PDA

View Full Version : 63% Reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution



Dark Knight
02-12-2009, 04:12 AM
I'm hoping this doesn't restart a debate that's already been discussed ad nauseum on WS, but I felt this survey's results were interesting and very surprising, at least to me, as I assumed the majority of American's believed in Darwin's version of evolution:


In the 150 years since he published his groundbreaking On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the 200 years since the date of his birth celebrated this week, Charles Darwin has failed to convince the majority of Americans of the validity of his theories; an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found that 63% of Americans say they believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being while only 26% say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20090212/ts_pew/63rejectdarwinstheoryofevolution (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20090212/ts_pew/63rejectdarwinstheoryofevolution)

southcitymom
02-12-2009, 08:43 AM
That is interesting, DK! I wouldn't have thought that large of a percentage disagreed with Darwin's theories.

I must admit that I haven't seen this debate discussed here ad nauseum and you know how I drift towards heated topics where I can cause trouble. Maybe I was napping.

Oddly enough, I have no strong opinions on this, though I do believe in evolution on many levels.

accordn2me
02-12-2009, 09:31 AM
This surprises me ---> "26% say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection."

I've never had a problem reconciling creation and evolution. Science and God go hand-in-hand. Too bad some of the scientists don't realize that!

thefragile7393
02-12-2009, 03:09 PM
Wow....well throw me into the 63% then. Won't say anymore because I don't debate at all.

txsvicki
02-12-2009, 06:39 PM
You can throw me in with the 60 something percent, too. I don't believe in evolution at all, and have never taught that to my kids. I'm happy that the majority of people reject this idea.

Dark Knight
02-12-2009, 08:35 PM
This surprises me ---> "26% say that life evolved solely through processes such as natural selection."

I've never had a problem reconciling creation and evolution. Science and God go hand-in-hand. Too bad some of the scientists don't realize that!

Yeah, that's interesting since every year the number of people who say they believe in God is usually around 85%. So athiests don't even make up 26% of the population.

And I agree science and God can go hand in hand. The Vatican's position has been that, as well, in recent years.

*crossing fingers this thread doesn't get ugly, lol*

Dark Knight
02-12-2009, 08:42 PM
That is interesting, DK! I wouldn't have thought that large of a percentage disagreed with Darwin's theories.

I must admit that I haven't seen this debate discussed here ad nauseum and you know how I drift towards heated topics where I can cause trouble. Maybe I was napping.

Oddly enough, I have no strong opinions on this, though I do believe in evolution on many levels.

LOL! I am also shocked you somehow missed out on it, hehehe. It truly was ad nauseum, too. Unreal. I do remember Ariel7, a creationist, joining in late and pretty much owning people who debated the other side of it. She asked questions that couldn't be answered and poked all sorts of holes in their posts. It ended shortly after that, lol. But it drug out forever and a day, it seemed. Ugh.

elfie
02-12-2009, 08:52 PM
When I first started out online some 18 years ago I didn't think that evolution was a reliable scientific theory. The year afterward, the classification of Archaea was formally announced and the discovery of Extremophiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile which caused me to rethink my position (along with plenty of reasonable arguments from evolution supporters presenting tons of scientific evidence). Online discussions can be very beneficial. :)

Nova
02-12-2009, 09:11 PM
LOL! I am also shocked you somehow missed out on it, hehehe. It truly was ad nauseum, too. Unreal. I do remember Ariel7, a creationist, joining in late and pretty much owning people who debated the other side of it. She asked questions that couldn't be answered and poked all sorts of holes in their posts. It ended shortly after that, lol. But it drug out forever and a day, it seemed. Ugh.

Oh, please. Ariel7 is a gem, but nobody was owned and the debate certainly didn't end quickly. (And you, sir, were hardly an unbiased observer.)

The arguments against evolution are based largely in misunderstandings of Darwin and misunderstandings of the relevant terms (not to mention any number of straw-man arguments). But because denial is based in blind faith rather than reason, debates here invariably end in evolution opponents shrilly restating their original positions, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The fact is that Darwin's theory has stood the test of time and is reconfirmed everyday by scientists around the world.

As for the 63% figure, I'm tempted to quote H.L. Mencken ("Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people."), but in fact, the problem may lie in the nature of the question. Since most Americans are theists in one sense or another, it isn't surprising that many question a theory that attributes all biological change to random events.

Personally, I believe that consciousness is purposefullly creative in a spiritual sense, but I recognize that belief is an article of faith. I don't expect science to confirm or deny it.

twinkiesmom
02-12-2009, 09:37 PM
The arguments against evolution are based largely in misunderstandings of Darwin and misunderstandings of the relevant terms (not to mention any number of straw-man arguments). .

I have a microbiology degree and am happy to stand with the 63%. I believe in natural selection but do not believe it is the be-all or end-all in how life began.

LovingTheChaos
02-12-2009, 10:18 PM
Well, I am a Christian who loves science, and believes in the theory of evolution.


According to this study from Gallup - 39% overall believe, 74 % of college graduates believe, and 24% of regular church goin folks believe in the theory of evolution.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx

gaia227
02-12-2009, 10:24 PM
Oh, please. Ariel7 is a gem, but nobody was owned and the debate certainly didn't end quickly. (And you, sir, were hardly an unbiased observer.)

The arguments against evolution are based largely in misunderstandings of Darwin and misunderstandings of the relevant terms (not to mention any number of straw-man arguments). But because denial is based in blind faith rather than reason, debates here invariably end in evolution opponents shrilly restating their original positions, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The fact is that Darwin's theory has stood the test of time and is reconfirmed everyday by scientists around the world.

As for the 63% figure, I'm tempted to quote H.L. Mencken ("Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people."), but in fact, the problem may lie in the nature of the question. Since most Americans are theists in one sense or another, it isn't surprising that many question a theory that attributes all biological change to random events.

Personally, I believe that consciousness is purposefullly creative in a spiritual sense, but I recognize that belief is an article of faith. I don't expect science to confirm or deny it.


Well said Nova. I guess I am in the less than 20% of the American population. A lot of people simply do not understand Darwin's theory and a big part of why is because many of them have not taken the time to actually read Origins of the Species or even read about it and actually try to understand what exactly he was saying. Darwin himself was a religious man, as most were when he was alive, even after his discoveries he still believed that there was a supreme creator and struggled greatly in the beginning with what the implications of his theories were.
So you end up with people who first of all don't understand what the are arguing against and they are arguing that point with a complete lack of reason and critical thinking because it is so clouded by their religious beliefs they are blind to anything that they otherwise might actually consider. You can't pit science and religion against eachother because they are completely different. One deals in absolutes, facts and theories that are backed up by years of research which has produced evidence to support that theory beyond a reasonable doubt another deals in faith. The definition of faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

America is an exception as far as western countries. Most European countries like England, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway over 80% of the population supports the theory of evolution and a lot of those people still have religious beliefs at the same time because evolution and adaptation is not viewed as a threat to religious beliefs.

Personally I don't understand how the theory that, for example, the Mockingbirds Darwin ccollected and studied and found that eventhough they were all Mockingbirds they were all from a different environment and over time they had physically evolved to fit into that specific environment is threatening. One mockingbird might have a long thin beak because their food source came from a long flower or deep thin hole whereas another mockingbird from a different island might have a thick stumpy beak because they had to be able to break open hard nuts and berries. Mockingbirds are one example - there are thousands and thousands of variations within species and you can look at it and see the adaptation that has taken place.
It is an amazing part of nature and it is sad that so many people refuse to concede it even happens when the proof of its happening is everywhere we look. Darwin's theory of evolution was based and focused largly on variations within species and why that happened and how. It has become simplified and grossly misconstrued to the point that when you say evolution people automatically think of some monkey squating down and crapping out a human which goes against everything that Darwin's theory supports.

That being said - there are a lot of moderate Christians in this country who are able to appreciate the science and at least acknowledge its validity and some of them believe in evolution. I can appreciate and respect people who are able to find balance between their religious beliefs and science.

southcitymom
02-12-2009, 10:45 PM
Well said Nova. I guess I am in the less than 20% of the American population. A lot of people simply do not understand Darwin's theory and a big part of why is because many of them have not taken the time to actually read Origins of the Species or even read about it and actually try to understand what exactly he was saying. Darwin himself was a religious man, as most were when he was alive, even after his discoveries he still believed that there was a supreme creator and struggled greatly in the beginning with what the implications of his theories were.
So you end up with people who first of all don't understand what the are arguing against and they are arguing that point with a complete lack of reason and critical thinking because it is so clouded by their religious beliefs they are blind to anything that they otherwise might actually consider. You can't pit science and religion against eachother because they are completely different. One deals in absolutes, facts and theories that are backed up by years of research which has produced evidence to support that theory beyond a reasonable doubt another deals in faith. The definition of faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

America is an exception as far as western countries. Most European countries like England, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway over 80% of the population supports the theory of evolution and a lot of those people still have religious beliefs at the same time because evolution and adaptation is not viewed as a threat to religious beliefs.

Personally I don't understand how the theory that, for example, the Mockingbirds Darwin ccollected and studied and found that eventhough they were all Mockingbirds they were all from a different environment and over time they had physically evolved to fit into that specific environment is threatening. One mockingbird might have a long thin beak because their food source came from a long flower or deep thin hole whereas another mockingbird from a different island might have a thick stumpy beak because they had to be able to break open hard nuts and berries. Mockingbirds are one example - there are thousands and thousands of variations within species and you can look at it and see the adaptation that has taken place.
It is an amazing part of nature and it is sad that so many people refuse to concede it even happens when the proof of its happening is everywhere we look. Darwin's theory of evolution was based and focused largly on variations within species and why that happened and how. It has become simplified and grossly misconstrued to the point that when you say evolution people automatically think of some monkey squating down and crapping out a human which goes against everything that Darwin's theory supports.

That being said - there are a lot of moderate Christians in this country who are able to appreciate the science and at least acknowledge its validity and some of them believe in evolution. I can appreciate and respect people who are able to find balance between their religious beliefs and science.

Great post! I especially agree that religious beliefs and what we "know" scientifically can be satisfactorily balanced. This is why I was surprised at the results of the poll DK posted. Of course, polls can say anything!

Darwin's theory has certainly stood the test of time.

Jholi
02-13-2009, 01:23 AM
63 percent of Americans believe that humans and other animals have either always existed in their present form or have evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being.
I think that's the reason for the inflated numbers.

Just because a person thinks God might have been there as a guide doesn't mean they disagree with evolution, at all. I would say I agree with Darwin, and I often debate those in the first group, yet these stats would lump me in with them, just because I think if there is a god, he's guiding everything in some ways.

Without those groups being distinguished, the numbers are worthless. IMHO.

Elphaba
02-13-2009, 05:00 AM
When I read "something-percent of Americans" I always have to LoL: I don't remember being asked... LoL

I'm of the 23 percentile... and before I take any survey seriously I have to see the full demographics and how it breaks down. Jholi makes an EXTREMELY valid point...

Dark Knight
02-13-2009, 05:13 AM
I think that's the reason for the inflated numbers.

Just because a person thinks God might have been there as a guide doesn't mean they disagree with evolution, at all. I would say I agree with Darwin, and I often debate those in the first group, yet these stats would lump me in with them, just because I think if there is a god, he's guiding everything in some ways.

Without those groups being distinguished, the numbers are worthless. IMHO.

Pew is one of the most, if not THE most, respected survey and research firms. If anyone can gets polls right, it's probably them. Although I agree the margin for error can be more than what pollsters often say it is. But as far as polling methodology goes, Pew is one of the top dogs and are famous for it their surveys.

squeaky
02-13-2009, 05:16 AM
According to this study from Gallup - 39% overall believe, 74 % of college graduates believe, and 24% of regular church goin folks believe in the theory of evolution.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx

ding ding ding ding ding!!!

it's pretty clear that the numbers are so skewed against evolution because so many people are uneducated.

Dark Knight
02-13-2009, 05:17 AM
I think that's the reason for the inflated numbers.

Just because a person thinks God might have been there as a guide doesn't mean they disagree with evolution, at all. I would say I agree with Darwin, and I often debate those in the first group, yet these stats would lump me in with them, just because I think if there is a god, he's guiding everything in some ways.

Without those groups being distinguished, the numbers are worthless. IMHO.

I forgot to add, those who believe God or some other intelligent being guided creation would be believers of Intelligent Design, in a sense. They are certainly diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory, which proposes natural selection is the cause for evolution. So the groups don't really need to be distinguished. You either believe it is random, or you don't, according to the question asked. If you believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection being the reason we exist, then you'd be in the 23%.

Dark Knight
02-13-2009, 05:19 AM
ding ding ding ding ding!!!

it's pretty clear that the numbers are so skewed against evolution because so many people are uneducated.

Or they've been tainted by biased professors who won't let them think of any other possibilities. Certainly more than 63% of all Americans are college educated.

Dark Knight
02-13-2009, 08:10 AM
ding ding ding ding ding!!!

it's pretty clear that the numbers are so skewed against evolution because so many people are uneducated.

Non scholae, sed vitae discimus!

Elphaba
02-13-2009, 08:37 AM
ding ding ding ding ding!!!

it's pretty clear that the numbers are so skewed against evolution because so many people are uneducated.

I have to disagree with you Squeaky... I am around professionals all of the time that are highly-educated, and some have their own reasoning for not believing in Darwin's theory of evolution. I may not agree with them, but I respect that they have the right to believe what they want. Besides, the "uneducated" argument is not a valid excuse/reason... it's just a nasty and very unfair insult.

twinkiesmom
02-13-2009, 08:40 AM
So you end up with people who first of all don't understand what the are arguing against and they are arguing that point with a complete lack of reason and critical thinking because it is so clouded by their religious beliefs they are blind to anything that they otherwise might actually consider.

And the vast majority of my professors were so overeducated and completely blind that they would stake their lives and reputations on life as we know it originating from a thunderbolt in a primordial soup of organic chemicals. Their furvor was nothing short of religious belief. And their students are evangelized no differently than one would be at a Billy Graham convention except it was daily and relentlous.

The truth is that natural selection does occur, species do evolve, etc., but no one really knows how life began. No scientist anywhere has managed to create life from nonlife.

Cypros
02-13-2009, 09:52 AM
The poll results are no surprise. Science is poorly taught in the American school system and Americans are far behind the rest of the industrialized world in the basics of both science and history.

Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution. It was already recognized and debated by fellow scientists of the 19th century. Darwin (and Hutton independently) simply identified one of the processes though which evolution works, natural selection. Since Darwin, scientists have discovered the additional mechanisms in the laws of inheritance and genetics that were not understood by Darwin but further substantiated his observations and the reality of evolution.

Nothing has disproved evolution and nothing has proved the presence of any supernatural spirit(s) that played a role in the amazing story of this universe.

Julessleuther
02-13-2009, 01:27 PM
Please do not presume to know the intelligence of every American who may have taken this survey. Just because intelligent design does not fit in with your theories does not make it incorrect. Has any scientist DISPROVED the existence of a higher being? Has a scientist been able to DISPROVE intelligent design? They all seem to get to that point of the first second of big bang, but have not been able to determine what created that first molecule, that first semblance of life. Scientists are not sure about alot of things, some things that they truly thought were correct at one time. If they are ever able to disprove intelligent design, I will eat every physics and religion book I own.



Oh, please. Ariel7 is a gem, but nobody was owned and the debate certainly didn't end quickly. (And you, sir, were hardly an unbiased observer.)

The arguments against evolution are based largely in misunderstandings of Darwin and misunderstandings of the relevant terms (not to mention any number of straw-man arguments). But because denial is based in blind faith rather than reason, debates here invariably end in evolution opponents shrilly restating their original positions, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The fact is that Darwin's theory has stood the test of time and is reconfirmed everyday by scientists around the world.

As for the 63% figure, I'm tempted to quote H.L. Mencken ("Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people."), but in fact, the problem may lie in the nature of the question. Since most Americans are theists in one sense or another, it isn't surprising that many question a theory that attributes all biological change to random events.

Personally, I believe that consciousness is purposefullly creative in a spiritual sense, but I recognize that belief is an article of faith. I don't expect science to confirm or deny it.

Julessleuther
02-13-2009, 01:36 PM
Actually, to be more exact, Charles Darwin was a religious man until he started his research. In fact, before he married his wife Emma, they had a debate whether they were suitable, as she was religious and he no longer was. He later referred to himself as an agnostic. I wholeheartenedly believe in evolution, but also believe in the intelligent design aspect of it all.



Well said Nova. I guess I am in the less than 20% of the American population. A lot of people simply do not understand Darwin's theory and a big part of why is because many of them have not taken the time to actually read Origins of the Species or even read about it and actually try to understand what exactly he was saying. Darwin himself was a religious man, as most were when he was alive, even after his discoveries he still believed that there was a supreme creator and struggled greatly in the beginning with what the implications of his theories were.
So you end up with people who first of all don't understand what the are arguing against and they are arguing that point with a complete lack of reason and critical thinking because it is so clouded by their religious beliefs they are blind to anything that they otherwise might actually consider. You can't pit science and religion against eachother because they are completely different. One deals in absolutes, facts and theories that are backed up by years of research which has produced evidence to support that theory beyond a reasonable doubt another deals in faith. The definition of faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

America is an exception as far as western countries. Most European countries like England, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway over 80% of the population supports the theory of evolution and a lot of those people still have religious beliefs at the same time because evolution and adaptation is not viewed as a threat to religious beliefs.

Personally I don't understand how the theory that, for example, the Mockingbirds Darwin ccollected and studied and found that eventhough they were all Mockingbirds they were all from a different environment and over time they had physically evolved to fit into that specific environment is threatening. One mockingbird might have a long thin beak because their food source came from a long flower or deep thin hole whereas another mockingbird from a different island might have a thick stumpy beak because they had to be able to break open hard nuts and berries. Mockingbirds are one example - there are thousands and thousands of variations within species and you can look at it and see the adaptation that has taken place.
It is an amazing part of nature and it is sad that so many people refuse to concede it even happens when the proof of its happening is everywhere we look. Darwin's theory of evolution was based and focused largly on variations within species and why that happened and how. It has become simplified and grossly misconstrued to the point that when you say evolution people automatically think of some monkey squating down and crapping out a human which goes against everything that Darwin's theory supports.

That being said - there are a lot of moderate Christians in this country who are able to appreciate the science and at least acknowledge its validity and some of them believe in evolution. I can appreciate and respect people who are able to find balance between their religious beliefs and science.

elfie
02-13-2009, 04:03 PM
Please do not presume to know the intelligence of every American who may have taken this survey. Just because intelligent design does not fit in with your theories does not make it incorrect. Has any scientist DISPROVED the existence of a higher being? Has a scientist been able to DISPROVE intelligent design? They all seem to get to that point of the first second of big bang, but have not been able to determine what created that first molecule, that first semblance of life. Scientists are not sure about alot of things, some things that they truly thought were correct at one time. If they are ever able to disprove intelligent design, I will eat every physics and religion book I own.

I think the prevailing wisdom is that the theory must be falsifiable in order to pass muster for scientific scrutiny. That being said science is more likely to demonstrate tendencies toward or against an outcome. My argument is usually that human consciousness would need to be investigated independent of the background in order to come to a conclusion. Not unfalsifiable, but not possible with our current technology and understanding of the universe.

Dark Knight
02-13-2009, 04:09 PM
Actually, to be more exact, Charles Darwin was a religious man until he started his research. In fact, before he married his wife Emma, they had a debate whether they were suitable, as she was religious and he no longer was. He later referred to himself as an agnostic. I wholeheartenedly believe in evolution, but also believe in the intelligent design aspect of it all.

Darwin stopped being religious when his 9 year old daughter died. He reasoned that no loving God would have allowed that to happen, so he began his research to prove there was another way we were created.

If someone had reminded him that the same loving God loved us so much that He allowed His own Son to die an agonizing death, Darwin may never have even sought out to prove He didn't exist. God doesn't make us go through anything He hasn't or wouldn't experience Himself. If His own Son had to die, as innocent as He was, why should Darwin, or any of us, be so special as to be spared the same, when called upon to do so?

elfie
02-13-2009, 04:29 PM
Darwin stopped being religious when his 9 year old daughter died. He reasoned that no loving God would have allowed that to happen, so he began his research to prove there was another way we were created.

If someone had reminded him that the same loving God loved us so much that He allowed His own Son to die an agonizing death, Darwin may never have even sought out to prove He didn't exist. God doesn't make us go through anything He hasn't or wouldn't experience Himself. If His own Son had to die, as innocent as He was, why should Darwin, or any of us, be so special as to be spared the same, when called upon to do so?

I don't think we can really understand but can hope to experience that God's love is transcendent, through one another.

Nova
02-13-2009, 08:50 PM
Please do not presume to know the intelligence of every American who may have taken this survey. Just because intelligent design does not fit in with your theories does not make it incorrect. Has any scientist DISPROVED the existence of a higher being? Has a scientist been able to DISPROVE intelligent design? They all seem to get to that point of the first second of big bang, but have not been able to determine what created that first molecule, that first semblance of life. Scientists are not sure about alot of things, some things that they truly thought were correct at one time. If they are ever able to disprove intelligent design, I will eat every physics and religion book I own.

I don't know about intelligence, but I'm tempted to question reading comprehension skills. ;)

What I said was that I, too, believe in something that might be called "intelligent design," but I recognize that my belief falls outside the realm of scientific investigation. (And therefore my beliefs shouldn't be taught in biology class.)

I did not question the integrity of the pollsters at Pew, but one may question their conclusions. The question they asked seems to be "Does Darwin's theory of evolution provide the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth?" (Emphasis added.)

"Best" is in the eye of the beholder. One may indeed argue that Darwin's theory provides the most accurate, rational explanation (i.e., "best") while simultaneously arguing that the Gilgamesh creation epic, though allegorical, provides the most useful moral account (another, somewhat different "best"). And still claim the notion that space aliens mated with chimps is "best" because it's the most amusing.

Nova
02-13-2009, 09:10 PM
Darwin stopped being religious when his 9 year old daughter died. He reasoned that no loving God would have allowed that to happen, so he began his research to prove there was another way we were created.

If someone had reminded him that the same loving God loved us so much that He allowed His own Son to die an agonizing death, Darwin may never have even sought out to prove He didn't exist. God doesn't make us go through anything He hasn't or wouldn't experience Himself. If His own Son had to die, as innocent as He was, why should Darwin, or any of us, be so special as to be spared the same, when called upon to do so?

Twaddle. Darwin stopped going to church before his daughter's illness and death; his famous research trip on the Beagle was a decade and a half earlier. Reducing his work to an attempt to prove God doesn't exist is utter nonsense.

I'm sure it's hard for some to imagine, but to intellectually courageous individuals, religious faith may be a lifelong process of questioning and reexamination.

CyberLaw
02-13-2009, 11:06 PM
Considering a day is put in place celebrating Charles Darwin's Birthday and celebrations are being held to celebrate Ii wonder exactly "who was interviewed" for this study.

As everyone knows the Galapagos Island are in threat of extinction. I hope that does not happen and efforts are made to protect this important island.

So Happy Charles Darwin Day, 200th anniversary of his brithday, 1809. Feb 12.

YOu knever know evolution and "other" methods worked hand in hand to create the world. Who knows........

WholeLottaRosie
02-14-2009, 10:13 AM
Or they've been tainted by biased professors who won't let them think of any other possibilities. Certainly more than 63% of all Americans are college educated.

"
The Census data, based on estimates from the long form sent to one in six households, showed that among people 25 and older:


21% of Americans had taken some college courses but had not earned a degree in 2000, compared with 18.7% 10 years earlier.
15.5% had earned a bachelor's degree but no higher, compared with 13.1% in 1990.
8.9% earned graduate or professional degrees, compared with 7.2% earlier."

This is from the 2000 Census, the most recent available (next in 2010) as reported in US Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-06-05-education-census.htm#more


also of interest:
http://www.theolympian.com/columnists/story/227366.html This article, from 2007, states "In February 2005, USA Today reported that 64 percent of high school graduates go to college, but the number of Americans with bachelor degrees is only 29 percent"

Linda7NJ
02-14-2009, 10:38 AM
You can throw me in with the 60 something percent, too. I don't believe in evolution at all, and have never taught that to my kids. I'm happy that the majority of people reject this idea.


Toss me into the minority then

Cypros
02-14-2009, 11:36 AM
Considering a day is put in place celebrating Charles Darwin's Birthday and celebrations are being held to celebrate Ii wonder exactly "who was interviewed" for this study.

As everyone knows the Galapagos Island are in threat of extinction. I hope that does not happen and efforts are made to protect this important island.

So Happy Charles Darwin Day, 200th anniversary of his brithday, 1809. Feb 12.

YOu knever know evolution and "other" methods worked hand in hand to create the world. Who knows........

Darwin was British and it is the British/Europeans who are celebrating. Had Darwin been American would there be a greater acceptance of his wisdom or would he be long forgotten as an anomaly of scientific thought?:confused:

CyberLaw
02-14-2009, 03:24 PM
I think if he was American, there would be moe "idscussion" and teaching of the theory of evolution in society.

But for some odd reason, you know that the USA is "religious" and other countries may not be "as religious" and embrace "science" over "religion".

I remember Bush "pandering" to the religious rights groups who "duly" supported him when he became president. I don't think you would see this in other countries.

It is just the difference between "fact" and science" and "theory" and religion.

Jholi
02-14-2009, 06:41 PM
I think that's the reason for the inflated numbers.

Just because a person thinks God might have been there as a guide doesn't mean they disagree with evolution, at all. I would say I agree with Darwin, and I often debate those in the first group, yet these stats would lump me in with them, just because I think if there is a god, he's guiding everything in some ways.

Without those groups being distinguished, the numbers are worthless. IMHO.

Pew is one of the most, if not THE most, respected survey and research firms. If anyone can gets polls right, it's probably them. Although I agree the margin for error can be more than what pollsters often say it is. But as far as polling methodology goes, Pew is one of the top dogs and are famous for it their surveys.

I'm familiar with Pew, but just because they are great at gathering data does not mean their reporters are incapable of (intentionally or not) reporting the data in a way that implies something it does not. This is a prime example.

Reporting that those who do believe in evolution but do not believe it occurred solely through natural selection as "Reject[ing] Darwin's Theory of Evolution" may be technically true, but it is highly misleading, in that it makes it appear that they don't accept the theory of evolution itself. (The article itself commits this fallacy of definition even more.)

The fact is that, with the advances in science in the 100+ years since Darwin, even evolutionary biologists technically "disagree" with some of his hypotheses, including the idea that evolution is solely a result of natural selection. There are also thousands of Christians among them, who naturally believe God guides everything.

It is especially misleading when people who accept that we evolved are combined with people who believe we have always existed in our present form, to come up with the 63% figure. :rolleyes:

Attached is the raw data table they provide as their report being based on. Notice that 51% of people believe we evolved. Only 42% believe we have always existed in our present form.

The limits of the questions are also apparent, as most Christian biologists would have likely answered both "a" and "b - plus other mechanisms."

http://people-press.org/reports/images/287-16.gif

Jholi
02-14-2009, 08:31 PM
I forgot to add, those who believe God or some other intelligent being guided creation would be believers of Intelligent Design, in a sense.
Only "in a sense" that is so weak it's irrelevant, and it does nothing to support the arguments of those who believe in intelligent design [ID] as a concept opposed to evolution.

People can and do believe God or some other intelligent being guided creation and still be strong supporters of the theory of evolution and opposed to the philosophy and beliefs of the IDers.


They are certainly diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory, which proposes natural selection is the cause for evolution.
No, they are not "diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory." If they were, then so would be modern evolutionary biologists, who have learned more about all the other factors, besides natural selection, that influence evolution than Darwin could know in the 1800s.

The theory of evolution [TOE] has and will ever evolve as more is learned. That is a credit to how science works, and to the credibility of the TOE.


So the groups don't really need to be distinguished.

So you argue that people who believe in evolution are "diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory," but you also argue that they do not need to be distinguished from those who think we have not evolved at all. :bang:

Honestly, this could only make sense to those who are trying desperately to squeeze square pegs into round holes to promote an agenda, and that is unfortunately rampant in the evolution vs creation/ID debate. I'm not sure if it's a matter of self-deception, slight-of-hand, or a combination of the two for any given person who practices it, but it's a sign that healthy and reasonable discussion won't be forthcoming.


You either believe it is random, or you don't, according to the question asked. If you believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection being the reason we exist, then you'd be in the 23%.
See my last post.

In addition, natural selection is not the same as random. With all due respect, between this red flag and in general, you appear to have a very superficial understanding of the subjects of ID and the TOE, which is common among those whose education comes from agenda-driven material.

I'm assuming you are a well-meaning person, and I don't intend to carry on a debate with you, because I don't want to create the hard feelings, which inevitably occur in these debates. (They also take a huge amount of time!)

But it is important to me that everyone understand the problem with the messages being sent here.

Basically, there is a misguided attempt to mis-define evolution as atheistic, and a belief in a God who guides all things as being diametrically opposed to the TOE. This is committing the grievous error of forcing a false dichotomy. It's not just illogical, but dangerously sets people (including our children) up for feeling as though they cannot believe in both God and science.

MOO, but Christians whose priority is winning souls would do their best to avoid such a dangerous trap, and they would also work to avoid being perceived as less than factual and straightforward in their logic and debate. :)

Jholi
02-14-2009, 08:51 PM
And the vast majority of my professors were so overeducated and completely blind that they would stake their lives and reputations on life as we know it originating from a thunderbolt in a primordial soup of organic chemicals. Their furvor was nothing short of religious belief. And their students are evangelized no differently than one would be at a Billy Graham convention except it was daily and relentlous.

The truth is that natural selection does occur, species do evolve, etc., but no one really knows how life began. No scientist anywhere has managed to create life from nonlife.

Thank you for this. There is a common misconception that the possible origins of life are part of the Theory of Evolution, but they aren't.

The ToE is only meant to explain the diversity of species after life began. The study of how life itself could have arisen from natural causes is called abiogenensis (http://www.google.com/search?q=abiogenesis).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

So people can believe God created life and still accept the TOE completely. :)

Nova
02-14-2009, 09:58 PM
Thank you for this. There is a common misconception that the possible origins of life are part of the Theory of Evolution, but they aren't.

The ToE is only meant to explain the diversity of species after life began. The study of how life itself could have arisen from natural causes is called abiogenensis (http://www.google.com/search?q=abiogenesis).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

So people can believe God created life and still accept the TOE completely. :)

Thanks, Jholi, for all the great posts and the clarification. I've been spent 2 days wondering how the ToE could explain the initial onset of life and couldn't figure it out.

And I loved your deconstruction of the poll question and results. It is indeed odd to find someone like myself--who is careful to distinguish between what I believe based on faith and what can be demonstrated by science--lumped in with those who insist their faith in a literal Genesis be equated with scientific knowledge.

PattyCake
02-14-2009, 10:08 PM
Well, I am a Christian who loves science, and believes in the theory of evolution.


According to this study from Gallup - 39% overall believe, 74 % of college graduates believe, and 24% of regular church goin folks believe in the theory of evolution.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx


Hand up high! Me too. I believe God created the earth and all his creation to evolve. Man, animal, plant, bugs, weather, you name it. There's so much intelligent proof out there to show evolution that we can no long deny it occurs and has from beginning of time. GOD+SCIENCE = OUR EARTH

Jholi
02-15-2009, 04:25 PM
Thanks, Jholi, for all the great posts and the clarification. I've been spent 2 days wondering how the ToE could explain the initial onset of life and couldn't figure it out.

And I loved your deconstruction of the poll question and results. It is indeed odd to find someone like myself--who is careful to distinguish between what I believe based on faith and what can be demonstrated by science--lumped in with those who insist their faith in a literal Genesis be equated with scientific knowledge.
Thank you, Nova. :o

Boyz_Mum
02-15-2009, 05:33 PM
Thanks all of you for this discussion.

I do remember way back in the late 70's, I had a teacher who had a poster on the wall of evolution (amoeba turning to fish and so on). I don't remember specifically what we were taught in regular school. I find the whole debate intresting. :)

southcitymom
02-15-2009, 07:00 PM
.......religious faith may be a lifelong process of questioning and reexamination.

Marry me, Nova!

Nova
02-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Marry me, Nova!

You know I would, SCM, but not even California is ready to wrestle with the ramifications of that! :blowkiss:

Nova
02-16-2009, 08:33 PM
ETA: Proving or disproving evolution is not a requirement for "winning souls."

Like Jholi and others, I couldn't agree more with this last statement. If one believes in a supernatural Creator, the glorious diversity resulting from natural selection does Him/Her at least as much credit as a literal reading of the story of Noah and the ark. More, IMHO.

Dark Knight
02-17-2009, 05:01 AM
Like Jholi and others, I couldn't agree more with this last statement. If one believes in a supernatural Creator, the glorious diversity resulting from natural selection does Him/Her at least as much credit as a literal reading of the story of Noah and the ark. More, IMHO.

And the last statement means that we can still question the theory, as do most Americans, apparently, based on it being highly illogical, captain. We can save souls regardless if someone believes in the theory, is what I mean. i.e. God did the creating, HOW He did it isn't essential to the faith. (Except for fundamentalists and literalists, as that is a major basis of their beliefs.) But it wasn't random or by accident.

kline
02-17-2009, 05:31 AM
Call me crazy but ive always seen the intricate process of Evolution as evidence of Intelligent Design.
Its like the pointless debate about how old the Earth.
What is a 'Day' to a being who exists outside of time in Eternity?
So I happen to be a Christian who doesnt buy that the last of the Dinosaurs died out in 1957 or so.:)

yosande
02-19-2009, 06:06 AM
I do find the results impressive since the schools have been force feeding America's children this propaganda for many years now.
Perhaps what the parents teach their children really does have an affect on them after all. Good News. :)

yosande
02-19-2009, 06:24 AM
Hand up high! Me too. I believe God created the earth and all his creation to evolve. Man, animal, plant, bugs, weather, you name it. There's so much intelligent proof out there to show evolution that we can no long deny it occurs and has from beginning of time. GOD+SCIENCE = OUR EARTH

God created it, man screwed it and it's been going downhill ever since, or can't you all tell by what we see everyday on the forums here, or is a mother killing her own daughter natural or evolved in any sense of the word.
God created the natural physical world, and universe, with such obvious signs of the Spiritual Truth that science without the Creator in it is nothing but fantasy, which is what Darwinism is.

I do so enjoy that God hides in plain sight though. He does have such a wonderful sense of humor, imo
I do love Him dearly.

Nova
02-20-2009, 11:07 PM
I do find the results impressive since the schools have been force feeding America's children this propaganda for many years now.
Perhaps what the parents teach their children really does have an affect on them after all. Good News. :)

That so many fail to understand the difference between science and propaganda is evidence of bad schooling, not good parenting.

Nova
02-20-2009, 11:14 PM
It wasn't not knowing that made it smarmy, it was the fact that it sounded like my mom lecturing me, lol.

And the last statement means that we can still question the theory, as do most Americans, apparently, based on it being highly illogical, captain. We can save souls regardless if someone believes in the theory, is what I mean. i.e. God did the creating, HOW He did it isn't essential to the faith. (Except for fundamentalists and literalists, as that is a major basis of their beliefs.) But it wasn't random or by accident.

It isn't Jholi's fault that the rest of us have to pitch in and sub for your mom now and then. It takes a village, you know. :waitasec:

There's nothing "illogical" about the TofE. Quite the contrary. Like all logic, it depends on the accuracy of the presumptions on which it is based, and perhaps science will one day find those presumptions incorrect. (As others have pointed out, science has already modified the TofE based on new understandings of genetics. This is as it should be and as Darwin certainly expected it to be.)

Texana
02-21-2009, 12:29 AM
Well, Mr. Texana and I adhere to what a Lutheran pastor of ours once said: "God said one thing. Evidence shows another. Therein lies the mystery."

Sounds like an easy out, but basically, we do believe most heartily that both faith and the scientific evidence can be true.

We do not believe entirely that mankind came to being without any divine intervention. We do not believe that Darwin's theory of evolution should be discarded altogether.

Therein lies the mystery.

Boyz_Mum
02-21-2009, 09:51 PM
SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR KID RIGHT!

One Nation, 'Under God.'

One day a 6-year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. The teacher asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God up there?

TOMMY: No.

TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.

The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

T OMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?

TOMMY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?

TOMMY: No

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she possibly may not even have one!

(You Go Girl!)

FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT'
II CORINTHIANS 5:7

Don't forget to pass this on! I love this one. Everyone should send this to everyone they know, especially today with prayer restricted in schools.

(I just thought that some of you would like this. :))

Nova
02-22-2009, 02:58 AM
Well, Mr. Texana and I adhere to what a Lutheran pastor of ours once said: "God said one thing. Evidence shows another. Therein lies the mystery."

Sounds like an easy out, but basically, we do believe most heartily that both faith and the scientific evidence can be true.

We do not believe entirely that mankind came to being without any divine intervention. We do not believe that Darwin's theory of evolution should be discarded altogether.

Therein lies the mystery.

Very wise, Tex, very wise indeed.

I would only add that God and science speak in different languages, God's being highly metaphorical and profound. Apparent disagreement is often a case of reading God's word as if it were an article in a scientific journal.

IrishMist
02-22-2009, 11:48 AM
Darwin stopped being religious when his 9 year old daughter died. He reasoned that no loving God would have allowed that to happen, so he began his research to prove there was another way we were created.

If someone had reminded him that the same loving God loved us so much that He allowed His own Son to die an agonizing death, Darwin may never have even sought out to prove He didn't exist. God doesn't make us go through anything He hasn't or wouldn't experience Himself. If His own Son had to die, as innocent as He was, why should Darwin, or any of us, be so special as to be spared the same, when called upon to do so?

This is confusing to me.
When God lost His son, His son came home to him. (He got to be with him.)

When we lose one of our children, we lose them for the rest of our lives...

I know that isn't the point of the thread, and someone else has already commented on Darwin's questioning of his belief before the loss of his child, but this type of statement just doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

PaperDoll
02-22-2009, 12:02 PM
I believe God created all living things. I don't believe for one minute we came from a monkey.. lol, nor do we reincarnate into something else and come back to earth after we die. I believe man has been man from day one, monkey is a monkey, dog is a dog, fish are fish etc.... We can not mate with a monkey and produce a living being, we can not mate with a fish, dog or any other animal. Doesn't work that way. We can only reproduce with humans.

ok, all of what I just said, may not be what DK intended on this thread. I just thought I'd jump in and add my 3 cents worth of wonderul knowledge that I have because it has to come out sometime.. :crazy: :crazy: :waitasec: See what 3 cups of coffee do to me. :crazy: :crazy:

Jack
02-22-2009, 12:03 PM
Maybe we should have our own poll, no discussion allowed. That would be interesting. I for one believe in evolution. Its too obvious not to. I also believe that there is a higher power, some of us choose to call that higher power God. I don't believe those two beliefs have to be mutually exclusive.

winston
02-23-2009, 02:55 AM
The History channel has a cool show about how the earth was formed. Check it out... very interesting.

http://www.history.com/video.do?name=How_the_Earth_Was_Made

Me, well Dad was raised (slapped on the knuckles by Nuns) Catholic and Mom ????? I love science. Can't dismiss the physical evidence....

Dark Knight
02-23-2009, 03:59 AM
This is confusing to me.
When God lost His son, His son came home to him. (He got to be with him.)

When we lose one of our children, we lose them for the rest of our lives...

I know that isn't the point of the thread, and someone else has already commented on Darwin's questioning of his belief before the loss of his child, but this type of statement just doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

We lose them for the rest of our earthly lives. If we believe in Him, we will be reunited alongside both God and Jesus for the same eternity, in OUR new home. So we get to be with our children again, too. So look beyond your worldly existance/perspective and you will see how it is the same from God's perspective.

Dark Knight
02-23-2009, 04:05 AM
I believe God created all living things. I don't believe for one minute we came from a monkey.. lol, nor do we reincarnate into something else and come back to earth after we die. I believe man has been man from day one, monkey is a monkey, dog is a dog, fish are fish etc.... We can not mate with a monkey and produce a living being, we can not mate with a fish, dog or any other animal. Doesn't work that way. We can only reproduce with humans.

ok, all of what I just said, may not be what DK intended on this thread. I just thought I'd jump in and add my 3 cents worth of wonderul knowledge that I have because it has to come out sometime.. :crazy: :crazy: :waitasec: See what 3 cups of coffee do to me. :crazy: :crazy:

And why would monkeys still exist? We'd be the only species living alongside our lesser evolved "cousins." No one can ever say why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from them, and why that applies only to humans. There is another unanswerable question that comes from that same line of thinking, but I won't turn this into a discussion of the theory.

Ariel and I are considering starting a thread this summer in the Parking Lot or Unmoderated Forum debating this topic. Hopefully the usual suspects will be brave enough to join us. :crazy:

Nova
02-23-2009, 05:24 AM
And why would monkeys still exist? We'd be the only species living alongside our lesser evolved "cousins." No one can ever say why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from them, and why that applies only to humans. There is another unanswerable question that comes from that same line of thinking, but I won't turn this into a discussion of the theory....

:sigh:

Because no informed person ever said we evolved from "monkeys." What the TofE suggests is that we and modern apes descend from common ancestors in the distant past. Which is why you and Cheeta share over 96% of your DNA.

Whether homo sapiens were and/or are given souls by a divine being is a question for Faith, not Science. Ditto for Cheeta, I suppose.

Nova
02-23-2009, 05:34 AM
We lose them for the rest of our earthly lives. If we believe in Him, we will be reunited alongside both God and Jesus for the same eternity, in OUR new home. So we get to be with our children again, too. So look beyond your worldly existance/perspective and you will see how it is the same from God's perspective.

Excuse me, but I believe your religion teaches that we will be reunited with ONLY the children who were sprinkled with the magic water before they died.

Nova
02-23-2009, 05:39 AM
SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR KID RIGHT!

One Nation, 'Under God.'

One day a 6-year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. The teacher asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God up there?

TOMMY: No.

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=navy]TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just doesn't exist....

With respect, Boyz Mum, that email is the sort of thing that gives religion a bad name.

Science deals with all sorts of things that can't be seen with the naked eye, including an infinite cosmos and a complex subatomic world. (What it does not deal with are beliefs that can't be measured by any physical sense, instrument or rational deduction.)

In fact, the universe revealed to us by science is infinitely richer and greater than any suggested by the major religious texts.

JaneInOz
02-23-2009, 06:19 AM
And why would monkeys still exist? We'd be the only species living alongside our lesser evolved "cousins." No one can ever say why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from them, and why that applies only to humans. There is another unanswerable question that comes from that same line of thinking, but I won't turn this into a discussion of the theory.

Ariel and I are considering starting a thread this summer in the Parking Lot or Unmoderated Forum debating this topic. Hopefully the usual suspects will be brave enough to join us. :crazy:

What unmoderated forum ?????

My head hurts when I Think of this debate.

I would rather come from a Rib of a *person* than a monkey to be honest.
I can not comprehend how humans can come from a monkey/chimp/ape whatever you wish to call it as, and although I see that these creatures are intelligent, well so are dolphins and we didnt come from them either, so are some species of dogs.
The idea is that we came from cavemen that were apes ...

Well how did the apes get here ?

did they come from the magic fairy ? and if so where did the magic fairy come from :p

like i said my head hurts when i think about these things

Like why is a table called a table and not a chair ? and vice versa.
how did we get the name HUMAN and the DOG - dog ? when just imagine if it were the other way..

Who gave everything their names ?

Sigh....

And how did the moon come about , and the solar planets , the sun , the stars , the trees, the soil etc etc ...

Sometimes if you get to entrenched you just waste your life...Personally I think we should all just accept that we are all here every living being and that somewhere someway something beyong our comprehension created all of this

For us to LIVE And ENJOY....

:)

JaneInOz
02-23-2009, 06:24 AM
Excuse me, but I believe your religion teaches that we will be reunited with ONLY the children who were sprinkled with the magic water before they died.


Thats not fair and not true. Children do not go to hell. They go to heaven regardless of whether they were baptised or not.
:(

But I had both my children baptised because of my faith. And I do not go to church regularly , nor do I pray daily, but when I do I can do it anywhere
Doesnt mean Im going to hell either !
And I am still a GOOD CHRISTIAN !
Being a GOOD CHRISTIAN isnt about going to church twice on sundays and taking holy communion and so forth
Being a GOOD christian is as the name suggests BEING GOOD.




With respect, Boyz Mum, that email is the sort of thing that gives religion a bad name.

Science deals with all sorts of things that can't be seen with the naked eye, including an infinite cosmos and a complex subatomic world. (What it does not deal with are beliefs that can't be measured by any physical sense, instrument or rational deduction.)

In fact, the universe revealed to us by science is infinitely richer and greater than any suggested by the major religious texts.

That email is HORRID

Dark Knight
02-23-2009, 07:56 AM
SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR KID RIGHT!

One Nation, 'Under God.'

One day a 6-year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. The teacher asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God up there?

TOMMY: No.

TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.

The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

T OMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?

TOMMY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?

TOMMY: No

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she possibly may not even have one!

(You Go Girl!)

FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT'
II CORINTHIANS 5:7

Don't forget to pass this on! I love this one. Everyone should send this to everyone they know, especially today with prayer restricted in schools.

(I just thought that some of you would like this. :))

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love it when people use athiest "logic" against them, hehe. I will have to pass that on!

JaneInOz
02-23-2009, 08:56 AM
OH MY GOD !!

The version that was posted before was HALF CHOPPED OFF !!!!!!



The version you printed in full shows its not horrid

DK thank you for showing me that in full.

My children go to a C of E school and we have prayer and chapel in theirs

:)

I had it in mine too

What i was talking about is so true though. You don't have to go to church to be a good christian , in fact someone in my family does go to church REGULARLY every Sunday, but doesnt act very christian like

How does one do that ?








BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love it when people use athiest "logic" against them, hehe. I will have to pass that on!

Boyz_Mum
02-23-2009, 09:27 AM
:truce:

Seriously, I just posted the email because of the "evolution" aspect and I received it since I've been reading the "debate" here. No harm intended to anyone.

Since I don't remember much about what I was taught in grade school regarding evolution and Darwin, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. I enjoy reading all of your beliefs and opinions. :)

Jholi
02-23-2009, 03:30 PM
FTR, the decision whether or not to participate in any future debate about evolution will be based on how much patience I could summon, not bravery. :crazy: They're always so full of worn-out canards, I don't see how I could manage to answer them without sounding either motherly, snarky, or arrogant. :waitasec:

Imagine the response to someone coming on here and challenging us to a debate on the Caylee Anthony case. To top it off, their challenges consist of things like "Why didn't the police arrest Zenaida Gonzalez for not bringing Caylee home that day?" or "How could Casey have done it? She was busy working at Universal Studios!" or "Casey's sister coulda diddit!" :crazy:

You might be able to answer politely once or twice, but if they kept challenging our "bravery," while making it obvious that they haven't a grasp of even the most basic facts about the case, then the kindest and most polite thing you'd probably be able to do would be to advise them to take some time to read about it - and from sources other than the Anthony family.

So that's my answer to the bravery challenge.

As proof that I'm not exaggerating, see the bizarre challenge in this thread that "No one can ever say why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from them."

:rolleyes: On the contrary:


FAQ: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

Answer: Huh?? Scientists think that one group of apes, in response to their environment, started evolving in a way that would eventually lead to humanity (and many other now-extinct hominids). Why on earth should that cause the rest of the apes to go extinct?

It's as silly as saying "If I am descended from Irish ancestors [which I am], why are there still Irish people around?" (Yes, I'm aware that I haven't evolved from my Irish forebears; the point is that whatever happened to my ancestors, it didn't affect the rest of the Irish population.)

If you don't believe me, please note that the leading creationist organization Answers in Genesis agrees with me, and now lists this argument in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes

So, far from being an "unanswerable question," it's already been answered ad nauseum (http://www.google.com/search?q=if+we+evolved+from+monkeys+why+are+there+ still+monkeys).

As for the equally woeful claim that "We'd be the only species living alongside our lesser evolved "cousins.""
Well, on top of Nova's excellent answer about common ancestors, I'm sorry to have to point out the existence of wolves (the ancestors of dogs). We also still have reptiles, even though they evolved into frogs... and we even still have their ancestors, swimming in the ocean...

So the Anthony case analogy really wasn't an exaggeration. :o

I'll finish with a quote about evolution from Darwin himself, which he wrote in his book (http://books.google.com/books?id=t0jb8-O6efoC&pg=PA667&lpg=PA667). (Which, as a reminder, was called the "Origin of Species", not the "Origin of Life"):


There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
That doesn't look to me like the words of a man who wrote the book to prove there is no God, as he was wrongly accused of here.

Jholi
02-23-2009, 03:50 PM
:truce:

Seriously, I just posted the email because of the "evolution" aspect and I received it since I've been reading the "debate" here. No harm intended to anyone.

Since I don't remember much about what I was taught in grade school regarding evolution and Darwin, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. I enjoy reading all of your beliefs and opinions. :)

:blowkiss: You're always a joy to read, Boyz_Mum. :)

Dark Knight
02-23-2009, 05:21 PM
FTR, the decision whether or not to participate in any future debate about evolution will be based on how much patience I could summon, not bravery. :crazy: They're always so full of worn-out canards, I don't see how I could manage to answer them without sounding either motherly, snarky, or arrogant. :waitasec:

Imagine the response to someone coming on here and challenging us to a debate on the Caylee Anthony case. To top it off, their challenges consist of things like "Why didn't the police arrest Zenaida Gonzalez for not bringing Caylee home that day?" or "How could Casey have done it? She was busy working at Universal Studios!" or "Casey's sister coulda diddit!" :crazy:

You might be able to answer politely once or twice, but if they kept challenging our "bravery," while making it obvious that they haven't a grasp of even the most basic facts about the case, then the kindest and most polite thing you'd probably be able to do would be to advise them to take some time to read about it - and from sources other than the Anthony family.

So that's my answer to the bravery challenge.

As proof that I'm not exaggerating, see the bizarre challenge in this thread that "No one can ever say why there are still monkeys around if we evolved from them."

:rolleyes: On the contrary:

FAQ: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

Answer: Huh?? Scientists think that one group of apes, in response to their environment, started evolving in a way that would eventually lead to humanity (and many other now-extinct hominids). Why on earth should that cause the rest of the apes to go extinct?

It's as silly as saying "If I am descended from Irish ancestors [which I am], why are there still Irish people around?" (Yes, I'm aware that I haven't evolved from my Irish forebears; the point is that whatever happened to my ancestors, it didn't affect the rest of the Irish population.)

If you don't believe me, please note that the leading creationist organization Answers in Genesis agrees with me, and now lists this argument in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes
So, far from being an "unanswerable question," it's already been answered ad nauseum (http://www.google.com/search?q=if+we+evolved+from+monkeys+why+are+there+ still+monkeys).

As for the equally woeful claim that "We'd be the only species living alongside our lesser evolved "cousins.""
Well, on top of Nova's excellent answer about common ancestors, I'm sorry to have to point out the existence of wolves (the ancestors of dogs). We also still have reptiles, even though they evolved into frogs... and we even still have their ancestors, swimming in the ocean...

So the Anthony case analogy really wasn't an exaggeration. :o

I'll finish with a quote about evolution from Darwin himself, which he wrote in his book (http://books.google.com/books?id=t0jb8-O6efoC&pg=PA667&lpg=PA667). (Which, as a reminder, was called the "Origin of Species", not the "Origin of Life"):


There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
That doesn't look to me like the words of a man who wrote the book to prove there is no God, as he was wrongly accused of here.

You'd be fun in our debate, I hope you come along, and bring your motherly snarkiness. :crazy: I promise you Ariel7 will not give you the same old canards, just ask Nova or Cypros. :D

JaneInOz
02-23-2009, 06:31 PM
:truce:

Seriously, I just posted the email because of the "evolution" aspect and I received it since I've been reading the "debate" here. No harm intended to anyone.

Since I don't remember much about what I was taught in grade school regarding evolution and Darwin, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. I enjoy reading all of your beliefs and opinions. :)

Hi Boyzmum you didn't do anything wrong.....I thought the email was horrid to start with FROM SOMEONE ELSES Posting of only 3/4 of it !

They cut off the rest of it ......

You did nothing wrong :blowkiss:

Nova
02-23-2009, 10:15 PM
Hi Boyzmum you didn't do anything wrong.....I thought the email was horrid to start with FROM SOMEONE ELSES Posting of only 3/4 of it !

They cut off the rest of it ......

You did nothing wrong :blowkiss:


I quoted the email in question up to the passage relevant to my response. I correctly indicated that the original text continued beyond my quotation by including an ellipsis in the quote.

To wit (from Wiki):


Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis, "omission") in printing and writing refers to a mark or series of marks that usually indicate an intentional omission of a word or a phrase from the original text.

(Emphasis added.) What's more, I used the legal form of ellipsis (four, rather than three, dots) to indicate that I was omitting more than just a few words.

So it was a quote and the truncation was acknowledged by me. The original remained in full above, as posted by Boyz_Mum.

THERE WAS NO DECEPTION OR INTENT TO DECEIVE. And implying a deception on my part in more than one post is unfair.

That you misread something in haste is understandable. We all do that from time to time. But a fair discussion is better served by admitting we misread something instead of indicting another poster's integrity.

===

Further, I never said God sends children to Hell according to Catholic theology. But it is my understanding that in Catholicism, unbaptized children do not gain full access to God in Heaven and, thus, are NOT reunited with their grieving parents.

===

Finally and in response to yet another post, if the theory of evolution is difficult to understand, that doesn't make the theory itself preposterous. Myself, I don't begin to understand quantum physics, but that doesn't make quantum theory ridiculous.

[Edited because a previous edit accidentally destroyed the meaning of the above paragraph.]

Hell, I don't really understand the internal combustion engine, but that doesn't mean I need to invent a religion claiming cars are powerd by magic dwarves on tiny treadmills.

Nova
02-23-2009, 10:38 PM
:truce:

Seriously, I just posted the email because of the "evolution" aspect and I received it since I've been reading the "debate" here. No harm intended to anyone....

And no harm done, Boyz_Mum.

I was criticizing the email, not you personally for posting it.

But if some of us seem frustrated, "smarmy" or "snarky" (the latter being the words of others, not you), it is because attacks on the theory of evolution so often consist in straw men arguments and non sequitors.

In this thread alone, we've seen :

"Darwin claims people are descended from monkeys."

"Science doesn't acknowledge anything that can't be seen with the naked eye."

"Darwin 'invented' evolution only because he was overreacting to personal tragedy."

As Jholi pointed out above, it doesn't take "bravery" to respond to these nonsensical claims, but it does take patience. Alas, patience is not a virtue for which I am known. ;)

Nova
02-23-2009, 10:44 PM
To the mod who edited my post #75:

Sorry and thank you for the correction. I didn't mean any harm, but I did let the volume get too high.

Boyz_Mum
02-23-2009, 11:05 PM
Hey Nova!

I honestly didn't mean to offend anyone with the posting, I just thought it fit in with the discussion.

I didn't think your "snipping the post" had anything personal against me implied. In some ways I don't understand the "philosophies" (I don't know how to spell that word) of religion or the scientific theories of Darwin.

Please believe me when I say, "I am trying to learn from all of you". (It could be a very big job for all of us!)

:blowkiss:

JaneInOz
02-24-2009, 12:17 AM
I quoted the email in question up to the passage relevant to my response. I correctly indicated that the original text continued beyond my quotation by including an ellipsis in the quote.

To wit (from Wiki):



(Emphasis added.) What's more, I used the legal form of ellipsis (four, rather than three, dots) to indicate that I was omitting more than just a few words.

So it was a quote and the truncation was acknowledged by me. The original remained in full above, as posted by Boyz_Mum.

THERE WAS NO DECEPTION OR INTENT TO DECEIVE. And implying a deception on my part in more than one post is unfair.

That you misread something in haste is understandable. We all do that from time to time. But a fair discussion is better served by admitting we misread something instead of indicting another poster's integrity.

===

Further, I never said God sends children to Hell according to Catholic theology. But it is my understanding that in Catholicism, unbaptized children do not gain full access to God in Heaven and, thus, are NOT reunited with their grieving parents, as DK so blithely suggested.

===

Finally and in response to yet another post revealed by the theory of evolution doesn't make the theory itself preposterous. Myself, I don't begin to understand quantum physics, but that doesn't make quantum theory ridiculous.

Hell, I don't really understand the internal combustion engine, but that doesn't mean I need to invent a religion claiming cars are powerd by magic dwarves on tiny treadmills.




That email was chopped off at a particular point and anyone not knowing that email in full would have thought it horrible in the context it was used. I had Not seen the full version as I had not read the posts before

Anyone seeing ... would not know that it mean what you have now said you used it for
I use ... all the time as do many people.

It was NOT clear that the email had more to it - not clear at all

Nova
02-24-2009, 03:09 AM
Hey Nova!

I honestly didn't mean to offend anyone with the posting, I just thought it fit in with the discussion.

I didn't think your "snipping the post" had anything personal against me implied. In some ways I don't understand the "philosophies" (I don't know how to spell that word) of religion or the scientific theories of Darwin.

Please believe me when I say, "I am trying to learn from all of you". (It could be a very big job for all of us!)

:blowkiss:

:blowkiss: Right back at you, Boyz_Mum!

Just to reiterate, I don't think you were offensive or in any way in the wrong. I just thought the email itself required response.

Nova
02-24-2009, 03:14 AM
That email was chopped off at a particular point and anyone not knowing that email in full would have thought it horrible in the context it was used. I had Not seen the full version as I had not read the posts before

Anyone seeing ... would not know that it mean what you have now said you used it for
I use ... all the time as do many people.

It was NOT clear that the email had more to it - not clear at all

I used the correct notation. (At least in terms of American legal usage. I'm only guessing from your hat that you may be posting from Australia; I honestly don't know if punctuation rules are the same there. If not, I'll be happy to learn what you would have done instead.)

For the record, I deleted the second half of the passage only because of length. I don't happen to agree with you that the quote seems "worse" because of the omission. The first half of the email is a straw man argument; the straw man is demolished in the second half, but a straw man is still just a straw man.

(Sorry, Top Gunner. I know you said "enough." But I'm still being accused of having done something wrong here. I'll stop now.)

Dark Knight
02-24-2009, 03:19 AM
Excuse me, but I believe your religion teaches that we will be reunited with ONLY the children who were sprinkled with the magic water before they died.

You're most excused, hehe.

You are talking about the old concept of "limbo." That was never officially Church Doctrine, only an idea/theory by some Church leaders. It was wholeheartedly rejected by Pope Benedict a couple of years ago as not existing and not something that the anyone in the church should teach, for it puts a limit on God's mercy, which can be limitless. (Not always, otherwise there'd be no point in Hell, but that's another discussion.) So it isn't even put forth as an idea or theory, any more, within the church. (We're a denomination, not a religion, by the way, but I know what you meant.)

What IS Church Doctrine is that a child under the age of 7 is not capable of sinning as their moral reasoning has not properly developed enough, GENERALLY speaking, to make an informed choice as to what is a sin or not a sin. Age 7 is considered the "age of reason." Obviously, your child's results may vary. So yes, children obviously go to heaven, and yes, even unbaptized ones can go, too, as God Wills, according to official Church Doctrine.

Dark Knight
02-24-2009, 03:21 AM
Yes, we all understand it was not clear to you. Nonetheless, I used the correct notation. (At least in terms of American legal usage. I'm only guessing from your hat that you may be posting from Australia; I honestly don't know if punctuation rules are the same there. If not, I'll be happy to learn what you would have done instead.)

For the record, I deleted the second half of the passage only because of length. I don't happen to agree with you that the quote seems "worse" because of the omission. The first half of the email is a straw man argument; the straw man is demolished in the second half, but a straw man is still just a straw man.

(Sorry, Top Gunner. I know you said "enough." But I'm still being accused of having done something wrong here. I'll stop now.)

You've gotten hooked on 'straw men.' Maybe if you say it enough times, it becomes one, right? :crazy:

Nova
02-24-2009, 03:37 AM
You're most excused, hehe.

You are talking about the old concept of "limbo." That was never officially Church Doctrine, only an idea/theory by some Church leaders. It was wholeheartedly rejected by Pope Benedict a couple of years ago as not existing and not something that the anyone in the church should teach, for it puts a limit on God's mercy, which can be limitless. (Not always, otherwise there'd be no point in Hell, but that's another discussion.) So it isn't even put forth as an idea or theory, any more, within the church. (We're a denomination, not a religion, by the way, but I know what you meant.)

What IS Church Doctrine is that a child under the age of 7 is not capable of sinning as their moral reasoning has not properly developed enough, GENERALLY speaking, to make an informed choice as to what is a sin or not a sin. Age 7 is considered the "age of reason." Obviously, your child's results may vary. So yes, children obviously go to heaven, and yes, even unbaptized ones can go, too, as God Wills, according to official Church Doctrine.

I'm glad to hear that, DK! To me, that seems much more compatible with many of the Church's other teachings on the nature of God, and of course I'd like to see grieving parents given any comfort that can be offered to them.

But Irish Mist's original query was an example of the age-old question of why, if God is omnipotent, do bad things happen to good people? Even the greatest Church thinkers have struggled with that issue, along with everyday people of great faith. Your reply was correct according to Church teaching, of course, but in fairness to IM, almost everyone finds the matter challenging.

(Sorry about the denomination/religion mix up. I should have been more precise. As you know, I make no judgments as to whether any denomination is more or less "authentically" Christian.)

Nova
02-24-2009, 03:43 AM
You've gotten hooked on 'straw men.' Maybe if you say it enough times, it becomes one, right? :crazy:

Just for you, I looked up synonyms. Unfortunately, they are not nearly as commonly used and may not be clear to all readers here:

informal fallacy (this is a category of which "straw man" is one example)
straw dog argument
scarecrow argument
wooden dummy argument

and in the UK: "Aunt Sally".

All of these mean mistating the opponent's argument in order to more easily refute it, as we see here and in most arguments against the TofE.

Feel free to substitute at will as you read my future posts. :)

Dark Knight
02-24-2009, 04:05 AM
I'm glad to hear that, DK! To me, that seems much more compatible with many of the Church's other teachings on the nature of God, and of course I'd like to see grieving parents given any comfort that can be offered to them.

But Irish Mist's original query was an example of the age-old question of why, if God is omnipotent, do bad things happen to good people? Even the greatest Church thinkers have struggled with that issue, along with everyday people of great faith. Your reply was correct according to Church teaching, of course, but in fairness to IM, almost everyone finds the matter challenging.

(Sorry about the denomination/religion mix up. I should have been more precise. As you know, I make no judgments as to whether any denomination is more or less "authentically" Christian.)

Oh I don't disagree that it is challenging to people. Satan gets off easy, unfortunately, (and God gets the blame, instead) since we know from the Book of Job that he causes many of our maladies, as he is allowed some power until Armageddon. Scripture also indicates that what we suffer is an act of love in itself, as it purifies us like fire purifies silver and gold to make it more valuable, so we become better humans, and Christians, as a result, if we turn to God. I can only imagine how devastating losing a child is, I am just saying God's child went through the same thing, so rather than "why us" it should be "why NOT us?" After all, to God, death is not a punishment for those who love Him. He knows where we go when we die, and it is FAR better than earth is! As Jesus also said, "it rains on the just AND the unjust." And that those who die tragically are not more sinful than those who live long lives (using a real life event where several men died when a tower fell on them as an example.) There is simply no correlation. Where we go when we die is more important than how long we live on earth.

ETA: Before someone misunderstands and jumps on me, I didn't mean losing a child is an act of love, I was answering Nova's greater comment of "why bad things happen to good people." But certainly God can help us turn even a tragedy such as that into something good. We see that happen all of the time on here. We'd never have an Amber Alert were it not for a tragedy. How many lives has that saved?

Dark Knight
02-24-2009, 04:07 AM
Just for you, I looked up synonyms. Unfortunately, they are not nearly as commonly used and may not be clear to all readers here:

informal fallacy (this is a category of which "straw man" is one example)
straw dog argument
scarecrow argument
wooden dummy argument

and in the UK: "Aunt Sally".

All of these mean mistating the opponent's argument in order to more easily refute it, as we see here and in most arguments against the TofE.

Feel free to substitute at will as you read my future posts. :)

LOL! I'd like you to use Aunt Sally a bit more frequently, please.

(Out of context, that sounded REALLY bad!) :crazy:

Nova
02-24-2009, 04:31 AM
Oh I don't disagree that it is challenging to people. Satan gets off easy, unfortunately, (and God gets the blame, instead) since we know from the Book of Job that he causes many of our maladies, as he is allowed some power until Armageddon. Scripture also indicates that what we suffer is an act of love in itself, as it purifies us like fire purifies silver and gold to make it more valuable, so we become better humans, and Christians, as a result, if we turn to God. I can only imagine how devastating losing a child is, I am just saying God's child went through the same thing, so rather than "why us" it should be "why NOT us?" After all, to God, death is not a punishment for those who love Him. He knows where we go when we die, and it is FAR better than earth is! As Jesus also said, "it rains on the just AND the unjust." And that those who die tragically are not more sinful than those who live long lives (using a real life event where several men died when a tower fell on them as an example.) There is simply no correlation. Where we go when we die is more important than how long we live on earth.

ETA: Before someone misunderstands and jumps on me, I didn't mean losing a child is an act of love, I was answering Nova's greater comment of "why bad things happen to good people." But certainly God can help us turn even a tragedy such as that into something good. We see that happen all of the time on here. We'd never have an Amber Alert were it not for a tragedy. How many lives has that saved?

Lots of thought-provoking ideas (as well as great compassion) in your post, DK, and YOU KNOW I'd love to spend 100 pages discussing them! But we'd very quickly strain the mods' patience with religious discussions.

Maybe someday... Doesn't your parish send missions to Southern California? ;)

Dark Knight
02-24-2009, 04:59 AM
Lots of thought-provoking ideas (as well as great compassion) in your post, DK, and YOU KNOW I'd love to spend 100 pages discussing them! But we'd very quickly strain the mods' patience with religious discussions.

Maybe someday... Doesn't your parish send missions to Southern California? ;)

I'll have to check into the Southern Cal missions, lol! I'm sure we'd have quite the discussion! Thanks for the compliments, too. Catholics (and Christians in general) should be compassionate, first and foremost, rather than wanting to smite people right off the bat, lol.

And whatever good was in my post, I thank God for, as I always ask for His guidance on such posts, via the Holy Spirit. I should ask for that anytime I post...I wouldn't get myself in such trouble then, lol.

kline
02-24-2009, 05:34 AM
Why Bad things happen to good people or why God allows it is complicated though Darkknight explained it well.
Ive always understood its simply that though God is a loving God we are not puppets and men have Free Will.
Also in this world Satan definately has influence over people and events if an opening is left for him to do so.
I beleive some of these attrocities we read about on these forums are pure products of Satan's handiwork perpetuated with the clear intention of making us despair and question our Faith.(the Groene case comes to mind)

Fortunately though, one of the good things about Faith is the consolation of knowing how the story ends.

Dark Knight
02-24-2009, 07:10 AM
Why Bad things happen to good people or why God allows it is complicated though Darkknight explained it well.
Ive always understood its simply that though God is a loving God we are not puppets and men have Free Will.
Also in this world Satan definately has influence over people and events if an opening is left for him to do so.
I beleive some of these attrocities we read about on these forums are pure products of Satan's handiwork perpetuated with the clear intention of making us despair and question our Faith.(the Groene case comes to mind)

Fortunately though, one of the good things about Faith is the consolation of knowing how the story ends.

Thank you and I agree with your sentiments.

Nova
02-26-2009, 03:48 AM
I'll have to check into the Southern Cal missions, lol! I'm sure we'd have quite the discussion! Thanks for the compliments, too. Catholics (and Christians in general) should be compassionate, first and foremost, rather than wanting to smite people right off the bat, lol.

And whatever good was in my post, I thank God for, as I always ask for His guidance on such posts, via the Holy Spirit. I should ask for that anytime I post...I wouldn't get myself in such trouble then, lol.

Oh, I think God has a sense of humor, don't you? He probably doesn't mind watching us get into a little trouble now and then. (I am not suggesting, of course, that God laughs at genuine misfortune.)

Even if I believed in Satan, blaming him for evil doesn't explain why bad things happen to good people. If God created everything, then He created Satan; if everything is God's Will, then Satan's supposed actions are God's Will as well. Even in Job, the suffering visited on Job by the devil is done so with God's explicit permission.

As a symbol on which we may project our fear and anger, Satan works fine, but he doesn't solve any logical problems (despite 20 centuries of legalistic arguments and the big "borrow" from Zoroastrianism).

Dark Knight
02-26-2009, 07:27 PM
Oh, I think God has a sense of humor, don't you? He probably doesn't mind watching us get into a little trouble now and then. (I am not suggesting, of course, that God laughs at genuine misfortune.)

Even if I believed in Satan, blaming him for evil doesn't explain why bad things happen to good people. If God created everything, then He created Satan; if everything is God's Will, then Satan's supposed actions are God's Will as well. Even in Job, the suffering visited on Job by the devil is done so with God's explicit permission.

As a symbol on which we may project our fear and anger, Satan works fine, but he doesn't solve any logical problems (despite 20 centuries of legalistic arguments and the big "borrow" from Zoroastrianism).

If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I am in serious trouble, lol.

God created the angels, of which Satan was one...the most powerful and beautiful of them all, actually. Satan then rebelled against God because he wanted to BE God, so God sent Satan and 1/3 of the other angels who followed him down to earth, setting in motion the chain of events that likely led to the necessity of Christ being born. Since Satan knows he is NOT more powerful than God, and that his fate is sealed at the end of time, all Satan can do is try to take as many of God's beloved creatures that were formed in His own image (us) with him as possible. He has no other purpose but to tempt us and lie to us and corrupt us in hopes that we reject God just like he did. Satan even said to Jesus that he has power over the cities and countries while on earth (when Satan was tempting Jesus in the desert.)

Nova
02-28-2009, 05:33 AM
If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I am in serious trouble, lol.

God created the angels, of which Satan was one...the most powerful and beautiful of them all, actually. Satan then rebelled against God because he wanted to BE God, so God sent Satan and 1/3 of the other angels who followed him down to earth, setting in motion the chain of events that likely led to the necessity of Christ being born. Since Satan knows he is NOT more powerful than God, and that his fate is sealed at the end of time, all Satan can do is try to take as many of God's beloved creatures that were formed in His own image (us) with him as possible. He has no other purpose but to tempt us and lie to us and corrupt us in hopes that we reject God just like he did. Satan even said to Jesus that he has power over the cities and countries while on earth (when Satan was tempting Jesus in the desert.)

The evangelical denomination in which I was raised didn't offer quite so many details, but they did "teach" Satan and I understand the general concept.

The logical problem, however, is how, if God is wholly "good," He created beings (Satan and man) capable of evil. (Yes, I understand Free Will, but freedom to do something isn't the same thing as the actual inclination to do it.) Other religions solve this problem by saying that God is "great" and/or "all" rather than good, per se.

Dark Knight
02-28-2009, 06:03 AM
The evangelical denomination in which I was raised didn't offer quite so many details, but they did "teach" Satan and I understand the general concept.

The logical problem, however, is how, if God is wholly "good," He created beings (Satan and man) capable of evil. (Yes, I understand Free Will, but freedom to do something isn't the same thing as the actual inclination to do it.) Other religions solve this problem by saying that God is "great" and/or "all" rather than good, per se.

I'm surprised your evangelical church didn't go into more details about HOW Satan came to be.

Remember that we were not created as sinners. The first time mankind ever sinned was due to the temptation of who? That's right, Satan, as the serpent in the Garden of Eden. So he has been tempting us to sin from the very beginning. I don't know that our fallibility and free will, as you mentioned, necessarily makes us INCLINED to do evil, however. We're just not strong enough to resist Satan's temptation without God's help. Hence the birth of Christ. People CAN and often DO go for periods of time without sinning, however we are still stained with the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, brought about by Satan. Hence, again, the need for Christ's birth as "the new Adam." And obviously God gave the angels, even Archangels such as Satan, enough free will to rebel against him, just like us humans do all too often. Why? Only God understands that, as it would probably beyond our understanding, anyways.

Also, do you remember the bible verse (I cannot remember it offhand) where Jesus says there cannot be belief in Him without belief also in Satan? And that there cannot be belief in Heaven without belief in Hell. Jesus went on to say that there cannot be one without the other. So in order to believe in Him and Heaven, we must also believe in the existance of His opposite, Satan and Hell. I always found that interesting.

It's also interesting that at the end of time, it will be another Archangel, Michael, who defeats Satan, who was even greater than Michael, at one time. Having God on his side makes the difference.

Nova
03-01-2009, 04:24 AM
I'm surprised your evangelical church didn't go into more details about HOW Satan came to be.

Of course, I don't claim my memory is perfect. We were certainly taught that Satan was cast out of Heaven because of his pride, but in general, angels weren't discussed much except when they appeared in Bible stories.


Remember that we were not created as sinners. The first time mankind ever sinned was due to the temptation of who? That's right, Satan, as the serpent in the Garden of Eden. So he has been tempting us to sin from the very beginning. I don't know that our fallibility and free will, as you mentioned, necessarily makes us INCLINED to do evil, however. We're just not strong enough to resist Satan's temptation without God's help. Hence the birth of Christ. People CAN and often DO go for periods of time without sinning, however we are still stained with the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, brought about by Satan. Hence, again, the need for Christ's birth as "the new Adam." And obviously God gave the angels, even Archangels such as Satan, enough free will to rebel against him, just like us humans do all too often. Why? Only God understands that, as it would probably beyond our understanding, anyways.

Whether evil originates in Man or Satan, the logical problem remains the same. If God is perfectly and wholly good, how can He create beings (whether Satan or Man) that are not? As you say, perhaps only God (and/or faith in Him) can answer that question. I mention the issue only as a logical problem; I'm not suggesting anyone should become an atheist because there is evil in the world (an overreaction, IMHO).


Also, do you remember the bible verse (I cannot remember it offhand) where Jesus says there cannot be belief in Him without belief also in Satan? And that there cannot be belief in Heaven without belief in Hell. Jesus went on to say that there cannot be one without the other. So in order to believe in Him and Heaven, we must also believe in the existance of His opposite, Satan and Hell. I always found that interesting....

If we take this passage literally, it seems to say that good and evil are essential opposites; we might therefore expect both to come from God. It's an interesting idea (essential opposition) that is echoed in a lot of postmodern theory which holds that every thing automatically implies its opposite, that we are incapable to thinking otherwise. Some social construction theories point to the way we create social dichotomies (black/white, male/female, gay/straight) and note that we can't seem to define (or have) a "norm" without also identifying "otherness."


It's also interesting that at the end of time, it will be another Archangel, Michael, who defeats Satan, who was even greater than Michael, at one time. Having God on his side makes the difference.

Well, that inverts Zoroastrianism, which has a revelation of the End-Time that is not unlike that of the NT. But to the Zoroastrians, the good god wins in the end because he has Man on his side.

The specifics of the Christian Revelations is something else my early church training neglected. As a very broad rule and though some "born-again" sects are deeply immersed in "End-Time" thinking, evangelical denominations have a lot less dogma than Catholicism. Of course, they haven't been around as long, so perhaps we have to give them time. ;)

accordn2me
03-01-2009, 12:09 PM
<snip>
What IS Church Doctrine is that a child under the age of 7 is not capable of sinning as their moral reasoning has not properly developed enough, GENERALLY speaking, to make an informed choice as to what is a sin or not a sin. Age 7 is considered the "age of reason." Obviously, your child's results may vary. So yes, children obviously go to heaven, and yes, even unbaptized ones can go, too, as God Wills, according to official Church Doctrine.I thought it was age twelve.

Has it been lowered, and if so, why?

7 or 12, who came up with those, and how?

accordn2me
03-01-2009, 12:15 PM
If God doesn't have a sense of humor, I am in serious trouble, lol.

God created the angels, of which Satan was one...the most powerful and beautiful of them all, actually. Satan then rebelled against God because he wanted to BE God, so God sent Satan and 1/3 of the other angels who followed him down to earth, <snip>I thought Satan and the other angels were banished from Heaven because they questioned God.

Dark Knight
03-02-2009, 07:09 AM
I thought it was age twelve.

Has it been lowered, and if so, why?

7 or 12, who came up with those, and how?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm)


I thought Satan and the other angels were banished from Heaven because they questioned God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

Dark Knight
03-02-2009, 06:29 PM
Whether evil originates in Man or Satan, the logical problem remains the same. If God is perfectly and wholly good, how can He create beings (whether Satan or Man) that are not? As you say, perhaps only God (and/or faith in Him) can answer that question. I mention the issue only as a logical problem; I'm not suggesting anyone should become an atheist because there is evil in the world (an overreaction, IMHO).


The being God created, man and the angels, are/were good. But He didn't create robot followers, so he gave angels and man the choice to reject Him if we so chose. Satan, then known as Lucifer, the most powerful angel, did choose to reject God. And mankind often does the same, sadly.

Nova
03-05-2009, 05:38 AM
The being God created, man and the angels, are/were good. But He didn't create robot followers, so he gave angels and man the choice to reject Him if we so chose. Satan, then known as Lucifer, the most powerful angel, did choose to reject God. And mankind often does the same, sadly.

If a writer pens a novel in which evil deeds are recounted, from where does that evil originate? From within the writer's imagination, of course. This is not to say she would ever commit such deeds in real life, but if she is able to imagine them sufficiently to portray them accurately, she feels some sort of sympathy with the evil desires and actions she recounts. Sympathy is something we only feel for persons, things, etc. that are in some way similar to us. Any honest artist will tell you she has to write what she "knows," even if fictional characters sometimes seem to take on "a will of their own."

Now one may choose to believe that God's creative process is vastly different from any we can observe, but there's no logic in such a belief, only faith. In the alternative, we might better understand that God is All That Is, great rather than merely good.

Dark Knight
03-06-2009, 08:08 AM
Now one may choose to believe that God's creative process is vastly different from any we can observe, but there's no logic in such a belief, only faith. In the alternative, we might better understand that God is All That Is, great rather than merely good.

God is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. I certainly have no problems believing He is "great," and certainly His creative process is far beyond our comprehension. I'm sure you've heard the before meals prayer that begins, "God is great, God is good...." He is both! :)

EmMomma
03-06-2009, 08:15 AM
I'm not interested in talking about Darwin, mainly because I've learned more about him in the past 2 years than I ever wanted to know and I've had this same debate with classmates, but...

DK, I had to take the time to tell you how much I enjoyed reading your posts here. I am not Catholic, but went to Catholic school for much of my elementary education. Mass every week and religion classes every day, coupled with some college level courses, has given me a pretty good grasp on Catholicism. Your knowledge and faith is so impressive to me...I know, in the big picture, that doesn't mean much, but I had to tell ya. :blowkiss:

Dark Knight
03-06-2009, 11:38 PM
I'm not interested in talking about Darwin, mainly because I've learned more about him in the past 2 years than I ever wanted to know and I've had this same debate with classmates, but...

DK, I had to take the time to tell you how much I enjoyed reading your posts here. I am not Catholic, but went to Catholic school for much of my elementary education. Mass every week and religion classes every day, coupled with some college level courses, has given me a pretty good grasp on Catholicism. Your knowledge and faith is so impressive to me...I know, in the big picture, that doesn't mean much, but I had to tell ya. :blowkiss:

Why thank you! I really appreciate it!!! :blowkiss: I always praise God for the grace to have faith and hopefully say the right things. :)

Blackwatch
03-08-2009, 10:02 AM
The crux of the matter is:

1. There are mockingbirds.
2. Mockingbirds have adapted/evolved in order to survive in their surroundings. Horses and elephants, on islands, have done the same. So have people.
3. Where did mockingbirds come from in the first place? Did they climb out of the primordial soup as elephants? Do elephants have feathers and fly?

Obviously there was a "plan" of some sort and evolving to survive was part of it. I have no problem reconciling evolution and creation; evolution was built into creation in my humble opinion.

TheBugHouse
03-10-2009, 03:26 PM
While pursuing my masters in biology, I had a Human Ecology professor who explained: There is no debate, what so ever, between creationism and evolution considering science does not rely on the supernatural for explanation. I always found this to be an interesting observation.