Creationist Error #1: One can not believe Evolution and still remain devout in their faith.

[Guy Threepwood]

Dude... are you even serious?

Whatever you are discussing is not from this reality, but rather from fantasyland.

In the Real World (TM) there is no such dependence on how one defines evolution, because evolution is a demonstrable fact, not a speculative idea.

Fundamentalist evolution looks like an interesting idea for some sort of fictional universe. I would like to read about it in some fantasy novel that shows what it is like to be in a world where such things are a matter of opinion or of competing dogmas. I for one would love to see how one would propose it.

But you really ought not to demean your stance by talking about those things as if they could fit reality as we know it.

'fundamentalist evolution' is merely the term I am applying to the most extreme and minority position of evolutionists, that 'evolution' operates with no guiding creative intelligence whatsoever, this represents <20% of the population in the US in the most recent Gallup poll- and <8% in Brazil- only polls of course but certainly a more minority position than creationism

Many of us have a more moderate position somewhere in the middle.- that's all

 

[LuisDantas]

'fundamentalist evolution' is merely the term I am applying to the most extreme and minority position of evolutionists, that 'evolution' operates with no guiding creative intelligence whatsoever, this represents <20% of the population in the US in the most recent Gallup poll- and <8% in Brazil- only polls of course but certainly a more minority position than creationism

Many of us have a more moderate position somewhere in the middle.- that's all

Calling that stance "moderate" is an impressive exercise in creative presentation, at least...

 

[darkendless]

'fundamentalist evolution' is merely the term I am applying to the most extreme and minority position of evolutionists, that 'evolution' operates with no guiding creative intelligence whatsoever, this represents <20% of the population in the US in the most recent Gallup poll- and <8% in Brazil- only polls of course but certainly a more minority position than creationism

Many of us have a more moderate position somewhere in the middle.- that's all

Evolution with 'guidance' is like giving up half way through a marathon

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Calling that stance "moderate" is an impressive exercise in creative presentation, at least...

it's in the middle of the scale, it combines both views, and also the majority position in many cases, so I'd say 'moderate' is a pretty reasonable term

I respect your beliefs, but belonging to the <8% at one far end of the scale is hardly a 'moderate' position is it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution with 'guidance' is like giving up half way through a marathon

just using both legs!

 

[LuisDantas]

it's in the middle of the scale, it combines both views, and also the majority position in many cases, so I'd say 'moderate' is a pretty reasonable term

No, it is not, not even close.

There is no scale. It is an attempt at redressing denial of actual knowledge as if it were a respectable stance of belief.

I respect your beliefs,

Maybe you do. I would not know.

You show a determinate lack of respect for science, though.

but belonging to the <8% at one far end of the scale is hardly a 'moderate' position is it?

Were we discussing sports teams or something, maybe you would be right.

As things stand, you are being an impressive artist of dishonest spin, that is all.

 

[Shad]

it's in the middle of the scale, it combines both views, and also the majority position in many cases, so I'd say 'moderate' is a pretty reasonable term

I respect your beliefs, but belonging to the <8% at one far end of the scale is hardly a 'moderate' position is it?

Not if the other 92% are fundamentalist. Percentage statistics does not make something moderate or fundamental. You point is fallacious, ad populum

 

[metis]

There are many reasons why evolution is not compatible with various religious beliefs. One cannot just simply 'pick and choose' which parts of a religious belief, one can ignore. And it isn't just ''Genesis'', it's the nature of Deity, why deity would even create ''evolution'', why there would be deities in an evolution paradigm, etc.

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, it is not, not even close.

There is no scale. It is an attempt at redressing denial of actual knowledge as if it were a respectable stance of belief.



Maybe you do. I would not know.

You show a determinate lack of respect for science, though.



Were we discussing sports teams or something, maybe you would be right.

As things stand, you are being an impressive artist of dishonest spin, that is all.

well thanks for the impressive part!

There are two extremes- creationism and evolution, beliefs range from one end to the other with varying degrees of both accounting for the diversity of life on Earth- is this not true?

It's OK to have different beliefs, yours may well be correct- I respect the scientific method itself which challenges all beliefs, considers none sacred, and I think that belongs to us all.

And I respect you, you seem like a perfectly intelligent honest person to me.

I think the vast majority here are interested in debating what they genuinely believe, not converting anybody by any tactic, I don't expect I could do that if I tried..

But I did have my own mind changed once before, so all I can prove is that my opinion is utterly unreliable!

must run for now though..

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

There are many reasons why evolution is not compatible with various religious beliefs. One cannot just simply 'pick and choose' which parts of a religious belief, one can ignore. And it isn't just ''Genesis'', it's the nature of Deity, why deity would even create ''evolution'', why there would be deities in an evolution paradigm, etc.

I do not know how to respond without derailing the thread, so I will not respond; but will hope that some of your fellow Christians will explain to you why it is not necessary to discard your religion to accept the evidence of ToE; and why it is not discarding your religion to read Genesis 1 non-literally.

This only works against literalism; Islam, Evangelicals, etc.

Agreed.

'fundamentalist evolution' is merely the term I am applying to the most extreme and minority position of evolutionists, that 'evolution' operates with no guiding creative intelligence whatsoever, this represents <20% of the population in the US in the most recent Gallup poll- and <8% in Brazil- only polls of course but certainly a more minority position than creationism

Many of us have a more moderate position somewhere in the middle.- that's all

Then you also grasp my point; one can accept ToE while not rejecting your religious beliefs.

 

[jeager106]

Dear NewGuy. If you would please define what is ToE?
In your opinion is it necessary to have an "either or" approach to maintianing ones faith in God, religion?
Why must a believer accept or deny evolution in order to maintain one's faith in a deity?
I've always viewed the Creation account as a story for the audience of the time period.
I have a dear friend who takes the Creation Account as literal. That God grabbed up a handful of
clay, breathed on it and "it" became Adam.
At some point God sees Adam is lonely so causes Adam to go into a deep sleep, removes a rib,
and from that comes woman.
That is a tough concept to follow, but, hey, God is all powerful.
Still I don't accept that as anything other than a story, a creation poem if you will.
I ask myself "if God created Adam from a handful of dirt, then why not create Eve the same way?"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then you also grasp my point; one can accept ToE while not rejecting your religious beliefs.

it's getting into some subjective semantics but generally no, I don't think they jive too well.

The essence of ToE is that life came to be through natural processes alone, with no intelligent design.

for practically any religious belief that involves a creator of any kind- to accept ToE is to say the creator designed the universe including all the elements and processes that allowed life to appear and flourish- yet had no particular plans in mind for what that life might be like?- and that a single being came to be sentient enough to deduce that creators existence and give them thanks for it.... is just a staggering coincidence.. Deism of this kind doesn't make sense to me

debatable of course, but that's what we're here for..

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Dear NewGuy. If you would please define what is ToE?

I am running short on time, but, for brevity's sake, ToE is the study of the diversity of life which occurs through genetic changes that accumulate over time.

In your opinion is it necessary to have an "either or" approach to maintianing ones faith in God, religion?

No. That is the lie; the false dichotomy I am speaking against.

Why must a believer accept or deny evolution in order to maintain one's faith in a deity?

They don't. The assertion by many apologists and evolution deniers say that one must deny ToE to maintain one's faith in a deity. That is the assertion I am speaking against.

I've always viewed the Creation account as a story for the audience of the time period.
I have a dear friend who takes the Creation Account as literal. That God grabbed up a handful of
clay, breathed on it and "it" became Adam.
At some point God sees Adam is lonely so causes Adam to go into a deep sleep, removes a rib,
and from that comes woman.
That is a tough concept to follow, but, hey, God is all powerful.
Still I don't accept that as anything other than a story, a creation poem if you will.
I ask myself "if God created Adam from a handful of dirt, then why not create Eve the same way?"

*grins*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

'fundamentalist evolution' is merely the term I am applying to the most extreme and minority position of evolutionists, that 'evolution' operates with no guiding creative intelligence whatsoever, this represents <20% of the population in the US in the most recent Gallup poll- and <8% in Brazil- only polls of course but certainly a more minority position than creationism

I would like to see your sources for these statistics.

it's getting into some subjective semantics but generally no, I don't think they jive too well.

The essence of ToE is that life came to be through natural processes alone, with no intelligent design.

Wrong. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about intelligent design. It provides a natural framework through which life diversifies and adapts to its environment, but if you wish to believe that this process was somehow "mapped" or "set into motion" by some sort of supernatural intelligence, the theory of evolution won't mind one bit.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would like to see your sources for these statistics.


Wrong. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about intelligent design. It provides a natural framework through which life diversifies and adapts to its environment, but if you wish to believe that this process was somehow "mapped" or "set into motion" by some sort of supernatural intelligence, the theory of evolution won't mind one bit.

I don't usually do requests but...

this is the US

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends

and this was from wiki on Brazil- where I believe Luis is from- and 59% share my position and 8% his (though his is more moderate apparently!)

Brazil[edit]
In a 2010 poll, 59% of respondents said they believe in theistic evolution, or evolution guided by God. A further 8% believe in evolution without divine intervention, while 25% were creationists.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Neat. However it matters not. Popular opinion of the uneducated masses does not challenge the validity of scientific understanding. One can believe that god is directing evolution all you want. However so long as you accept the process in which it hapened and don't make any excuses that god "must" have intervened in some sort of supernatural sense, we should be all good. But all to many leap to that conclusion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't usually do requests but...

this is the US

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends

and this was from wiki on Brazil- where I believe Luis is from- and 59% share my position and 8% his (though his is more moderate apparently!)

Brazil[edit]
In a 2010 poll, 59% of respondents said they believe in theistic evolution, or evolution guided by God. A further 8% believe in evolution without divine intervention, while 25% were creationists.

Thank you for the sources. However, do you have a similar statistics for global opinion or the opinion of scientists?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Thank you for the sources. However, do you have a similar statistics for global opinion or the opinion of scientists?

most scientists thought the universe was static while the poor masses believed it began in a specific creation event, so did the priest Lemaitre- who's primeval atom was widely mocked and rejected by scientists as religious pseudoscience and 'big bang'

where the implications are academically unfashionable, science runs into headwinds

 

[Guy Threepwood]

it matters not. Popular opinion of the uneducated masses does not challenge the validity of scientific understanding.

I forget, was that Stalin or Chairman Mao who said that?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I forget, was that Stalin or Chairman Mao who said that?

I believe every scientist ever. Oh and more importantly Neil Degrass Tyson

also. Just to add....
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia