Gallup poll: "7 in 10 Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution"

[Bishka]

Do Intelligent design people not believe in a young earth?

Some of us do not.

I clearly believe God created this earth, but, I believe he could have used evolution to do it and I hardly believe this earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[Popeyesays]

Can't vote!

There is no box for a belief in both intelligent design AND evolution.

Regards,
Scott

 

[*Paul*]

So intelligent design basically means that a person believes God created the earth in no particular timespan and may have used evolution to create it or even some other unknown method. So it's an attempt to reconcile modern science (the wisdom of the world) with scripture (the wisdom of God).
That is definatly not for me.:no:

 

[Bishka]

So intelligent design basically means that a person believes God created the earth in no particular timespan and may have used evolution to create it or even some other unknown method. So it's an attempt to reconcile modern science (the wisdom of the world) with scripture (the wisdom of God).
That is definatly not for me.:no:

Who said God cannot use science? :areyoucra

 

[Smoke]

So intelligent design basically means that a person believes God created the earth in no particular timespan and may have used evolution to create it or even some other unknown method. So it's an attempt to reconcile modern science (the wisdom of the world) with scripture (the wisdom of God).
That is definatly not for me.:no:

In fact, Michael Behe, a member of the Discovery Institute and former darling of creationists, has conceded that humans and other apes descend from a common ancestor. Of course they do, but that's hardly what creationists want to hear from one of their own foremost authorities.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So intelligent design basically means that a person believes God created the earth in no particular timespan and may have used evolution to create it or even some other unknown method. So it's an attempt to reconcile modern science (the wisdom of the world) with scripture (the wisdom of God).
That is definatly not for me.:no:

That would be under "Gross Misrepresentations for $1000", but you should have phrased your answer as a question.

Scriptures never ever try to be a science text. Fortunately, most science texts never try to be religious.

 

[*Paul*]

Who said God cannot use science? :areyoucra

:areyoucra God can't use science?? God created science - He doesn't have to follow the Laws of Science. He is the Law giver - you can't use science to create something out of nothing - that is un scientific - it cannot be reproduced in any Lab. It was also unscientific for Jesus to turn water into wine, to walk on water, to calm the sea with His words. God defies science that it is called a miracle.

 

[*Paul*]

That would be under "Gross Misrepresentations for $1000", but you should have phrased your answer as a question.

Scriptures never ever try to be a science text. Fortunately, most science texts never try to be religious.

I never said they tried to be a science text book but the scriptures that came from the Creator and supreme intelligence of the universe must be correct concerning the things it speaks of.

Intelligent design is as I said an attempt to reconcile modern science and scripture or any religious belief that holds to a creator, how is that a misrepresentation? It seems obvious.

 

[*Paul*]

In fact, Michael Behe, a member of the Discovery Institute and former darling of creationists, has conceded that humans and other apes descend from a common ancestor. Of course they do, but that's hardly what creationists want to hear from one of their own foremost authorities.

i've never heard of him, his opinion means nothing to me. I do not believe what I believe because some clever men believe it too but because the Word of God says so.

 

[kmkemp]

Behe is a creationist that came up with the theory of irreducible complexity as a counter for evolution. I would like to see the source where he said that he switched to being an evolutionist, though. That would be news to me.

 

[UnTheist]

i've never heard of him, his opinion means nothing to me. I do not believe what I believe because some clever men believe it too but because the Word of God says so.

So you accept the fact that God created the earth 4.5 Billion years ago?

 

[*Paul*]

So you accept the fact that God created the earth 4.5 Billion years ago?

Why have you put this in response to what I wrote? It doesn't make sense, I have said the opposite.

 

[*Paul*]

COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT WARNS ABOUT "CREATIONIST FUNDAMENTALISTS"
(Friday Church News Notes, July 6, 2007, www.wayoflife.org
[email protected], 866-295-4143) - A recent report drawn up by the
Council of Europe, which is the continent's main human rights body,
warns strongly of "creationist fundamentalists" and calls them
dangerous religious extremists who "could become a threat to human
rights" ("Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists,"
Brusssels Journal, June 23, 2007). The report claims that creationism
"was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,"
which is pure nonsense. There are countless Christians throughout the
world who believe the Bible's account of creation. The report
identifies "creationist theories" with "all manner of fundamentalism
and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human
rights." The "extremism" this report should be worried about is the
Islamic extremism that aims to put all of European under the heel of
Islamic law. There is no evidence that creationists have attacked
anyone's human rights or injured anyone in any way, but jihadist
Muslims have done all of that. The report says the creationists have
a "total rejection of science," but in fact creationists simply
refuse to worship science as infallible, knowing how often it has
proven itself to be wrong and changed its opinions. Creationists
don't reject science; they reject "science falsely so called" (1
Timothy 6:20). The Council of Europe report in question was to be
voted on Monday, June 25, with the objective of banning creationist
and intelligent design views from schools in Europe, but the
resolution was sent back to committee for "further study." Deputies
from east European countries, who voted against approving the report,
recalled with no fondness that "Darwinian evolution was a favorite
theory of their former communist rulers." The very fact that such a
report could be written and given any serious consideration at all
demonstrates the very real danger to freedom of speech and religion
in Europe today. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred
concerning the faith. Grace be with thee" (1 Timothy 6:20-21).

 

[Smoke]

Behe is a creationist that came up with the theory of irreducible complexity as a counter for evolution. I would like to see the source where he said that he switched to being an evolutionist, though. That would be news to me.

Actually, that's no new thing. Back in 1996, while arguing in favor of irreducible complexity, Behe wrote:

I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species. ("Darwin Under the Microscope," 1996, emphasis added.)
​

See also the reviews of his latest book. David Snoke writes:

He carefully examines the data of evolution, along the way making an argument for universal common descent that will make him no friends among young-earth creationists ...
​

However, he does continue to believe that God ("intelligent design") is behind the process, and that irreducible complexity is evidence of that.

 

[UnTheist]

Why have you put this in response to what I wrote? It doesn't make sense, I have said the opposite.

Forget it..

 

[logician]

"There is no evidence that creationists have attacked
anyone's human rights or injured anyone in any way, but jihadist
Muslims have done all of that"

But Xianity as a religion has killed and tortured millions over the last 2 millinea.

So much for the religion of "love thy neighbor".

 

[*Paul*]

"There is no evidence that creationists have attacked
anyone's human rights or injured anyone in any way, but jihadist
Muslims have done all of that"

But Xianity as a religion has killed and tortured millions over the last 2 millinea.

So much for the religion of "love thy neighbor".

A religion can't do anything, but one thing is for sure, no one can kill and torture people in obedience to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, you are speaking of crusades and inquisitions, these were done by people practicing blind and unquestioning faith in the promises and teachings of a deceiver, people who had to submit to the authority of that deceiver with unquestioning loyalty or face excommunication which was damnation.
Christians were killed and tortures by these very people, you use the terms Christian too loosley. The scripture says that "no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him". If someone commits murder you can be darn sure on the basis of that scripture that person was no Christian at the time of his atrocity, it's a sure evidence of their unregenerancy.

 

[fantome profane]

Behe is a creationist that came up with the theory of irreducible complexity as a counter for evolution. I would like to see the source where he said that he switched to being an evolutionist, though. That would be news to me.

Michel Behe never “switched”, he has always believed that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, and he believes that all life evolved from a common ancestor. He has always believed in an old earth (4.5 billion years) and in a universe that is much older than that. In fact he agrees with almost all of evolutionary theory. He simply has some strange misguided notions about irreducible complexity. He thinks that his argument from ignorance and false dichotomy are evidence that “God” designed something.

Here is a link to an exchange between Behe and Jerry Coyne where Behe takes umbrage at Coyne's assertion that Behe only recently came to accept these things.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Coyne.cfm

"At some points in his review, it's hard to know whether Professor Coyne simply has a poor memory, or is so upset with the book that he gets confused. He writes "For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time .... and that all species share common ancestors." "Now accepts"? I made that plain in Darwin's Black Box over ten years ago.

 

[lilithu]

So intelligent design basically means that a person believes God created the earth in no particular timespan and may have used evolution to create it or even some other unknown method. So it's an attempt to reconcile modern science (the wisdom of the world) with scripture (the wisdom of God).
That is definatly not for me.:no:

No, intelligent design in its broadest sense means simply that a person believes that God created the universe. ID doesn't necessarily imply how. However, since most of the Creationists who are most vocally attacking evolution are YEC, ID tends to get conflated with that.

 

[Booko]

I'm a raging Independent, politically speaking.

As for evolution, one of the reasons I walked away from the version of religion I was raised in was because it demanded I turn off my God-given brains and eyeballs and adhere to a metaphorically-challenged reading of an ancient text.

So you can guess what I think of the possibility of evolution being fact.

Personally, I think it's hubris of the first water to try to dictate to God how He's allowed to Create.