"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in
news:jJOZ8.8647$Fq6.665702 at news2.west.cox.net:
>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>> Well, 40% believe:
>>>> Human beings have developed over millions of years from less
>> advanced forms of life.
>>>>>> which is a rather fine and succinct description of evolution. The
>> fact that they further believe that:
>>>> God guided this process
>>>>>> does not mean that they do not believe in the evolutionary process,
>> which is simply the observation that:
>>>> Human beings [and all other organisms] have developed over
>> millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
>>>> This is patently dishonest. By throwing in "and all other organisms",
> you're changing the entire context of that statement, and you're doing
> it on purpose. And why would you do that? Because you don't want to
> accept what this poll STATES in plain English. But there's more.
But if you can accept that "all other organisms" have developed over
millions of years, why can't you accept that humans did too?
>>>>> as opposed, to, say:
>>>> God POOFED it all into existence, in a week or so.
>>>> which is not an evolutionary viewpoint.
>>>>>> According to Larson's 1997 repeat of Leuba's famous 1916 poll of
>> belief among scientists (published in Science), about thirty percent
>> of
> biologists
>> report a belief in God (up, actually, from the 1916 result). I will
> promise
>> you that only a tiny fraction of those do not believe in evolution,
>> which is no more and no less than the premise that:
>>>> Human beings [and all other organisms] have developed over
>> millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
>>>> so it is quite possible to believe that
>>>> Human beings have developed over millions of years from less
>> advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
>>>> as 40% of Americans apparently do.
>>>> This is preposterous. The essence of Darwinism, the reason that
> Americans reject it in great numbers, the reason it's a sick joke, is
> that it attempts to discredit 2,000 years of science which taught that
> God created life and displace it with his "theory of natural
This is the same "science" that also taught that the Earth is flat, that it
is the center of the Universe and that the Universe and the sun revolved
around the Earth? The same science where the "scientists"(read, unwashed
priests) burned people at the stake for suggesting otherwise?
> selection". You cannot have it both ways. Either God created life,
> or Darwin's "theory" [read: not] of evolution created it by natural
> selection. These two are mutually exclusive possibilities.
Actually, they are not. You see, science really describes processes.
Evolution is a process, so science attempts to describe it. Religion, on
the other hand, presents *acts*, but doesn't attempt to describe them. You
seem incapable of accepting that God can create a process and then watch
over that process for millions of years.
>> "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced
> forms of life, but God guided this process" is NOT the "theory" of
> evolution, nor is it the theory of natural selection on which TOE is
> based, as you attempt to suggest with this dishonest sleight of hand.
So what? Nothing in science denies the existence of God.
>> There's no way that you didn't know that Darwin's theory of natural
> selection is a rejection of creation. You clearly already knew that
> the instant a person believes that God was involved in creating life,
> he rejects natural selection. You must be aware that when you combine
Why?
> "God guided this process" with "from less advanced forms of life", you
> do NOT have TOE, you've just rejected it--which is why you parsed
You'll have to explain that one.
> these words.
>>>>>> Evolution does not say He did it, it does not say He did not do it.
>> Will you find me a textbook on evolution that even mentions the
>> question?
>>>> In fact, rather a few of Darwin's contemporaries believed they were
>> enhancing the glory of God by studying exactly how He Did It. But
>> in any event, if the Gallup figures are reasonably correct, then
>> approximately 50% of Americans polled feel that organisms have
>> slowly turned into other organisms over a very very very long period
>> of time, which is exactly the definition of evolution.
>>>>>> -- cary
>> Are you going to now claim that Darwin wasn't an "evolutionist"? Is
> this your scam? His "Origin of Species" makes PRECISELY that claim.
> This is PRECISELY what the uproar was all about. This is EXACTLY what
> William Jennings Bryan said under oath in court about it.
>> With regard to your claim that his contemporaries thought they were
> doing God a favor, you know we're not going to hold our breaths
> waiting for that reference, don't you?
*You* haven't provided any references for your claims(apart from your
website, which contains only percentages, not numbers, is missing several
links, and you completely misinterpret even what's there).
>> John Knight
>>>
--
-----------------
"...What you have to understand, young lady, is that the Greeks, not
content with dominating the culture of the Classical world, are also
responsible for the greatest, some would say the only, work of true
creative imagination produced this century as well. I refer of course to
the Greek ferry timetables. A work of the sublimest fiction. Anyone who
has travelled the Aegean will confirm this..." Professor Watkin - Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
-----------------
