Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

Right said:
It should be self-explanatory to you. If not, I'd suggest that you discuss this with someone willing to teach you logic and reason. That ain't me.
Click to expand...

None of what you said made any sense. Either you were confused or you just don't do logic.
 
Theistic evolution could be defined as believing that "God" set the laws of nature in motion but that evolution alone, as a natural process explained by biology, is enough to account for the diversity and complexity of life. It is a purely theological position. In contrast intelligent design contends that evolution is not sufficient to explain the complexity of life and that an intelligent designer must be responsible. It attempts to cross over into science and is largely a political movement using ID as a Trojan horse to sneak religion into schools.

The thing is though, that these ideas are big in scope and it can be difficult to say that an individual is all of one and none of the other or vice versa. Some proponents of ID leave some room for evolution within species or "kinds" (made up word that means some sort of taxa broader than species). Others reject unguided evolution entirely but pretend that they accept it if it only means that humans are getting taller.

Francis Collins (who some may remember, is the guy that ditzy used to cite as being a top scientist that accepts ID) rejects ID for theistic evolution. He believes that God only intervened when he put a soul into man. But he also argues that our morality cannot be explained by evolution/natural selection. Einstein was an avowed agnostic and seemed to entertain the possibility of something similar to theistic evolution, but without the religious dogma that Collins accepts.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Theistic evolution could be defined as believing that "God" set the laws of nature in motion but that evolution alone, as a natural process explained by biology, is enough to account for the diversity and complexity of life. It is a purely theological position. In contrast intelligent design contends that evolution is not sufficient to explain the complexity of life and that an intelligent designer must be responsible. It attempts to cross over into science and is largely a political movement using ID as a Trojan horse to sneak religion into schools.

The thing is though, that these ideas are big in scope and it can be difficult to say that an individual is all of one and none of the other or vice versa. Some proponents of ID leave some room for evolution within species or "kinds" (made up word that means some sort of taxa broader than species). Others reject unguided evolution entirely but pretend that they accept it if it only means that humans are getting taller.

Francis Collins (who some may remember, is the guy that ditzy used to cite as being a top scientist that accepts ID) rejects ID for theistic evolution. He believes that God only intervened when he put a soul into man. But he also argues that our morality cannot be explained by evolution/natural selection. Einstein was an avowed agnostic and seemed to entertain the possibility of something similar to theistic evolution, but without the religious dogma that Collins accepts.
Click to expand...

The number of thinking people who believe in creationism is vanishingly small. The debate was settled a long time ago from a scientific standpoint.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol......no......we just reject liberals who think it was an unguided process.........
Click to expand...
Which misses the whole point entirely. Science does not give a fuck if it is Allah, Jesus,flying pigs, a circus of monkeys or Alan Gore humping Sarah Palin that cause something theistic and design oriented to happen. Theistic thought is by definition supernatural and beyond the realms of science.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Theistic evolution could be defined as believing that "God" set the laws of nature in motion but that evolution alone, as a natural process explained by biology, is enough to account for the diversity and complexity of life. It is a purely theological position. In contrast intelligent design contends that evolution is not sufficient to explain the complexity of life and that an intelligent designer must be responsible. It attempts to cross over into science and is largely a political movement using ID as a Trojan horse to sneak religion into schools.

The thing is though, that these ideas are big in scope and it can be difficult to say that an individual is all of one and none of the other or vice versa. Some proponents of ID leave some room for evolution within species or "kinds" (made up word that means some sort of taxa broader than species). Others reject unguided evolution entirely but pretend that they accept it if it only means that humans are getting taller.

Francis Collins (who some may remember, is the guy that ditzy used to cite as being a top scientist that accepts ID) rejects ID for theistic evolution. He believes that God only intervened when he put a soul into man. But he also argues that our morality cannot be explained by evolution/natural selection. Einstein was an avowed agnostic and seemed to entertain the possibility of something similar to theistic evolution, but without the religious dogma that Collins accepts.
Click to expand...

anyone who believed in theistic evolution would by definition believe in an intelligent designer......so would anyone who believed the world was created in six days......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that would be creationism in the liberally distorted tradition.......
Click to expand...

It is what Ham argues, it is what is presented by his Creation Museum, AnswersInGenesis and creationist educational resources. You want a link to that test of his again? Why do you insist on telling lies that are so easily refuted?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
So then it is political? Interesting admission, but I would not insult Behe and Dembski by pretending you speak for them.
Click to expand...

perhaps not exclusively, but I think there is a great deal of overlap between those stupid enough to think all life evolved from a single celled organism and those stupid enough to be liberals......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top