Zogby Poll: Most Americans Believe in Intelligent Design

By Bob Ellis on July 1st, 2009

2009-07-01 06.21.59That has to really stink for the committed evolutionist.

After 150 years of rapturous embrace by the “scientific” community, decades of one-sided promotion in the public education system, uniform adherence from movie and television media, and still most of the American people just aren’t buying the contention that this incredibly beautiful and fantastically complex universe we see around us just happened to end up this way without an intelligent designer.

That’s what a new Zogby poll finds after sampling 1,053 likely voters on the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design organization, announced  the findings yesterday.

Those surveyed were asked this question:

Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.

Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.

Statement A: 33%
Statement B: 52
Neither: 7
Other/Not sure: 8

Now you and I know that just because a majority believes something, that doesn’t make it so. Yet we hear that sort of contention all the time from the apostles of evolution theory: well, most scientist believe it… (with the implication that anyone who doesn’t is a dolt).

Maybe most Americans realize a key truth that many theologically-biased scientists just don’t get…or won’t allow themselves to believe.

Most of the American people would like to see a little more academic freedom and inquiry into the theory of evolution, too, instead of the stonewalling that pretends there is not the slightest weakness in the theory:

Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?

Strongly agree: 54%
Somewhat agree: 26%
Strongly disagree: 11%
Not Sure: 4%

So 80% of Americans believe teachers and students should be free to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory? That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

So why do evolutionists fight tooth and nail any time such a thing is proposed in any school district anywhere in the United States?

Could it be that, deep down, they realize how weak and untenable their theory really is?  Could it be that they don’t want the theory’s weaknesses to be kicked around and examined by impressionable young minds…who might accidentally stumble over the fact that evolution is an illogical and unworkable theory according to its own framework?

After all, materialists, naturalists and evolutionists (really just flavors of the same ice cream) contend that nothing which cannot be observed or measured in laboratory conditions can be considered “science,” and that anything which would be contrary to established scientific knowledge or principles cannot itself be considered “science.”

So they have a problem with the fact that, according to their theory, organisms must spontaneously gain new and more complex genetic information to transform into new forms…when this has never been observed, and cannot be manufactured or tested in the lab.

There is also the problem of how information–coherent, meaningful, complex data that transmits meaning–can come about with no intelligent author.  Everything we know tells us that information always has an intelligent author…yet evolutionists expect us to believe that the incredibly complex genetic (and other) information seen in the universe came about totally without the benefit of an intelligent author.

They also have a problem with the fact that, according to their theory, life must have come about spontaneously (without intelligent intervention) from lifeless materials…when this has never been observed to happen, and scientific experiments have only proved that it cannot happen.

There is also the problem of the entire universe suddenly coming into existence from…nothing.  Science (real science, not conjecture and assumption, that is) tells us that matter and energy do not come into existence from nothing.

So the theory of evolution/naturalism/materialism has some pretty insurmountable problems at key hinge points of the theory.

Not to mention the fact that is is mostly made up of assumptions about facts, not facts themselves.

Maybe that’s why they fight so hard to keep any mention whatsoever of evolutions problems out of the schools.

And maybe that’s also why we need so badly to return to genuine open-minded academic inquiry in our country.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , , ,

  • Brian Rutledge
    dr theo,

    First I'd to thank Bob for letting dr theo and I converse about vestigial organs and absolutely I would be making an assumption if I claimed the appendix is a vestgial organ. What I am questioning is whether it has been proven that it has active immune functions. My research says some say yes and others say it hasnt been proved. Therefore my only claim is that both of us would be using assumptions if we said we knew the current immune status of the appendix and that it is a proved fact.If I went with the camp that said there is no proof, then I could say that the appendix only has lymphoid cells that have lost their immune capabilities and thus they are vestigial-a definite assumption. I think at best, all we can say is that we currently have no scientific consensus on the current function of this organ
  • The appendix has been studied extensively and has been found to have both endocrine and immune functions that begin in the 12 week of gestation and seem to peak in early childhood. The endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones that assist with various homeostatic mechanisms. The immune function seems to have to do with recognition of various antigens, pathogenic, normal flora and autoantigens and prime other immune components for an appropriate response. The lymph tissue assists in maturation and specificity of B lymphocytes and in production of IgA antibodies. There is also research that indicates that lymphoid tissues, including the appendix, are involved with chemotaxis in which various cellular components of the immune and inflammatroy responses are directed to the site of "action" when a systemic response is called for.

    Even if we didn't know as much as we do about the appendix it would be foolish to presume that an organ has no function or is "vestigial" when it clearly contains highly specialized cells and by the fact that it exists at all. Remember when we thought that branchial clefts were vestigial "gill slits?" How embarrassing! We still don't know all that much about the thymus, but are you willing to pronounce it useless. Or what about the pineal gland? Or ganglion cells of the retina?

    You're a smart and well-trained physician, Dr. Rutledge, and sometimes I wonder if you are only playing a "devil's advocate" for the sake of discussion. Have a great Independence Day, Brian.
  • You're welcome, Brian. I was going to shut it down completely, but Dr. Theo and DCM wanted to continue on a bit further so I've opened comments up "just a crack" so you guys can continue some dialog.
  • Vestigial organs--now there’s some time-worn nonsense that I love to talk about. In a previous thread I commented about the sorry state of education especially as it relates to the teaching of biology and the fact that most high-school textbooks or replete with falsehoods and deceptions that, in fact, have been known to be fiction for years. The myth of vestigial organs is one of those.

    I submit that you or no one can cite for us a single unambiguous example of a vestigial organ or structure. Of course, the appendix is always mentioned and is the easiest to refute, so let’s dispense with that at the outset: It has been known for years that the appendix vermiformis is a lymphoid tissue that shows no evidence of ever having been part of the digestive alimentary canal as some suppose. It has a different kind of epithelium, virtually absent smooth muscle, different glandular structure and many other characteristics that argue against any former digestive function. Lymphoid tissues, including the appendix, are components of the immune system. We have lymphoid structures at both ends of the alimentary canal, the palatine tonsils up first and the appendix near the end, whose purpose is to help the immune system learn to differentiate between pathogens and bacteria forming the normal flora of the mouth and intestines. (They are most important during the first few yaers of life during development of the immune functions.)

    That evolutionists who know better continue to repeat the lie of vestigial organs tells us much about how committed they are to truth (not) and what price they will pay (their integrity and credibility) to defend their god (Darwin) and their own devout religious beliefs.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dr. theo,

    I know the appendix has lymphoid cells in it, but has it been proven that it is actively involved in the immune system. Would that not be one of those assumptions you might be making? Brian
  • This thread is now closed not for lack of intelligent design, but for lack of intelligent discussion.
  • jamie
    The evolutionary process is the only theory that accounts for the biology of life on earth. It is supported fully by the fossil record. And it has withstood scientific inquiry for a long time.
  • You've been snowed, Jamie. The theoretical evolutionary process cannot account for biology on earth; it falls woefully short at key points, is not supported at all by the fossil record, and has only appeared to withstand scientific inquiry because those who believe in it are united in their rejection of it's utter failings.
  • mafarmerga
    Bob wrote:
    "So they have a problem with the fact that, according to their theory, organisms must spontaneously gain new and more complex genetic information to transform into new forms…when this has never been observed, and cannot be manufactured or tested in the lab."

    A sorry again to correct you but I refer you and your readers to Richard Lenski's long term E. coli experiment. I think that you will see that he has done EXACTLY that. A NEW form, an E. coli that can import and live on citrate. Something that has never existed before an which he has carefully documented in the lab.

    Cheers,
    Mark
  • Again, as Dr. Theo pointed out on another thread, "Permutations and transference of genetic code does not constitute new information." We're talking about shifting around genetic information that was already present in the organism, whether dominant or recessive, not NEW information.

    Repeating the same misrepresentation over and over just won't make it evolve into something more accurate, any more than subsequent reproductions of a given organism will cause it to evolve into a new organism.
  • mafarmerga
    "Again, as Dr. Theo pointed out on another thread, "Permutations and transference of genetic code does not constitute new information."

    So permutations of the genetic code leading to new functions does NOT constitute new information? Have either of you read Dr. Meyer's book or listened to him comment on this topic? This is exactly how Dr. Meyers DEFINES information. This puts you in the unenviable position of completely disagreeing with the very same expert you so highly lauded just the other day.

    Do you ever read the books or reports that you praise and highlight or is this just a mirror site for the Discovery Institute? At least I read this stuff before I comment about it.

    BTW the entire Zogby poll is available on line, and it confirms my original statement that a polling of the American people has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory.
  • (Sigh) As we pointed out, this information is not new to the organism; it is a permutation of the information that was already present in the organism in either dominant or recessive status.

    This is why I grew tired of the previous thread, and why the same thing is happening here. You can only present the same information over and over so many times before the obstinate refusal to see truth gets very old and very unproductive.
  • Permutations CAN be new information. Or do you think you can open a number lock just by knowing which digits it contains? No, you need additional information, i.e. the permutation of those digits.
  • DCM
    Generally what gets passed off by evolutionists as "increases in information" is an increase in the number of *subsets* of the original information. They get a lot of mileage out of such semantics. But none of them can explain where that genetic information -- more complex than any human language -- came from in the first place, and they certainly cannot point to new, organized genetic code being written by any natural process.
  • mafarmerga
    Bob you write:

    "There is also the problem of how information–coherent, meaningful, complex data that transmits meaning–can come about with no intelligent author. "

    But in your last posting about Dr. Meyer's most recent book I pointed out how gene duplication/divergence, microbial symbiosis and epigenetics are ALL well established mechanisms whereby this has been shown to be NOT the case. All contribute to genetic complexity, which according to Dr. Meyers is equal to "information."

    Did you tire of our dialog or just run out of ideas (arguments)? I am still here patiently waiting your reply to the long term E. coli experiment, the Flavobacterium nylonase gene, and the Hydrogen Hypothesis. Do you need me to once again post the links?


    -Mark
  • Actually, you did not point out how gene duplication/divergence, microbial symbiosis and epigenetics are mechanisms for creating coherent, meaningful, complex data that transmits meaning. If you recall, Dr. Theo corrected you when he said, "Permutations and transference of genetic code does not constitute new information."

    And yes, I grew tired of the dialog on that thread. Repeating the same fundamental truths over and over and over and over to people who are unwilling or incapable of grasping them gets really old. Hopefully there have been some open-minded people who have examined the evidence I presented and will be enlightened, but I am under no illusions that someone ideologically and theologically invested in believing in evolution will be easily swayed by facts and logic.
  • mafarmerga
    The problem I have with surveys like this is that the validity of a scientific theory does not rest on its "acceptance" It rests on its ability to either be supported or refuted by the data.

    As I am fond of telling people, when Copernicus publishe his Revolutions of the Heavenly bodies, 99% of learned scholars thought he was wrong. Yet the Earth continued to orbit the sun, not vice versa. And it had been doing so for 4 billion years and will continue to do so until the Sun becomes a Red Giant and consumes us.
  • That's a good point, and one I made in the original piece. Truth certainly isn't contingent on a majority or even a particular quotient of acceptance.

    What is, interesting, however, is that ideas promoted popularly by highly prominent people have a tendency to achieve general acceptance in a culture in short order.

    But this idea has been pushed for 150 years, and intensely so for the last 50 years or so in education, science, medicine, government, journalism, television, movies and more...yet most people aren't buying it.

    That's very interesting to me, and perhaps an indication that for all the high-brow promotion and peer pressure, most people look at the world around them and their common sense center just doesn't see that dog hunting.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Creationists argue that species can't evolve and become more complex because that requires an increase in new.genetic material and information, which according to them, can't be done. If eight people got off the Ark, then anyone with a simple understanding of genetics knows that there can only be a maximum of 16 different genetic alleles per single gene foci.

    But if you study the HLA or hemoglobin structure, you will find at least 400 different genetic alleles on one focus. 400 different alleles is quite an INCREASE in genetic material over 16 different alleles per gene foci.Evolution has a perfect explanation for this known fact( mutations and other mechanisms alter DNA so it changes and produces more genetic information). How do the creationists explain it if they say no new genetic material can be produced ? If they disagree with evolutionary science,that's fine. But then how do they explain this known phenomenon ?
  • Brian Rutledge
    Relax DCM. No one is trying to take your God away from you. You are free to believe what you want. See, there's that persecution complex coming out again.
  • DCM
    I'm not interested in beliefs, only truth. And if I know something to be false & harmful, yet see many people accepting it, I feel responsible for pointing that out -- even though most people strongly prefer the falsehood.
  • "Your comment must be approved by a moderator before appearing here."

    Some people love censorship. They belong in Iran.
  • Some people love to lie, misrepresent and just make things up as they go. They belong in a communist propaganda agency.

    We're about truth, not propagating and providing a forum for misinformation here. You have ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Newsweek, US News & World Reports, Time, Associated Press, et al which are all too happy to promote that.
  • Brian Rutledge
    This article is simply a repeat of the Discovery Institute/Creationist list of objections to evolution. They disagree with the 'science' of evolution, which is their right. The problem is thay have no scientific alternative explaination other than God did it. Would like to see that put into a petri dish and studied.
  • Unfortunately it often takes tremendous repetition of the same truth before the light comes on for some people.

    And by the same measure of standards, evolutionists have no scientific alternative explanation to intelligent design other than "it just happened." After all, they require super-natural events to accomplish key elements of their theory which have never been observed and cannot be tested in the laboratory.

    Never forget: assumptions<>fact.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob,

    Your 'assumptions' argument has no meat.For instance, we know the universe is expanding because we can measure it. Fact. We know that say 100 or 1000 years ago that the universe was not as expanded. If you keep going back in time, it is now believed that the universe was once compacted even smaller and smaller. We are just going on the facts that as time as gone forward, the universe has expanded and visa versa. Drive a car ten miles and then reverse it and you'll end up at the start. But you would argue that just as you put it into reverse, it is only an assumption to say we'll end up at the finish. but it is up to you to come up with a BETTER explanation of why we wouldn't end up at the start.Until you do, my belief will prevail. You assume your money is safe in the bank at least until tomorrow, unless I have EVIDENCE that convinces you otherwise. You are basing your life on these so called assumptions. You assume you might get sick, so you have health insurance. Your hypothesis or assumption that getting ill is possible is based on fact. i must come up with some better facts to convince you your assumption or hypothesis is wrong. You are accepting the fact that there is a risk of illness. Or you are assuming it because no other evidence says otherwise. In life and in science, assumptions, hypothesis, theories are accepted as the prevailing truth until someone comes up with information or facts to change your mind. You throw the word 'assumptions' around lightly which is odd because many of your life and death choices are based on them
  • You'll get no argument whatsoever here that life is full of assumptions.

    One important thing to remember (which we should all know from experience) is that frequently those assuptions we depend on from day to day let us down, they fail, they fall through. And sometimes that's because our initial assumptions regarding those subsequent assumptions were unfounded or based on erroneous data or erroneous assumptions.

    For instance, you're right that if you drive a car ten miles and reverse you'll end up at the start. Well, assuming the car moved in a straight line in both directions. And assuming nothing intervenes in the path during reversal. And if you wanted to calculate how long that return trip would take--assuming the car moved in a straight line--you would also have to (a) assume that the speed of the car was constant during the entire journey and (b) if "a" can reasonably be assumed, then you have to assume what that forward speed was. That's a whole lot of assumptions, my friend, and you'd probably be reaching really far to make some of those assumptions.

    But what about some other assumptions that aren't such a reach--assumptions that are actually pretty darn logical and likely? What about some other important details about that car and it's journey? Is it reasonable to assume that if it went 10 miles, it probably had an intelligent force driving it? Isn't it reasonable to assume an intelligent force set it in motion in the first place (most cars don't take off on a trip on their own)? Isn't it also reasonable to assume the car was constructed by an intelligent designer? Cars don't usually pop into existence from nothing, and they certainly don't appear out of nothing and actually function.

    Assumptions are a part of life. They're unavoidable. But when you make them, you have to do your best to ensure that you're making the assumption on (a) reliable data and that (b) the assumption is rational and reasonable, and (c) and that there are no other interpretations that are as likely or even more likely based on how those interpretations fit the available data.

    Also, unlike evolutionists, most of us don't run around portraying our assumptions as if they were scientifically verified irrefutable facts.

    That's what I find so disingenuous and hypocritical about most evolutionists.
  • DCM
    I'd like to see a lot of evolutionism's claims put into a petri dish as well!

    Evolutionists say that evolution has been firmly tested & verified, and that all intelligent people accept it. If *that's* not volunteering to take on the burden of proof, I don't know what is. But they fall woefully short of fulfilling that burden of proof.

    Do you ever REALLY think about all you're assuming is true when you accept the idea of creator-less life? Do you really think, for example, that your respiratory system or your digestive system is the result of millions of years of unguided modifications that left no useless leftovers? That they kept being passed on in spite of having no function, until one day they finally happened to gain one? Where is the evidence that this actually happened for even ONE organ or function of any lifeform? It's not enough to point to superficial little variations or to adaptations that just rearrange what's already there.

    Darwin said his "theory" would break down if it could be shown that even one organ could not have been the result of successive modifications. Well, Dawkins says he doesn't know of even one organ that qualifies. Really? What factual evidence does he base this opinion on? Clearly, he's bluffing. He cannot show that even one organ DOESN'T qualify, and can only back up his statement with sheer speculation.

    The claims that molecules-to-man evolution is "proven" keep getting louder, even as new evidence against it (such as that which is disproving the idea of "junk" DNA) continually mounts.

    I can understand people's hesitance about accepting a supernatural Creator. I know I wouldn't accept it if the hard factual data weren't pointing in that direction. But time and time again, when I see people not accepting the Creator -- usually without even being familiar with actual creationist
    positions -- I find that lack of acceptance to be emotionally rather than factually driven. They're not rejecting God based on the facts; they would reject him pretty much no matter what the facts were.
  • phoenixmd
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_trait

    What was that you were saying about no useless leftovers, DCM?
  • DCM
    ...and ultimately the only response my questions got was reactions to weakness in the wording of a sentence or two. No answers, or attempted answers, to the broader questions. I hate to sound cynical, but that's really typical.

    When questions are raised about the problems with the evolutionary hypothesis, evolutionists tend to focus on points they think they can explain plausibly -- saying, in effect, "Yes, this *can* be explained in the context of evolution!" But the bigger questions remain unanswered. Besides, it's one thing to have an "answer" for everything that fits what you already believe; it's another entirely to follow the truth where it leads and let your beliefs be changed to fit them. I do not have a stubborn desire to believe in God & a 6-day creation, regardless of what the evidence might say; I've open-mindedly listened to both sides and done my best to honestly see where the evidence points.
  • DCM
    PM - Certainly there are vestigial traits, which are evidence of *devolution*, not evolution. I just meant that there are no such leftovers associated with the functional organs in your own body. Scientists used to think the human body had some 180 vestigial traits; they now know it has none.

    FABT - My question was, where is the evidence that the genes for, say, the liver kept getting passed on until that organ finally gained a function? It would have been useless & a drain on resources until then.
  • I don't quite understand your paragraph about the organs. What is being passed on in spite of having no function?
  • DCM
    For all the attempts to sell evolutionism as legitimate science, it's obvious to many people that it's nothing but materialistic philosophy in scientific-looking clothing. This survey is heartening because it shows that there are still people who honestly *think* -- something evolutionists clearly don't want us to do.

    I'm tired of hearing those who reject evolution being labelled as "ignorant." Who's really pushing ignorance here -- the creationists who say "let's look at all the facts & viewpoints," or the evolutionists who say "only look at what we want you to look at"? Really, people, it's *not* a tough question.
  • Brian Rutledge
    People in the tiny,tiny minority often feel persecuted, as DCM displays.
  • DCM
    Huh? I didn't say anything about feeling persecuted. I don't care whether I'm in a tiny minority or a huge majority as long as I know I've done my darnedest to get at the truth. I know why I don't accept the "we-were-created-by-nothing" myth, and I don't care for other people projecting motivations on me that I don't actually have.
  • - "according to their theory, organisms must spontaneously gain new and more complex genetic information to transform into new forms"
    Not spontaneously but in small steps, where each step improves the fitness of the individual.

    - "…when this has never been observed, and cannot be manufactured or tested in the lab."
    Only partly true. In the field of computer science there are evolutionary algorithms which often outperform any algorithm thought up by man. Of course man's accomplishment is that he was able to observe nature and transfer this knowledge to the computer.
    I recommend reading about the computer simulation "Tierra"
  • Clemens, you must not understand what "spontaneously" means. It is defined as "developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment."

    Whether in big steps or small the laws of science tell us that organisms simply don't spontaneously gain new and more complex genetic information to transform into new forms.

    You also obviously don't understand the meaning of "intelligence" and what it means to be an "author" of information. The algorithms, the output, and the very computers you mentioned illustrate my point: they are ALL the product of an intelligent author.

    You are obviously of the minority who don't believe in intelligence, perhaps because you have so little experience with it.
  • Please provide a source for some evolutionist who claims that evolution works that way. The 'fitness' of an individual lifeform always depends on the environment, it can't develop itself into something new. The environment changes constantly (climate, continents, flora, fauna etc.) so there is always an interaction.

    The "author" of the algorithm (or of everything that exists if you want to put it that way) only provides the environment and does not drive evolution itself. By providing a cleverly structured environment life can develop into a certain direction.

    Therefor, an hypothetical all-powerful/all-knowing entity could create the universe in a way so that life as we know it developed (by evolution) exactly in that way the creator of that universe wanted it to.

    BUT: If that 'god-entity' just created a random universe with no plan lifeforms would have developed as well.

    The only question would be (ignoring all questions like: Was the universe created at all? Is there a god? etc.) : Was the universe created in a way so that evolution on Earth would take a certain path?
  • Clemens, my friend, you're having an awful hard time making any sense at all, even for an evolutionist. I'm not even sure how to answer you.

    You seem to have an acute case of assumptivitis, a malady that affects almost all evolutionists. It is the chronic inability to separate assumptions (which are essentially "guesses") from objective fact.

    In other words, you're assuming the "fitness" of an individual life form always depends on the environment. You don't know that, especially in the sense of the theory of evolution, because evolution has never been observed.

    Ironically, you don't even seem to realize that the very language you're using to advocate evolution is filled with acceptance that the universe is filled with evidence of intelligent design. Example: your use of the term "cleverly constructed environment."

    Things don't become "constructed" without intelligent action, and they certainly don't become constructed in a "clever" manner without exceptional intelligence behind them.

    No offense, but if I were you, I'd quit while I was ahead...and while folks can still have some hope of attributing coherence to your statements.
  • David Sorrenson
    I find it interesting how the creationist (Bob Ellis) seems compelled to resort to personal attacks against the evolutionist (Clemens Lode) in every post he can. Sounds to me like Bob is not very sure of himself and as such, is resorting to insults to try and give his position more validity.
  • I just tell it like it is. I expect a certain minimum level of coherence and rational statements. We owe one another the courtesy of either making our statements relevant, accurate and coherent. I don't know squat about how to rebuild a transmission or the sociopolitical messages in the latest hip-hop music or the migratory habits of Canadian geese, so I tend to keep my mouth shut around discussions of those subjects because I'd waste everybody's time broadcasting my ignorance.

    I meant nothing personal against Clemens, but by any objective measure, his arguments left a whole lot to be desired in both of those criteria. He's welcome at the table if he brings something more to it.
  • In my previous post I described how both intelligent design and evolution could be true (assuming that the universe was in fact "created"). The "author"/"creator" creates the environment and LET it evolve according to the theory of evolution.

    Personally I don't think the universe was created, the universe was always there.
  • In a scenario where anything is possible, then yes both could be true. Such a position is essentially theistic evolution.

    However, the theory of evolution still has the same problems, i.e. needed a supernatural boost every now and then in order to be possible in the first place. And the serious evolutionists (i.e. the ones not trying to manufacture an unnatural marriage between the creation account and the theory of evolution) reject even the possibility of supernatural causation at any point in the theoretical progressions outlined by materialists, naturalists and evolutionists.

    And there is still the lack of evidence for many of the theory of evolution's key contentions.
  • Well, it works perfectly on the computer. There are simulations where cooperation, parasites, hyper-parasites, etc. developed out of simple self-replicating programs. In addition I know of no case in nature where I stand in front of it and say "Wow, that's so amazing, it can't have been developed on its own.".
  • Replication and new information are two completely different things.

    Also, simulations are not the same as actual biology.
  • DCM
    "Not spontaneously but in small steps, where each step improves the fitness of the individual." -- Whatever. That's still completely hypothetical and contrary to what's observed in real life.
  • Nothing observed in real life points to large evolutionary steps (or small steps without benefit to the individual lifeform).
  • Isn't it an amazing coincidence that the alleged "beneficial steps" just happen to work out to be beneficial to the organism?

    If one didn't know better, one would almost be compelled to see these beneficial organic characteristics as intelligently designed. :-)
  • Well, EVERY step is beneficial, otherwise the trait is eliminated from the gene pool sooner or later.

    When you send out a thousand scouts out into the jungle and see who is the first to come out, then his story really will sound fantastic or 'intelligent', even though he just randomly walked around like the rest.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I was surprised in the first survey question you mentioned that only 52% of Amricans believe that the developement of life was guided by intelligent design. I thought the number of Americans who believe God ( which is a euphemism for intelligent design ) was responsible for life would have been much, much higher. That means almost 50% don't believe it or are not sure.
  • You're right. There is a certain level of dichotomy there. It stems from the intellectual mushiness that passes for "thought" both in today's education system and todays churches. Many Christians (I used to be one of them) have bought into theistic evolution without really examining its scientific and theological implications.

    I do find it incredibly telling that after decades of a nearly seamless pro-evolution campaign in news, education, entertainment and everything else, that a majority still isn't buying it.

    Maybe there's hope...
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »