Posted on 06/13/2007 8:30:23 AM PDT by presidio9
The three Republican presidential candidates who indicated last month that they do not believe in evolution may have been taking a safe stance on the issue when it comes to appealing to GOP voters.
A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.
Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.
The poll also said that those who go to church often are far likelier to reject evolution than those who do not. Republicans are likelier than Democrats or independents to attend church services, according to Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll.
At the GOP's first presidential debate last month, the 10 candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands.
The Gallup survey, conducted May 21 to 24, involved telephone interviews with 1,007 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
>>that’s good because there is alot more scientific evidence for creationism than evolution. It is just that people have to find it on their own as the evolutionists in many schools won’t allow an honest teaching of both theories...due to theirs being built on sand. Of course it is difficult for them to admitt to that.<<
As a Christian, I’d love to find evidence of creation. And do see patterns in the universe and wonder if they were not put there.
But I have yet to see where clear evidence of something occured that could not possibly have a physical explanation.
Nor does this seem strange since God wants us to have faith.
For a theory to be useful it has to predict things that are not predicted by other theories. Right now, Creationism has not been shown to be a useful theory in any scientific field so its not appropriate to teach it as science at this time.
where did you come up with that...that the creation theory predictions cannot be the same with any of the evolution predictions for it to be a thoery? If you honestly look at the science of creationism, there is much there. It does not impede faith to see that because the darkness is always working in our thoughts regardless of the evidence. That’s where we faith...to not fight the evil in our minds but watch it and let God to it. It’s already been defeated anyways.
>>where did you come up with that...that the creation theory predictions cannot be the same with any of the evolution predictions for it to be a thoery? If you honestly look at the science of creationism, there is much there. It does not impede faith to see that because the darkness is always working in our thoughts regardless of the evidence. That’s where we faith...to not fight the evil in our minds but watch it and let God to it. It’s already been defeated anyways.<<
That’s just the definition of “useful theory” in science.
Thus far, no useful theories either in that sense or in the sense of having practical usefulness are creation based.
That would be a good step if creationists want creationism to be accepted as science - to come up with physical events that are predicted only by their creation theories.
And you bring that assumption to the text before you even begin reading it. You are saying that Gen 1 must be a parable because of the results of modern physics, not because the literary type is parable. The cart is before the horse in your interpretive scheme.
The material in Genesis is historical narrative ... this happened, then that happened, then this other thingy happened ... and so on. The entire book is like that. Whether Genesis is actual history is another question.
A literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent the observation of God's Creation. Since man is Fallen and imperfect, then it is not the physical world around us that is in question but the interpretation of Scripture. To claim a literal reading of Genesis is correct, then you are saying God is a liar, which borders on the blasphemous.
I actually think your summary of our respective positions is accurate. I just wanted to know where you were coming from. And I do believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and purport to know 100% the knowledge in the universe, even though my girlfriend will assure you I really don’t much about anything.
So if a theory actually predicts that you wont find any evidence for it ... should the scientific community reject that theory as being non-scientific?
Only after the time when everyone was Christian and the Church controlled everything. That Christian time is known as the Dark Ages and nothing scientific came out of that time in Christendom. It was only after the Reformation and the start of the Enlightenment that science and technology flourished. During the Dark Ages, it was actually the Muslim societies that produced a small measure of sceintific acheivement. But since then, they've entered a Dark Age and have gone down the path of religious purity, mandating cut off the heads of those who disagree with their religious tenents as an example.
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel. By words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know."
God reveals his handiwork in His Creation. Job didn't have the ability and insight to see what we can see today. We can only go by what God set in the foundations of our world and universe. that does not deny God, but reveals more of His Glory. Or do you believe God will make our world one way, but desribe it differently? Then it is our interpretation of Scripture, which was written by Man, a fallen, sinful being, that needs to be revised. I cannot believe people would limit God in what he can do. No where in Scripture does it say how old the world is, nor how it was made. We can only look a the evidence God gave us and that says God has been doing a lot of work, for billions of years, before we were here.
yep, students are not qualified to see both sides, including creationism theory. Your argument is so messed up...hope you come out of your confusing thoughts.
>>So if a theory actually predicts that you wont find any evidence for it ... should the scientific community reject that theory as being non-scientific?<<
It could still be a scientific theory but it would be “non-useful” and would not normally be taught as part of a curriculum. Russell’s teapot is the classic example.
Some famous and important work has started as non-useful but become useful (like wave particle duality) as applications were found.
Other work continues to be non-useful but large amounts of research are applied to it because it is believed to be be promising or it fills a need to resolve a contradiction (like string theory).
But generally, if a theory is taught at the high school level, it meets the requirement of “useful.”
>>The material in Genesis is historical narrative ... this happened, then that happened, then this other thingy happened ... and so on. The entire book is like that. Whether Genesis is actual history is another question.<<
Who was the observer. I would suggest the only possible observer was God. And thus the retelling translating the billions of years into days and not going into the enourmous complexity makes it more or a parable.
But I’m open to another word - I don’t really like “parable” here but it seems closest. God knows how long it took for supernovas to explode and deposit iodine on earth and that supernovas are where iodine comes from. So when He told man the story - it really is a (parable or something) more than a history, IMO.
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. The universe can't be any older than 6000 years.
Yes. But Franklin, Copernicus, Einstein and yes, Darwin, didn't answer their scientific questions with "God did it". Creationists do. And when "God did it", scientific inquiry is over.
I was an agnostic for over 30 years and thought just as you. Now I am Christian. Now I know what an ignorant ass I was about Christianity. I was bigoted and incredibily uninformed.
That's funny, I went the other way. I studied to be a missionary in college, but gave it up before I finished. I discovered that the solid Christians that I loved and trusted were in reality fakes and in one case a literal child molester. When I finally asked myself the question "why was I a Christian" rather than Buddhist or animist, the answer I discovered was the place of my birth. I was a Christian because my parents were, and everyone I grew up with. Had I been born somewhere else, I could have been worshiping rocks and no doubt would have been equally convinced they were genuine gods. Why was I so lucky to have been born into the "correct" religion of Christianity? Answer... it wasn't the correct religion, and none are.
Christianity is a great love story that can move one to tears, just like a good love story in a movie. But both are fiction, which only proves that you can give your heart to something that doesn't exist.
If my sharing of my witness has caused you to think twice about your faith, remember that this always occurs when Christians challenge evolution. Some Christians will lose their faith when challenged with the conundrum of evidence for an old earth and evolution. Others will never find Jesus when the person telling them the Good News also says they must reject their scientific understanding. Many Christians have no problem accepting that God created evolution first. I suggest to all Christians that they accept that fact, which will remove the stumbling block that many have with the faith.
I still think Christianity is the best of all religions. It is tolerant, it has given birth to western civilization, the greatest that has ever existed on Earth. And it has tolerated dissent against it, such as me. Since most humans, I believe, are hardwired to need a faith, I hope more find Christianity than otherwise. That's why I urge Christians to get over their passion for hating Darwin, and learn to accept that the Bible isn't a science textbook. Just as they did when they discovered that lightning was mere electrons instead of the voice of God, and that the rain was sent by condensation of water that had evaporated from the ocean, rather than the tears of Him.
Darwin and Dawkins missed that... pity
No doubt to make you feel more comfortable, rather than for the comfort and benefit of anyone else. Your selfishness seems to have no bounds.
You, who should know better in the eyes of God, do seek to spread the hardness of your heart with others, and turn them away, as you yourself have turned away.
God will judge us all in due time, and though I tremble somewhat at the things that I have done, it in no wise compares to the fear I have for you when when that day cometh and your hardness be not resolved beforehand....
What is the nature and origin of the forces that; 1) led to the genesis of life? (a chemistry motivated to propagate copies of itself) and 2) caused one tiny branch of those life-forms to near-instantaneously acquire a profoundly superior intelligence, a profoundly unique knowledge of God a subsequent creation of cultural evolution?
1) There is no explanation why some primordial sludge should ever acquire an impulsive "desire", "need", or compulsion to reproduce and make copies of itself. (they stunk anyway) and then be motivated to go on and conquer the world (viz. movie "The Blob" LOL).
There is certainly some force driving it. Nothing happens in nature without a force changing the state. A life force is as good a term as any to describe the redirection.
2) It is not understood how one particular primate species instantaneously acquired a superior intelligence and a knowledge of God and soul, but those characteristics have been wildly successful in advancing the goals of evolution for that species.
Culture is at the heart of the success and God is responsible. All cultural advancements are driven by and because of the knowledge of God. Its also interesting to note that the fundamental moralities and motivations that come with God are common across all human societies, no matter how isolated they were from each other. Just as amazingly they all "evolved" within the same small time period.
The big question then, why did one particular primate species suddenly decide to get smart, stop being a "chimpanzee" and begin worshipping God(s)?
The belief in God is the singular greatest feature that distinguishes us from atheist animals and the single greatest reason why we have become so successful and achieved such abundance.
Also since these human traits are so fantastically successful it is statistically unreasonable that no other species have evolved any similar characteristics. Why not?
[None of the evolutionary, atheist leaders, like Richard Dawkins have been able to explain it and they do acknowledge the strangeness of it all.]
God has driven man to adopt strategies, moralities and contrainstictual behavioural modalities (ooh cool term, it may deserve its own acronym, LOL) not found in other life forms.
The very idea of living life to gain reward after death is completely antithetical to base evolutionary theories. This alone suggests the need for science to consider additional process perturbations outside the current realm of scientific knowledge, such as "God", aliens, martians, whatever...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.