct creation. This is specious. Even were one able to claim that 99% of all practicing scientists believe in a deity, that says nothing about what they may or may not believe about a theory of evolution. It does not constitute proof that they reject naturalistic explanations and purport a direct creation of all existant species.

The second is a dodge about the disciplines a scientist practices (without even going into whether or not the credentials of those responding are sound). I have a standard public school science eduation, and took courses in biology and chemistry to meet my science requirements at university. To that extent, i have as much education in the germane topics as any practicing astrophysicist--someone who does not specialize in the germane disciplines. The only truly significant statement which can be made about scientific opinion with regard to a theory of evolution would have to do with scientists with irreproachable credentials, who practice the earth and life sciences which are concerned with the germane subjects.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

For the members of the reading public:

The member here who refers to himself as "real life" is practicing deceit ......

The first is to take figures which are alleged to indicate what number of practicing scientists believe in a deity, and assert that this same number purport a direct creation. This is specious. Even were one able to claim that 99% of all practicing scientists believe in a deity, that says nothing about what they may or may not believe about a theory of evolution. It does not constitute proof that they reject naturalistic explanations and purport a direct creation of all existant species.

Let's address these one at a time.

Show where I said that this means they believe in direct creation.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Actually, the story linked by Momma Angel, as well as a similar survey often referenced by Timberlandko

indicates that 40-45% of the scientists surveyed did not think naturalistic explanations were sufficient to account for the origin of man. Only 55% did.

From the article quoted:

Quote:

"Two biologists from Ohio refined the question about God and evolution. One said, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." The other said God did not guide the process "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place."

These two scientists above fall into that 40% to 45% range. Yet neither of them disagree with evolution. Not only that, but even though they have a theistic view on the inputs to the Universe, both support purely naturalistic causes and effect once the system was going.

So these two scientists do not really support your underlying premise, even though you are trying to use them (and others with that 40% to 45%) to make your case.

Our most recent discussion revolved around how many "problems" there in evolutionary theory. And my contention was that a vast majority of scientists don't see any "problems". You offered the 40% to 45% as a challenge to my word, "Vast". But as we can see, those percentages have nothing to do with your "problems", and everything to do with how different people fill the gaps beyond which current scientific knowledge goes. No mystery there.

The survey refers to 40-45% of scientists who do not share your hyper-naturalism, just as most of the great scientists of the past did not either.

55% do. Congrats. But that's a long way from near universal consensus among scientists, which you apparently believe exists. It doesn't. Sorry.

It doesn't matter (to the point being debated here) one whit what the great scientists of the past knew or didn't know. They didn't have access to the information we have today. The point stands that most of the people in that 40% to 45% range don't think there are any "problems" with evolutionary theory. They simply credit some level of deism or spiritualism to the Universe. And science doesn't conflict with that.

A vast majority of scientists (especially those in the appropriate fields) don't see any problems with evolution. In order to convince me otherwise, you will need a different report than you cited above, because all that report tell us is that many scientists think that some spiritual influence may have caused natural laws which lead to evolution.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The article states that 40-45% of the scientists did not think that naturalistic processes were suffcient to explain the origin of man.

Neither survey makes this statement.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

aktorist wrote:
There are four sets of evidence in the time of Darwin. I know not whether this has been posted before, but I am not willing to look back........

Embryology: Embryos of species look much similar. Because it is the "less evolved" state. Humans have a tail and gill slits while they're embryos, for example.......

You are joking, of course.

This has to be a joke....Haekels's drawings....uhhhh, discredited years ago to my knowledge.

"Tail" has no tail function when developed; "Gill slits" have no breathing function when developed.

0 Replies

Setanta,

Don't dodge proving your statement.

Show where I said that this means they believe in direct creation.

Your accusation was

Setanta falsely claimed when he wrote:

The member here who refers to himself as "real life" is practicing deceit .........The first is to take figures which are alleged to indicate what number of practicing scientists believe in a deity, and assert that this same number purport a direct creation

Show where I supposedly said this.

0 Replies

How is that any different anyways? If they believe in a deity, then wouldn't that logically mean he had some part in our existence?

0 Replies

Believing that there is a deity responsible for the universe is not at all an assertion that "the scientists did not think that naturalistic processes were suffcient to explain the origin of man." I do recognize, of course, "real life's" dodge of never making a plain assertion of how he does account for the diversity of life forms on this planet, if he rejects a naturalistic explanation reliant upon a theory of evolution.

0 Replies

How would you interpret it then? That a god made the universe without an intention of creating beings?

0 Replies

I don't have any reason to suppose that the cosmos were the product of a sentient creation.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

This has to be a joke....Haekels's drawings....uhhhh, discredited years ago to my knowledge.

Yes, to my knowledge as well.

I think Aktorist was citing conditions which existed back in Darwin's time, not currently.

I'll have to read his original post again.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Believing that there is a deity responsible for the universe is not at all an assertion that "the scientists did not think that naturalistic processes were suffcient to explain the origin of man." I do recognize, of course, "real life's" dodge of never making a plain assertion of how he does account for the diversity of life forms on this planet, if he rejects a naturalistic explanation reliant upon a theory of evolution.

You stated that I did make a plain assertion when you stated:

Setanta wrote:

The first is to take figures which are alleged to indicate what number of practicing scientists believe in a deity, and assert that this same number purport a direct creation

Show where I supposedly said what you claim that I said.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't have any reason to suppose that the cosmos were the product of a sentient creation.

I was referring to the scientists who don't believe that nature......

0 Replies

I don't intend to play your game, "real life," you have for more than 600 pages, avoided ever asserting what precisely it is that you believe accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. In the same manner, you have avoided ever answering the question of what circumstantial evidence you have for a creation. You simply reply with specious contentions about what scientists do not know--more of the "problems" you allege which Ros correctly points out do not exist within the scientific community.

You wrote: "The article states that 40-45% of the scientists did not think that naturalistic processes were suffcient to explain the origin of man." Quite apart from the fact that the article does not make that statement--the allegation which specifically concerns the origin of man, and which rejects the evolution of man from earlier animal ancestors, is inferentially a statement that direct creation occured. Squirm how you will, there is no other reasonable way to interpret such a statement.

0 Replies

Your sentence fragment is incoherent, TR--"that nature . . . " what? Nature, you know, is no more a sentient creator than is anyone's imaginary friend.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't intend to play your game, "real life," you have for more than 600 pages, avoided ever asserting what precisely it is that you believe accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. In the same manner, you have avoided ever answering the question of what circumstantial evidence you have for a creation. You simply reply with specious contentions about what scientists do not know--more of the "problems" you allege which Ros correctly points out do not exist within the scientific community.

You wrote: "The article states that 40-45% of the scientists did not think that naturalistic processes were suffcient to explain the origin of man." Quite apart from the fact that the article does not make that statement--the allegation which specifically concerns the origin of man, and which rejects the evolution of man from earlier animal ancestors, is inferentially a statement that direct creation occured. Squirm how you will, there is no other reasonable way to interpret such a statement.

No reasonable way to interpret it?

How about reading the article where it says that most of the scientists referred to are theistic evolutionists?

Your twisting of my post is completely indefensible because you are clearly intelligent enough to know better.

0 Replies

Your twisting of the survey results is completely indefensible because you are sufficiently intelligent to know better, but have an agenda to create a false impression of "controversy," one of the buzz words of the ID crowd--"teach the controversy." A theistic evolutionist is not by definition someone who disputes that man evolved from lower order animals. Your assertion is an attempt to create the impression that those referred to in the survey purport that man is a product of a direct creation. Nothing could be further from the truth--the survey simply states that a little more than 40% of those surveyed (who are neither proven to hold legitimate scientific credentials, nor to be practicing scientists in the germane disciplines) believe in some form of a deity. It nowhere states that they are willing to assert that naturalistic phenonena cannot account for the origin of man--this is an example of you willfully practicing deceit in your continuing effort to create the illusion of significant controversy where none exists.

You still have not addressed the issue of the credentials of respondants, nor their distribution within the ranks of practicing scientists in the germane disciplines.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

How is that any different anyways? If they believe in a deity, then wouldn't that logically mean he had some part in our existence?

This is a prime example of what "real life" intends with his deceitful attempt to create the impression of a controversy where none exists. The common Abrahamic theist believes that the cosmos were created by a god specifically for man, in order for the relationship between man and that god to have stage upon which to play out. Apart from the hilarious, childish conceit of such a thesis, it is this obvious assumption to which "real life" plays in his game here.

It is sufficient for him to create a false impression that: ". . . scientists did not think that naturalistic processes were suffcient to explain the origin of man."--in order to create the impression in the minds of credulous theists that these same scientists believe as they do, to wit, believe in a direct creation of man.

You are usually careful in exactly how you phrase things, "real life," it's an obvious part of your strategy--but you really slipped up with that line.

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

How is that any different anyways? If they believe in a deity, then wouldn't that logically mean he had some part in our existence?

But what part? That's the question.

Evolution clearly happened. If you want to assert that something started the Universe and then let it roll, that's fine. That belief doesn't conflict with evolution.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know