Evolution? How?

The poll clearly states that 40-45% of scientists polled 'included God in the process' of evolution. It did not say, and I did not present it as saying that these were 'creationists'. (You know what I have said, it has been repeated several times.) The common term for these folks is theistic evolutionists, and their numbers both in the general public and in the scientific community are quite large. I do not share their position and have made it clear that I do not.

But they do not share your hyper-naturalism either.

These scientists did not believe that natural processes alone were a sufficient explanation for the origin of man, etc.

What has this got to do with anything?

Newton believed in God as a law-maker not a tinkerer, which is why he would find the very notion of ID, abhorrent. He would prefer Evolution and Natural selection over ID, because Evolution requires God to make a law, not tinker with it and leave things to their own devices.

real life wrote:

The poll clearly states that 40-45% of scientists polled 'included God in the process' of evolution. It did not say, and I did not present it as saying that these were 'creationists'. (You know what I have said, it has been repeated several times.) The common term for these folks is theistic evolutionists, and their numbers both in the general public and in the scientific community are quite large. I do not share their position and have made it clear that I do not.

But they do not share your hyper-naturalism either.

These scientists did not believe that natural processes alone were a sufficient explanation for the origin of man, etc.

Ok RL, I guess we're going to have to get those 40% to 45% of scientists to explain exactly what they meant by "included God in the process of evolution", because it certainly doesn't mean that *any* of these people supernatural tweaking of things, it only means that they think there is some type of "spirit" behind things.

So, now that we've cleared that up.... how does it support the point you were trying to make? Something about evolution not being valid for some reason? What was it again?

No, the point of this particular sidebar was that your hyper-naturalism apparently isn't shared by many of the greatest scientific thinkers of the ages, likewise it is not shared by a sizable percentage (40-45%) of your contemporaries in the scientific disciplines.

You would like to disqualify someone as 'unscientific' if they dare to suggest that something could have an explanation that is not purely naturalistic. Your view is somewhat extreme.

LAte marine devonian, living at a time of great diversity among fishes Discuss in terms of evolutionary significance and why, in subsequent epochs , did the trend to bizarre spinosity disappear

That's pretty funny Ros.

'We will have to ask what they mean....'

'They certainly don't mean......'

'It only means......'

How did you contact them all so fast? Like greased lightning man.

No, the point of this particular sidebar was that your hyper-naturalism apparently isn't shared by many of the greatest scientific thinkers of the ages, likewise it is not shared by a sizable percentage (40-45%) of your contemporaries in the scientific disciplines.

LAte marine devonian, living at a time of great diversity among fishes Discuss in terms of evolutionary significance and why, in subsequent epochs , did the trend to bizarre spinosity disappear

[......whether certain scientists happen to be religious or not doesn't matter, as long as they keep it out of their science.........

rosborne979 wrote:

[......whether certain scientists happen to be religious or not doesn't matter, as long as they keep it out of their science.........

So did Newton "keep it out of his science" when he asserted that God had created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

well, lemme see. Trilobites are Paleozoic arthropods that have come and gone from the late preCambrian and disappeared by the end of the Permian. Their basic body plan (their bauplan) is as a 3 part system, like a bug. Also, like a bug, theyve come and gone with new body styles that seemed to follow some other creatures development (as seen in the fossil record), and/or some environmnetal cataclysm. Trilobites were found all over the planet and the spiny ones (like the previous pages) followed the occurences of animals with big jaws and appetites for seafood. The experiment in spinosity may be a "defense" so that any bony fish would reject eating the trilobite with all the spines. (its a common defense mechanism used by lots of radially symmetrical critters like urchins or brittle stars).

The fact that they came and went , perhaps in response to new kinds of predation only to be replaced by torpedo shaped bauplan trilobites is a response feature imposed by an environment in constant change.