Uh oh. Don't tell me you're starting to believe your own myth, Orrin.

You don't really see a bunch of wild-eyed God-haters foaming at the mouth when you blaspheme against their 'Darwinist Religion'?

'Cos I see a handful of good-natured chaps who attempt to defend and clarify a branch of science which you try to misrepresent or demonise on a daily basis.

They're remarkably polite considering a little to the left of this post is a category you've charmingly entitled "Nazism (Or Applied Darwinism)"

Only Harry really spends any time bashing the Big Spook believers.

If you really want to see 'touchy', check out the complaints from the Flock when somebody screens "Jerry Springer the Musical" one midnight, or some idiot writes a book about the satanic verses, or some daft pop star flashes her nipple in the Superbowl half-time.

Brit:

It is your irrationality on the topic that makes it faith not science. But everbody has to have a faith.

I propose a gedanken experiment.

The theory of evolution never developed, leaving science only with Mendel's work to build on. Would genetics have been developed, DNA isolated, its structure described, and the geonome examined? Would the variety of finch beaks fit neatly into a scheme of mutation driven by environmental factors?

That leaves the origin of species. I've got it! How about saying we have some promising ideas on the subject, but we just don't know yet?

As for Darwin's contribution to the intellectual fullfillment of atheists, no worries. They'd find something else. They always have.

Ed: It is exactly our improved understanding of genetics that has rendered Darwinism trivial. It should be taught in History of Science courses, with maybe a day spent on it in freshmen biology.

... good natured chaps ...
Mmmmm ... no, not really, Brit. You're as devoted as oj, no less, no more; and as good-humored, no less, no more. You essay a certain jauntiness, but you don't carry it off as well as you seem to believe.

Ah well, jaunty is as jaunty does. But I don't call Orrin a Nazi.

David:

It's natural selection that's now trivial.
Modern Synthesis still has all sorts of headaches.

"Will a mutation survive?"

"If it is not incompatible with survival."

Darwinism in a nutshell. (And incomplete, as other things can happen to the host that have nothing to do with the mutation.)

Brit:

Who did call you a Nazi? I'll delete any comment where someone did.

I imagine many of those who are most furious with Warren consider themselves conservatives and share his geopolitical views to some confused and hesitant degree. Now, having taken evolution for granted all their lives, they feel betrayed by his dabbling in voodoo and they think it somehow undercuts his authority on other issues. To them, this is kind of like the articulate, respectable proponent of capital punishment who suddenly comes out in favour of the rack.

Ah, well ...
Again, no, not buying it, Brit. You've got the bit in your teeth a lot tighter than that, and it matters. Part of the argument you're trying to make here, whether you realize it or not, is that you're simply a more reasonable sort of fellow than oj. You don't really have another choice. Paleontology's a speculative science, not an experimental one, so the judiciousness of its practitioners' temperaments -- their fitness to speculate -- enters into evidence. How invested are they? How willing to entertain their own biases? OJ is able to bait you into fury by simple repetition, by his unwillingness to be cuffed into line. That tells me the answers, for you, are "very" and "not much."

OJ:

That darwinism justifies genocide is an accusation that gets bandied about frequently by those who don't understand it.

If more people understood what darwinism claims, you might get less of it.

You having a category entitled "Nazism (Or Applied Darinism)" doesn't exactly help the process.

David:

First, since the 1930s, the term 'Darwinism' has referred to 'Modern Synthesis' which combines Darwin's theories, including natural selection, with newer knowledge about genetics, and such things as gene flow, genetic drift and allele frequencies.

Second, if you must have a trivial nutshell, a more accurate one would be:

Which direction will evolution go in?
Whichever old way happens to be consistent with survival.

Peter:

We can't blame everything on libertarians...

Brit:

Yes, note that the Darwinism category is not subtitled Theoretical Nazism.

Darwinism is not Nazism, but Nazism is Darwinist.

Joe:

It's amazing the subtle nuances one can read into these pixels with a bit of imagination, isn't it?

I'd hate to shatter your mental picture, so yes, right now I'm trying to swing an axe at the monitor as two hulking psychiatric nurses at the Hospital for Misunderstood Darwinists struggle to restrain me.

Actually, contrary to popular opinion, some of my best imaginary friends are wholeheartedly opposed to me on virtually every topic we discuss.

In Britain we call it 'banter'. Beats working any day.

Brit: Except that your nutshell is wrong, and wrong because it is teleological. The key to Darwinism's triviality, including modern synthesis, is that Darwinists keep saying "compatible" when they mean "not incompatible." Survival is not the narrow collar that Darwinists like to pretend it is; rather it is the temporary fencing on the far side of a wide open field.

Joe:

Incidentally, yes, I am a more reasonable sort of fellow than OJ.

But that's scarcely something to boast about.

A bit like claiming to be a saner sort of fellow than Michael Jackson, or a better actor than Keanu Reeves.

David:

'Any old way' is not teleological, it's the polar opposite.

Because:
a) if you rolled back the clock and started again, it could just as easily go another way; and
b) there was no aim from the outset. A load of meaningless stuff just happened.

b) is the key element of non-teleology.

Interestingly, even if (a) were false, and evolution would go exactly or nearly exactly this way again, it would STILL not be teleological so long as (b) is true.

That's significant because some darwinists, looking at 'convergent evolution', argue that the scope for the direction of evolution is not as wide as has traditionally been assumed.

Your 'temporary fencing' analogy is a bit Zen for me - I don't get it. But I think the 'water filling the riverbed' analogy is useful for this question.

The water doesn't know where its going, it has no aim, so it has no teleology. That's the case even if the shape of the riverbed is fixed (so no (a) ).

Orrin:

Not libertarianism--modernism of all stripes. The visceral reaction to challenges to evolution is something to behold, even from folks who couldn't begin to describe what it says.

Brit: But in the end, the water's always going to be heading downhill, making it a perfect metaphor for Darwinism.

Your nutshell suggests, and this is the typical take-away from Darwinism, that evolution results in increased fitness. As you know, it does not.

As for the temporary fence, I suppose that when I do my perp walk, the caption will read "David 'Zen' Cohen." My point was that traits that survive for generations without effecting fitness at all can suddenly become the key to survival, or a death sentence while changing conditions can make harmless a mutation that had been slowly killing off the species.

Peter:

Who did you describe though:

"I imagine many of those who are most furious with Warren consider themselves conservatives and share his geopolitical views to some confused and hesitant degree. Now, having taken evolution for granted all their lives, they feel betrayed by his dabbling in voodoo and they think it somehow undercuts his authority on other issues. To them, this is kind of like the articulate, respectable proponent of capital punishment who suddenly comes out in favour of the rack.
Posted by: Peter B at March 10, 2005 01:39 PM "

Sorry, Brit, buying it less and less with each post. My mental image of you (more accurately, my mental image of your self-image) is much more genteel than that -- no doubt you half-believe you're bantering among friends here. My estimate of the reality behind that is that you're as reasonable as oj, no more, no less -- gifted with roughly the same level of intelligence (quite reasonable), burdened with a similar amount of pride (very considerable.) Were you even as good an actor as Keanu Reeves you might be able to carry off the difference, but you're not. Try a lower bar next time.

"Survival is not the narrow collar that Darwinists like to pretend it is; rather it is the temporary fencing on the far side of a wide open field."

That is well observed, David, but that is why Darwin posited that natural selection comes into play as a mechanism most effectively (or only?) when the environment can not support all members of a growing population. When that is not the case, then the situation would be closer to the way you put it.

As for this debate whether Brit or Orrin is more reasonable, I have seen Orrin make some pretty dubious claims on these boards (that we will be able to predict the movement of every atom in the universe, for example, or that undecideds in a poll should automatically be counted to support his point of view); not so much Brit.

creeper:

What % in this poll support the vision of aimless natural selection that you/Brit/Harry/Jeff believe in:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/018045.html

Orrin,

I think we've already devoted several dozen comments to that particular topic, so it would be easier to just link to that discussion directly.

You routinely link to the above discussion with the claim that 87% support your point of view.

creeper:

No, they don't support my view. 87% are skeptical of Darwinism. Perhaps you just misundersttod that point?

Once again you claim the undecideds as being decided in your favor. That's the kind of behavior that makes me see Brit as more reasonable than you. When a mistake is pointed out to him, I would expect him to apologize, correct himself, and move on; not so with you.

Regarding this particular instance, when you actually look at the article, you get "about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence", but you insist on clinging to those undecideds and anything else you can grab.

Like I said, we've already discussed this point to exhaustion elsewhere.

I do not concur with Warren's assessment that he is 'reasonably intelligent.'

Like Orrin, he appears to be a heterodox Christian. Even Jesus acknowledged natural selection. Matthew 13:31 and elsewhere.

Harry:

Of course He did, He was Nature.

creeper:

13% believe in Darwinism. The rest don't. They may believe in the Alpha Centauran colonization theory, but they're skeptics as regards your orthodoxy.

Orrin,

I thought you had defined Nature as the biosphere.

creeper:

No, we now, by agreement, define Nature as everything that exists.

Your quotes:

87% are skeptical of Darwinism.[...] 13% believe in Darwinism. The rest don't.

From the article you cite in support:

"about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence"

That third is decidedly not sceptical of Darwinism.

See, this is where someone like Brit would apologize for having misunderstood something, correct himself, and move on.

"No, we now, by agreement, define Nature as everything that exists."

Excluding the supernatural, of course. By agreement if you will, but really, cracking a dictionary once in a while makes this so much easier.

creeper:

So you agree that if God is using Darwinism to force evolution that is Darwinism?

Didn't you guys just argue for two days that any direction at all and it isn't Darwinism?

"Of course He did, He was Nature."

And who is this He? If it's Jesus, then he was part of nature, not synonymous with nature. And if being part of nature makes one agree with natural selection, then maybe you should too.

creeper;

Using your new definition everyone agrees with Natural Selection.

"So you agree that if God is using Darwinism to force evolution that is Darwinism?"

Where did that come from? You mean the people who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is valid but also responded yes to God guiding?

This has all been discussed before, Orrin. Please dig up the previous discussion we had about this, we're walking down the exact same garden path again.

Here it is: http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/020470.html

"Using your new definition everyone agrees with Natural Selection."

I didn't offer a new definition; I stuck to the one presented in the dictionary. You tried to redefine it as 'the biosphere' and/or to include God/supernatural influences and were set straight on the matter.

But it's still nice to see that you now agree with Natural Selection.

David:

Yes, that's why I don't like nutshells.

In darwinism, 'fitness' is not a timeless, uuniversal state towards which things strive.

It is a term relative to the environment at the time. What is fit at one time and place will not be fit at another. Being a T-Rex was the bees' knees for a while, but not forever.

Your last point is entirely correct.

Joe:

Gee, thanks.

creeper:

Yes, that is precisely true: "only 12-13% of Americans avow a belief in natural evolution."

Brit:

Nope, too late. You gave up that "environment at the time" argument when you included extraterrestrial events.

creeper:

as you noted, darwinism doesn't use the dictionary definition of Nature. Your argument that it does was a lie. I accept though you're new definition of "Natural" since it includes every Creation myth I'm aware of.

Orrin,

1. This is false: "87% are skeptical of Darwinism."

2. "You gave up that "environment at the time" argument when you included extraterrestrial events."

In what way would something originating outside the planet not be a part of the "environment at the time"?

3. "as you noted, darwinism doesn't use the dictionary definition of Nature. Your argument that it does was a lie."

What is the definition of nature used in Darwinism, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

This is what I said about this earlier, on another thread:

- the meaning of the word 'natural' does not imply any confinement to our solar system,

- the meaning of the word 'natural' excludes 'supernatural',

- even though the compound phrase 'natural selection' amounts to more than the meaning of the two words on their own (ever since Darwin used them to describe that particular theory by that name), its use as a compound phrase does not change the previously described two attributes of the word 'natural'

4. "I accept though you're new definition of "Natural" since it includes every Creation myth I'm aware of."

What do you think my "new" definition of "Natural" is, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

creeper:

2004 Nov 7-10

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

Again, Orrin:

From the article you cite in support:

"about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence"

That third is decidedly not sceptical of Darwinism.

And there are only 100% in total.

To save us all some time, you can just pick up reading this thread - http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/020470.html - from the comment from February 12, 2005 11:02 AM onwards.

creeper:

Those numbers are the poll:

creeper:

2004 Nov 7-10

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

Are you saying that evolution directed by God is Darwinism?

OJ:

I did? Why?

"Those numbers are the poll:"

False. Those numbers are part of the poll. Other numbers also featured in the poll are:

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say.

"Are you saying that evolution directed by God is Darwinism?"

It appears that a number of people see the statement "Man developed, with God guiding" as compatible with "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence". Make of it what you will. Ask them that question if it's important to you.

As I have pointed out previously on the other thread I was drawing your attention to, the wording "with God guiding" is pretty vague and allows a range of interpretations.

What the poll makes crystal clear, though, is that this statement is false: "87% are skeptical of Darwinism." About a third are skeptical, and about a third don't know enough to say.

creeper:

Yes, they do. Do you believe that evolution directed by God is Darwinism.

"Yes, they do."

Do you mean by that that the third who don't know enough to say actually do know enough to say? And they all just happen to agree with you?

Well heck, Orrin, why bother citing polls at all if you're just going to put words in people's mouths?

"Do you believe that evolution directed by God is Darwinism."

Seeing as you have previously defined God turning dust to man and man's rib to woman as evolution, I'd have to say probably not. Though it all depends on how exactly you define 'directed by God' and 'evolution'; some kind of "God of the gaps" solution is probably possible, and obviously some people out there saw room for compatibility between the two ideas.

Are you willing to admit that the statement "87% are skeptical of Darwinism" is false?

If not, why not?

Not them, "Do you believe that evolution directed by God is Darwinism"?

"Not them, "Do you believe that evolution directed by God is Darwinism"?"

Sorry, I don't know what that is in reference to.

creeper:

shame, shame.

Orrin, if it was you:

You could always try expressing yourself more clearly, for example by typing complete sentences. Some people also copy the text they're responding to; that can be quite helpful.

"Do you believe that evolution directed by God is Darwinism?" It's a yes or no question.

Not if the terms are unclear. I know they shouldn't be, but like I said, you had recently even included a supernatural force turning dust into homo sapiens and man's rib being turned into woman under evolution.

If that is what you mean, then clearly no. I had already said that.

So, 13%.

Not so hard when you just answer honestly.

13% what?

Wait a minute... are you trying to draw some kind of meaningful connection between this question of yours which uses different words and definitions (not "guided" but "directed", evolution equals not modern theory of evolution, but full-on creationism) to that poll?

Spin it as you will, Orrin, the statement "87% are skeptical of Darwinism." is false, and it is childish to keep denying that when the facts are plain and readily available: about a third are skeptical of Darwinism, not 87%. Redefining and substituting words and asking my opinion about something will do nothing to change those facts. You can't pretend otherwise and still want to use numbers from the same poll to make any meaningful point.

creeper:

If you're reduced to claiming that those who believe God guides Evolution are Darwinists then my point is made.

You're doing a good job of demonstrating this, by the way:

As for this debate whether Brit or Orrin is more reasonable, I have seen Orrin make some pretty dubious claims on these boards (that we will be able to predict the movement of every atom in the universe, for example, or that undecideds in a poll should automatically be counted to support his point of view); not so much Brit.

I'm not reduced to claiming that at all. The facts clearly show that some people (looks like approx. 15-20%) see the statement "Man developed, with God guiding" as compatible with "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence".

Those facts don't require any claims or twisting of definitions or after-the-fact word substitutions on my part. They don't require anything from me; they exist regardless of what I do or say or claim. Right there, black and white, and you quite hilariously are simply unwilling to accept them.

Not them. You. Do you think that Evolution guided by God in order to Create Man is Darwinism?

(a) What I think is irrelevant to those facts being true. I hope one of these days you'll stop misrepresenting them. About a third are skeptical of Darwinism, not 87%.

(b) Why are you asking me that question again?

Because you're either being disingenuous or lying or you don't understand Darwinism.

Creeper:

Excellent effort.

What distinguishes you, and Brit, from OJ is adherence to the norms of discourse.

The alternative is mere noise.

"Because you're either being disingenuous or lying or you don't understand Darwinism."

This from the man who said a supernatural force transforming dust to man and a man's rib into a woman was evolution...

If you didn't trot out nonsense like that (and trying to redefine 'nature'...), Orrin, perhaps you could get some straight answers. Also, this tactic of accusing people of not believing what they say they believe when it disagrees with what you believe is really not terribly effective.

A few unanswered questions:

1. "You gave up that "environment at the time" argument when you included extraterrestrial events."

In what way would something originating outside the planet not be a part of the "environment at the time"?

2. "as you noted, darwinism doesn't use the dictionary definition of Nature. Your argument that it does was a lie."

What is the definition of nature used in Darwinism, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

This is what I said about this earlier, on another thread:

- the meaning of the word 'natural' does not imply any confinement to our solar system,

- the meaning of the word 'natural' excludes 'supernatural',

- even though the compound phrase 'natural selection' amounts to more than the meaning of the two words on their own (ever since Darwin used them to describe that particular theory by that name), its use as a compound phrase does not change the previously described two attributes of the word 'natural'

3. "I accept though you're new definition of "Natural" since it includes every Creation myth I'm aware of."

What do you think my "new" definition of "Natural" is, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

creeper:

One at a time. How many folks in the poll are Darwinistic in their beliefs?

2004 Nov 7-10

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

creeper,

Are you claiming that the 38% that believe in "God guiding" evolution are Darwinists?

Brit,

Could you please explain the non-teleological nature of Darwinian evolution again?

"How many folks in the poll are Darwinistic in their beliefs?"

If "are Darwinistic in their beliefs" is synonymous with agreeing with the statement "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence", then the answer is: about a third.

If it is not, then the answer is: I don't know. Define your terms, but most likely this poll has been too vague to satisfy your curiosity in that regard.

What I do know in either case is that if about a third (approx. 33%) agree with that statement and about another third (approx. 33%) don't know enough to say (and we are limited to a total of 100%), then the statement "87% are skeptical of Darwinism" is quite obviously false.

"Are you claiming that the 38% that believe in "God guiding" evolution are Darwinists?"

No, and why would I do that? Carl, I have already answered this question in varying forms in both this thread and the one I linked to. I'll repeat:

The facts clearly show that some people (looks like approx. 15-20%) see the statement "Man developed, with God guiding" as compatible with "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence".

That's according to the facts we have at hand.

Now, to enter the realm of speculation in response to your question: if the 38% that believed in "God guiding" evolution were Darwinists (which I assume includes agreeing with the statement "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence") and the 13% who believed in evolution without God guiding (and therefore presumably also agreed with that statement) then we would have 51% who agreed with that statement. Yet we do not have such a neatly corresponding breakdown, so obviously we have a range of opinion here (surprise surprise).

I would guess that the third who agree with the statement consist of the 13% who believe in evolution without God, plus a chunk (approx 20%) of the ones who believe in evolution with God guiding. They clearly don't come from the "God created man in present form" camp, IMO.

Which means, as I have said before, that some people see the statement "Man developed, with God guiding" as compatible with "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence". How is this possible? I guess it is because people have a range of different opinions as to what "God guiding" means. These could simply be people who recognize that the theory of evolution seems sound on the face of it, but were also taught to believe in God, and so they say it's evolution, but God also played some kind of (not too closely defined) part in it.

And in that same group (since the wording is unfortunately rather vague) you can also find people who think that man was not created in his present form, but that it was God who very closely micromanaged this process.

These are not 'claims' on my part, merely speculations to attempt to make sense of the numbers before us. The numbers say rather clearly that approx. two thirds are not skeptical of Darwinism: approx. one third accept Darwin's theories, and approx. one third is ignorant or apathetic on the subject.

Jeff:

I wouldn't be too quick to advance yourself as a model of civilized discourse quite yet.

Peter,

Jeff didn't include himself in that list.

creeper:

He's part of our three man materialist tag-team. They never post without beginning with a nod to one another's brilliance. Hey, it look's like they want you to join. Watch your wallet. :-)

I have noticed that they are unusually brilliant, and would like to acknowledge that at this point.:-)

Wait, where's my wallet?

creeper: "God guiding" is another way of saying teleological. As we have been carefully schooled here that Darwinism is never and nowhere teleological, then it is hard to see how the two are compatible. That someone thinks that they believe in Darwinism, when in fact they believe in a teleological system predestined to result in them, is enough information for us to say that they are not Darwinists. Similarly, when I run across someone who calls himself a Christian, but admits that he doesn't believe in Jesus' divinity and rebirth, I immediately direct him to the nearest Unitarian Church.

In fact, almost no one believes in actual Darwinism. Almost everyone who says they believe in Darwin actually believes, instead, that nature, red in tooth and claw, has ruthlessly shaped evolution so that every facet of every organism is necessary to life in a process that culminates, as it must, in themselves, the acme of creation.

""God guiding" is another way of saying teleological."

It's also another way of saying "maybe God just helped out a little here and there". Without going back and asking those people, we do not know what specifically they meant.

"As we have been carefully schooled here that Darwinism is never and nowhere teleological, then it is hard to see how the two are compatible.

Yet it is clear from this poll that among the great unwashed out there, who are not party to our in depth discussions on these topics, there are some (looks like approx. 1 in 5 from where I'm sitting) that consider such thoughts to be compatible.

My opinion and your opinion on evolution/creation etc. will not shift the numbers of that poll one bit, certainly not to support a statement like "87% are skeptical of Darwinism".

"In fact, almost no one believes in actual Darwinism. Almost everyone who says they believe in Darwin actually believes, instead, that nature, red in tooth and claw, has ruthlessly shaped evolution so that every facet of every organism is necessary to life in a process that culminates, as it must, in themselves, the acme of creation."

Ah, the old "everyone's a narcissist" point that Orrin digs up once in a while.

Well I don't know any such people; maybe next time you run across one, can you ask them what they make of the appendix and the male nipple?

I don't really see what bringing this up shows how such people not believe in the broad strokes of the theory of evolution.

David Warren is one of Canada's few national treasures. His article on why he has always liked Americans will demonstrate that he has discernment.

Of course, Harry thinks Darwin was intelligent because Darwin wrote, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine...."

And we all know that the very definition of intelligence is anyone who agrees 100% with Harry.

creeper,
You are making a leap of faith.

The statement;

"Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence,"

only provides evidence that a) this person thinks that Darwin's theory of evolution is a proper scientific theory, and b)this person thinks there is evidence to support the theory. It does not follow however that a person that believes a theory to be scientific and supported by evidence (even "well supported") must think that theory correct or a sufficient explanation of observed phenomena.

"maybe God just helped out a little here and there"

Darwinism is compatible with Divine intervention?

Ol' Charlie's rolling in his grave.

"It does not follow however that a person that believes a theory to be scientific and supported by evidence (even "well supported") must think that theory correct or a sufficient explanation of observed phenomena."

I agree, and I think that that is probably part of the explanation for those numbers not running along neat lines. There are also people who can see the theory of evolution as a viable one, but also due to their religious beliefs want to see God in the picture somehow. Most people construct their own models as to how such different elements can fit together into a coherent worldview.

On the whole, I can't explain the position of each and every person that was polled; it's just clear that there are various overlaps and people see certain things as compatible that some people on this board see as incompatible. I don't see anything wrong or even particularly suprising with that kind of diversity of opinion.

One thing that is very clear from the numbers, though, is that Orrin vastly overstated the case when he claimed that "87% are skeptical of Darwinism"; it's about a third, with another third too ignorant or apathetic to state an opinion.

""maybe God just helped out a little here and there"

Darwinism is compatible with Divine intervention?"

God of the gaps, innit?

2004 Nov 7-10

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

Great Scott, Orrin, you have got to be kidding. Are you really just sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "I can't hear you I can't hear you"?!

Since you keep citing those numbers, I take it you are willing to accept the source as valid. The source also contains a few other pertinent numbers, as you are well aware.

If about a third (approx. 33%) agree with the statement "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence" and about another third (approx. 33%) don't know enough to say...

... and we are limited to a total of 100%...

... then where do you get 87% being skeptical of Darwinism?

Since this all started out as an example to demonstrate how unreasonable your arguments can be, you're doing an excellent job demonstrating that point.

creeper: You've never met anyone like that? Google would be glad to introduce you. The first page of results include the evolutionary purposes of hair, of baldness, of disease, of altruism, of music, of something called "ethnic consciousness" and of female orgasm.

Since it's clear both from a logical point of view and from your ongoing reactions that you can't defend this position (that "87% are skeptical of Darwinism") let's move on to a few more unanswered questions:

1. "You gave up that "environment at the time" argument when you included extraterrestrial events."

In what way would something originating outside the planet not be a part of the "environment at the time"?

2. "as you noted, darwinism doesn't use the dictionary definition of Nature. Your argument that it does was a lie."

What is the definition of nature used in Darwinism, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

This is what I said about this earlier, on another thread:

- the meaning of the word 'natural' does not imply any confinement to our solar system,

- the meaning of the word 'natural' excludes 'supernatural',

- even though the compound phrase 'natural selection' amounts to more than the meaning of the two words on their own (ever since Darwin used them to describe that particular theory by that name), its use as a compound phrase does not change the previously described two attributes of the word 'natural'

3. "I accept though you're new definition of "Natural" since it includes every Creation myth I'm aware of."

What do you think my "new" definition of "Natural" is, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

Which of these views is Darwinian:

2004 Nov 7-10

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

David,

I'm not entirely sure what we're supposed to be disagreeing about here.

creeper: I'm not sure that we are disagreeing, but.... I said that most people believe, not in actual Darwinism, but in a mythical Darwinism in which nature is a fine sieve such that every characteristic of every living thing has a specific purpose, having been finely honed until evolution created us, its apotheosis. You said you had never met any such people.

The underlying point, I suppose, is that for most people Darwinism or evolution is just another god, albeit a particularly jejune god next to whom the Greek gods are studies in subtlety and restraint.

As for male nipples, the obvious answer is that no designer likes to go back and reinvent the wheel.

creeper too believes in at, as he's counting those who believe that God guides evolution as Darwinists.

The question isn't which one is Darwinian, it's which one is skeptical of Darwinism.

To make this question a little easier, the pollsters whom you trust so much asked the people directly about Darwin's theory of evolution. You would think that would give you a clearer answer than trying to divine what people are thinking when they opt for "Man developed, with God guiding" which, believe it or not, does cover a range of opinions, not all of them identical with yours.

Now Orrin, this really is a lot simpler than you're making it out to be: Which of these three groups is skeptical of Darwinism?

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say.

Keep in mind that this is a poll whose numbers you cite frequently, and I therefore presume you have no quibbles with this source. You may disagree with these people's opinions til the cows come home or try to redefine terms or put words in their mouths, but that is entirely beside the point. They were asked about Darwin's theory of evolution, and they gave their opinion. Period.

crreper:

We've established that they are ignorant about what Darwinism is. The question is: Do you believe that evolution directed by God is Darwinism?

"creeper too believes in at, as he's counting those who believe that God guides evolution as Darwinists."

Nice goad, Orrin, but we've already dealt with this earlier:

creeper:

If you're reduced to claiming that those who believe God guides Evolution are Darwinists then my point is made.

Posted by: oj at March 10, 2005 08:32 PM

I'm not reduced to claiming that at all. The facts clearly show that some people (looks like approx. 15-20%) see the statement "Man developed, with God guiding" as compatible with "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence".

Those facts don't require any claims or twisting of definitions or after-the-fact word substitutions on my part. They don't require anything from me; they exist regardless of what I do or say or claim. Right there, black and white, and you quite hilariously are simply unwilling to accept them.

Posted by: creeper at March 10, 2005 08:38 PM

You were stuck for a response then, and you still are.

There are no 87% who are skeptical of Darwinism, and your beating around the bush instead of acknowledging that and moving on is quite silly.

"The question is: Do you believe that evolution directed by God is Darwinism?"

(a) What I think is irrelevant to those facts being true. I hope one of these days you'll stop misrepresenting them. About a third are skeptical of Darwinism, not 87%.

(b) Why are you asking me that question again?

Posted by: creeper at March 10, 2005 08:49 PM

"We've established that they are ignorant about what Darwinism is."

Having established that, how do you propose to demonstrate their skepticism?

creeper:

some people (looks like approx. 15-20%) see the statement "Man developed, with God guiding" as compatible with "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence".

Do you see the development of Man guided by God as compatible with Charles Darwin's theory?

Even though I have answered this question in the past (and it is clear that some people involved in this poll would answer it in the affirmative), I don't know why you think my answer to it is relevant with regard to what we know about these people's opinions.

Orrin, they have set down their answer in a simple and straightforward manner, and it does not say what you would like it to say. It does not say what you have claimed it says. I don't know what it is, but there appears to be something that does not permit you to admit those simple facts.

Do you see the development of Man guided by God as compatible with Charles Darwin's theory?

yes or no?

David,

certainly some people take these things too far, and some of the concepts of the theory of evolution have been seen in other contexts. I think I misunderstood a part of your earlier post.

As for the male nipple, well heck, why not? I've kinda grown attached to them.

Not sure I agree with you about people who believe in Darwinism today being all that terribly unrestrained in comparison to the Greek gods. Maybe it's just me, but it seems fairly tame altogether.

Peter:

"creeper

He's part of our three man materialist tag-team. They never post without beginning with a nod to one another's brilliance. Hey, it look's like they want you to join. Watch your wallet. :-)"

Damn right. creeper is my new hero.

Strewth, I thought Jeff and I had stamina, but creeper's in a different league.

OJ's found his ideal sparring partner at last :)

Orrin,

Let me know when you're done changing the subject.

I don't know if you've read this thread, but your question has been answered, and you have not responded to a few.

Brit, I'm still watching my wallet though. :-)

creeper:

One subject at a time, because if you reall think evolution directed by God is Darwinism then we have a problem.

Well can we just get over this hump of you acknowledging that not 87% are skeptical about Darwinism, but approx. 33%?

Incidentally, 2 of the 3 pending questions are regarding your definitions of things, so my views should really have no impact on them.

Which of these views is Darwinian:

2004 Nov 7-10

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

What's that Family Guy episode where this robot can't make his programming fit the facts in front of him, and so he repeats himself over and over again, and then his logic boards burst into flame?

Orrin, we've been over this. More than once. Please read the thread.

It's really quite simple: when approx. 33% find the theory of, say, counterbovine malcontemporary widgetarialism to be a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, and another 33% confess to being either too ignorant or apathetic to have an opinion on counterbovine malcontemporary widgetarialism, then it becomes impossible to make a truthful claim (on the basis of that very same poll(!)) that 87% are skeptical of counterbovine malcontemporary widgetarialism.

Ask anyone.

I'm asking you:

Which of these views is Darwinian:

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

Which of these views is Darwinian?

"Man developed, with God guiding--38%"

The view that man developed can be (and usually is, AFAIK) Darwinian, but the phrasing of this particular polling question is too vague, specifically as pertains to the degree of God's interference. 'God guiding' is vague enough to allow for anything from a worldview of God being part and parcel of every creature living or dying, inputting his own selection above that of nature (but still taking advantage of such factors as variability of traits or offspring inheriting traits from progenitors) all the way to the theory of evolution more or less as it stands, with God filling in the parts we don't know ("God of the gaps").

The latter is Darwinian, IMO, while the former is not. Unfortunately, since the view presented in this category is so vague and encompasses so many possibilities, it is impossible to clearly categorize "Man developed, with God guiding" as either decidedly Darwinian or non-Darwinian.

Because it is highly unlikely that the range of opinions on this subject can be reduced into three or four clearcut categories, as this poll has sadly opted to do, the other question asked of the same pool of persons is rather obviously somewhat instructive.

"Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%"

Darwinian.

"God created man in present form--45%"

Not Darwinian.

Other/No opinion--4%

Other, no opinion. Clearly not skeptical.

creeper:

Okay, then. I agree with you. I have no quarrel with Darwinism.

We hope you enjoyed the show.

(Do we do those other questions for an encore?)

No. I have no further questions. I agree with Darwinism as you present it.

"No. I have no further questions. I agree with Darwinism as you present it."

Nice try, but don't head for the door so quickly. I don't doubt that you're aware that I wasn't talking about your other questions, since all yours were answered some time ago and only recapped just now for your benefit - but about the questions you had yet to answer:

1. "You gave up that "environment at the time" argument when you included extraterrestrial events."

In what way would something originating outside the planet not be a part of the "environment at the time"?

2. "as you noted, darwinism doesn't use the dictionary definition of Nature. Your argument that it does was a lie."

What is the definition of nature used in Darwinism, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

This is what I said about this earlier, on another thread:

- the meaning of the word 'natural' does not imply any confinement to our solar system,

- the meaning of the word 'natural' excludes 'supernatural',

- even though the compound phrase 'natural selection' amounts to more than the meaning of the two words on their own (ever since Darwin used them to describe that particular theory by that name), its use as a compound phrase does not change the previously described two attributes of the word 'natural'

3. "I accept though you're new definition of "Natural" since it includes every Creation myth I'm aware of."

What do you think my "new" definition of "Natural" is, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

And I'll add this one thanks to your recent comment:

4. "I agree with Darwinism as you present it."

In what way do you see Darwinism "as I present it" being different from the dictionary definition of Darwinism?

creeper:

I was wrong about all those points too.

A Darwinism that includes God Creating Man has no discrepancies regarding Nature, Natural, or Environment that I can find.

creeper:

Sorry, I went to the bathroom and missed the last thirty posts.

Congratulations, creeper, you've done it! After one hundred and fifty years, you have synthesized faith and darwinism. (Standing by for the tag-team,,,). I'm going right home to tell my kid the story about Darwin and the Ten Commandments.

There you go, Orrin. Welcome to worshipping the God of the Gaps. Feels nice and cozy, doesn't it? Enjoy.

creeper:

Thanks! He's filled the role quite well for quite awhile.

"Thanks! He's filled the role quite well for quite awhile."

I suppose since there'll always be gaps, he will for some time.

No, wait, I mean until that time when we can predict the movement of every single atom in the universe...

I'd like to, if I may, sum up Orrin's closing retreat here by borrowing a little from another blog (hope you don't mind, Brit):

In an episode of The Simpsons, Homer has the following exchange with Lisa, after she announces her intention to become a vegetarian.

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal!
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, maaagical animal.

You know how cringe-worthy it is when you're discussing something with someone who, to put it as politely as possible, isn't very bright, and after they run out of arguments they resort to clumsy sarcasm instead? Painful, isn�t it?

(from the Daily Duck at http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/)

Retreat?

it is impossible to clearly categorize "Man developed, with God guiding" as either decidedly Darwinian or non-Darwinian.

Exactly, for the reasons I presented. I have not heard any counter arguments from you on that.

You retreated ("I was wrong about all those points too."), for reasons I can't say I fully understand, on these questions:

1. "You gave up that "environment at the time" argument when you included extraterrestrial events."

In what way would something originating outside the planet not be a part of the "environment at the time"?

2. "as you noted, darwinism doesn't use the dictionary definition of Nature. Your argument that it does was a lie."

What is the definition of nature used in Darwinism, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

This is what I said about this earlier, on another thread:

- the meaning of the word 'natural' does not imply any confinement to our solar system,

- the meaning of the word 'natural' excludes 'supernatural',

- even though the compound phrase 'natural selection' amounts to more than the meaning of the two words on their own (ever since Darwin used them to describe that particular theory by that name), its use as a compound phrase does not change the previously described two attributes of the word 'natural'

3. "I accept though you're new definition of "Natural" since it includes every Creation myth I'm aware of."

What do you think my "new" definition of "Natural" is, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

And I'll add this one thanks to your recent comment:

4. "I agree with Darwinism as you present it."

In what way do you see Darwinism "as I present it" being different from the dictionary definition of Darwinism?

... and also from presenting a defense to back up your "87% are skeptical of Darwinism" claim - that's okay, since it's indefensible, given the facts at hand. I hope you can at least finally admit that, even if only to yourself.

I agree. Almost no one is skeptical of your Darwinism.

I assume that by 'my' Darwinism you mean the part where I hypothesized about the opinions of those who believed in both a divine influence of an unspecified nature and the viability of the theory of evolution. This part right here, right?

[...] the theory of evolution more or less as it stands, with God filling in the parts we don't know ("God of the gaps").

If that belief works for you (and you've indicated that it does), you're welcome to it, but it is not 'mine', either by coming up with the notion or by currently believing in it.

My own beliefs do not feature "God did it" in the gaps of knowledge, merely curiosity.

I figured your retreat was nothing more than a sarcastic ploy, but your inability to come up with a viable response/defense on any of the open questions is pretty glaring. Hence the little Homer Simpson gag.

creeper:

Yes, God fills the parts we don't know and guides evolution to Create us. I keep agreeing and you keep arguing with yourself.

1. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I was hypothesizing about other people's positions, and that my own position was a different one?

2. Is it really that hard to answer those questions?

creeper:

Since those positions are, by your reasoning, consistent with Darwinism then I too am a Darwinist and I agree withyou on those questions. A Natural Selection that includes God in Natural is entirely unobjectionable.

I appreciate that you're so willing to place my speculations about the world views of some people ina poll over your own convictions and that you now feel compelled to adopt beliefs you scoffed at not so long ago. Anything to deflect from having to admit you made a simple mistake, eh?

Now:

1. "You gave up that "environment at the time" argument when you included extraterrestrial events."

In what way would something originating outside the planet not be a part of the "environment at the time"?

2. "as you noted, darwinism doesn't use the dictionary definition of Nature. Your argument that it does was a lie."

What is the definition of nature used in Darwinism, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

This is what I said about this earlier, on another thread:

- the meaning of the word 'natural' does not imply any confinement to our solar system,

- the meaning of the word 'natural' excludes 'supernatural',

- even though the compound phrase 'natural selection' amounts to more than the meaning of the two words on their own (ever since Darwin used them to describe that particular theory by that name), its use as a compound phrase does not change the previously described two attributes of the word 'natural'

3. "I accept though you're new definition of "Natural" since it includes every Creation myth I'm aware of."

What do you think my "new" definition of "Natural" is, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?

1. If, as you aver, the "environment" includes God this is no longer a question.

2. As "Nature" includes God this is no longer a question.

3. As "Natural" includes God this is no longer a question.

We are in complete agreement that evolution proceeds by Natural Selection.

creeper,

"It does not follow however that a person that believes a theory to be scientific and supported by evidence (even "well supported") must think that theory correct or a sufficient explanation of observed phenomena."

"I agree"

Then what is your beef with OJ's 87/13 statement?

Your argument seems to rest on the proposition that a significant portion of this group;

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

are simply Darwinists who either don't understand the theory or do not grasp the implications of a guiding God.

If you agree that believing a theory to be scientific and well supported by evidence need not entail a belief in the correctness of that theory, then why not take the 38% that claim to believe in ID (Man developed, with God guiding) at their word?

Or is the notion that over half the people who think Darwin's theory scientific and well supported still ain't buyin' what he's selling simply unthinkable?

"1. If, as you aver, the "environment" includes God this is no longer a question."

Nice try, Orrin, but since I do not aver that and have in fact consistently stated the opposite - that the definition of natural does not imply any spatial limit as to where a factor impacting on the environment may originate, but that the supernatural is specifically excluded - your initial supposition is incorrect, and your conclusions of course don't follow.

I don't know why you have such a hard time keeping track of who holds which opinion (including confusing your own thoughts with those of others), but I'll gladly point it out to you when it happens.

Once again, just so you're clear on this:

- the meaning of the word 'natural' does not imply any confinement to our solar system,

- the meaning of the word 'natural' excludes 'supernatural',

- even though the compound phrase 'natural selection' amounts to more than the meaning of the two words on their own (ever since Darwin used them to describe that particular theory by that name), its use as a compound phrase does not change the previously described two attributes of the word 'natural'

"2. As "Nature" includes God this is no longer a question."

"Nature" specifically excludes the supernatural (and "supernatural" includes God), so your supposition is false.

Not only that, but even if it were true it would be irrelevant with regard to the question: "What is the definition of nature used in Darwinism, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?"

You made the claim that Darwinism does not use the dictionary definition of nature, and you have not been able to back up that claim. I'll assume that you're withdrawing this claim unless or until you can back it up.

"3. As "Natural" includes God this is no longer a question."

Once again, the supposition is incorrect ("Natural" specifically excludes the supernatural (and "supernatural" includes God)), but the question ("What do you think my "new" definition of "Natural" is, and how does it differ from the dictionary definition?") has been answered.

You think my "new" definition of "Natural" includes God, despite my very clear verbiage to the contrary. It does not, just so you know, and I have not made that claim. Actually, I have made the opposite claim quite frequently, and I find it difficult to believe that you've either missed it or failed to understand it.

"We are in complete agreement that evolution proceeds by Natural Selection."

Glad to hear you say that. Hope you still feel that way when you run across a dictionary some day. (That would be a great idea for you anyway, Orrin: you won't have to make up your own definitions all the time.)

carl,

My major quibble with OJ�s 87/13 statement is this:

When approx. 33% find the theory of, say, counterbovine malcontemporary widgetarialism to be a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, and another 33% confess to being either too ignorant or apathetic to have an opinion on counterbovine malcontemporary widgetarialism, then it becomes impossible to make a truthful claim (on the basis of the very same poll(!)) that 87% are skeptical of counterbovine malcontemporary widgetarialism.

Skepticism is a questioning, doubting, incredulous stance, not an apathetic, ignorant, or agreeing one. And those last three are exactly the ones that Orrin needs to include to cling to his 87% claim.

We can try to second-guess these people�s world views til the cows come home, but if the question pertains to their view of Darwin�s theories, there is direct information on this topic readily available from the very same source, and that source says clearly that about a third accept Darwin�s theories and another third have no opinion, ie. are not incredulous.

My minor quibble, which is the one that kicked this topic off in this particular thread, is that Orrin cavalierly imposes his own beliefs on other people, in this case sweeping up the undecideds as a matter of course, both as regards the three thirds and the 45-38-13-4 groupings. He has been made aware of this before, and as far as I recall he even condeded the �error� at the time, but now he happily keeps pushing it.

Your argument seems to rest on the proposition that a significant portion of this group;
Man developed, with God guiding--38%
are simply Darwinists who either don't understand the theory or do not grasp the implications of a guiding God.

I don�t know specifically what these people were thinking and how they form their coherent worldviews. The poll does not tell us, and I don�t profess to be able to read their minds. I try to refrain from the label 'Darwinist' in this discussion until we have a definition we can agree on (see my comment at March 11, 2005 02:56 AM above); let's just stick to the facts we know, and that is how people responded to questions on a poll.

What that does is give us these two sets of data � one directly about views of Darwin�s theory of evolution, and one about how or if Man evolved, which unfortunately only gives us some rather broad and vaguely defined categories.

Looking at these sets of numbers, we can see that there are people out there who either accept Darwin�s theory of evolution or have no opinion of Darwin�s theory of evolution (either due to apathy or ignorance) who most likely agreed with the statement that �Man evolved, with God guiding�.

As I have said before:

'God guiding' is vague enough to allow for anything from a worldview of God being part and parcel of every creature living or dying, inputting his own selection above that of nature (but still taking advantage of such factors as variability of traits or offspring inheriting traits from progenitors) all the way to the theory of evolution more or less as it stands, with God filling in the parts we don't know ("God of the gaps").

You can get an idea of the range of different views here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

The ones that could fall under agreeing with �Man evolved, with God guiding� would include, AFAICT, Evolutionary Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and even Methodological Materialistic Evolution, and perhaps some others. Among these, the range of views is anything from �God operates not in the gaps, but nature has no existence independent of His will�, �Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one�, �[varying] beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process�, �accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul�, �God does not actively interfere with evolution [but] God created evolution�.

That is quite a range, and certainly allows for views that have found compatibility between the scientific evidence for evolution and a belief in God, even if Orrin finds such a possibility abhorrent (and tries to pretend that I hold that belief, even though I'm an atheist).

�If you agree that believing a theory to be scientific and well supported by evidence need not entail a belief in the correctness of that theory, then why not take the 38% that claim to believe in ID (Man developed, with God guiding) at their word?�

carl, these people were not asked whether they believed in Intelligent Design and we have no information that they claimed that particular belief; they agreed with a rather vague option that combines evolution and an undefined measure of God's influence, which encompasses a number of different viewpoints, as you can see above, quite a few of which are compatible with not being skeptical of the theory of evolution - which is why it does not automatically override the direct information we have from the same people on this subject.

It would be great if we had information that polled these people in much more detail, perhaps according to the categories laid out in the link above, but we just don't.

creeper:

So only 13% profess a belief in Darwinism as you actually define Darwinism.

Let me know when you have something other than deflections on hand, Orrin.

Here is who you are counting as Darwinist:

"The ones that could fall under agreeing with �Man evolved, with God guiding� would include, AFAICT, Evolutionary Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and even Methodological Materialistic Evolution, and perhaps some others. Among these, the range of views is anything from �God operates not in the gaps, but nature has no existence independent of His will�, �Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one�, �[varying] beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process�, �accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul�, �God does not actively interfere with evolution [but] God created evolution�."

Would Darwin?

I try to refrain from the label 'Darwinist' in this discussion until we have a definition we can agree on (see my comment at March 11, 2005 02:56 AM above); let's just stick to the facts we know, and that is how people responded to questions on a poll.

Posted by: creeper at March 12, 2005 05:54 AM

Notice: "The ones that could fall under agreeing with �Man evolved, with God guiding� would include [...]

Look at the different beliefs, then at the categories in the polls, and ask yourself which of those (rather imperfectly phrased) options they would choose.

This really has nothing to do with who Darwin would label Darwinist.

Those questions must be might hard to answer, huh? Anyway, let me know when you're done with the deflections.

It is the precise topic under discussion. If you believe God guided evoilution to produce Man are you a Darwinist? Your category says, yes.

If you believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, are you skeptical of Darwinism?

No.

If you think it's God's work you are.

Which is, of course, what the respondents say.

creeper:

While I'm in awe of your stamina, your arguing style reminds me a bit of a legal seminar I once attended on how not to cross-examine. It went like this:

Lawyer: "I suggest, Sir, it was then that you beat your wife."

Witness: "No, I didn't beat my wife."

Lawyer (rolling eyes) "Oh, really, do you expect us to believe that? I suggest to you again, sir, that that is when you beat your wife."

Witness: No, I didn't."

Lawyer(angry): Sir! This is a court of law and you are under oath! I will ask you one last time. Is that when you beat your wife?

Witness: "No. I've never beaten my wife."

Lawyer(sitting down with great flourish): "I think I've made my point!"

If you think it's God's work you are."

Some of the folks gathered under the grouping of Theistic Evolutionists, for example, have no problem with not being skeptical of Darwin's theory and still making it cohere with their religious beliefs.

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

Or these folks:

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example.

creeper,

A)"It does not follow however that a person that believes a theory to be scientific and supported by evidence (even "well supported") must think that theory correct or a sufficient explanation of observed phenomena."

"I agree"

B)"We can try to second-guess these people�s world views til the cows come home, but if the question pertains to their view of Darwin�s theories, there is direct information on this topic readily available from the very same source, and that source says clearly that about a third accept Darwin�s theories and another third have no opinion, ie. are not incredulous."

If you agree with the statement A (and you did) then statement B is (by your own admission) a non-sequiter. The direct information bandied about on the thread is, "about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence", it is not, "about a third of Americans accept Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct."

The only direct evidence we have from the poll of what people actually believe happened is;

Man developed, with God guiding--38%

Man developed, but God had no part in process--13%

God created man in present form--45%

Other/No opinion--4%

I could understand quibbling about the 4% perhaps, but if you assume, and with no evidence to the contrary I think you have to, that everyone in the poll understood the questions and understood the implications of their answers then you are left with 13% that believe Darwin correct, 83% who believe he was wrong (or at least incomplete and insufficient to explain observed phenomena, i.e. skeptical) and 4% who don't know/don't care.

Skepticism is a questioning, doubting, incredulous stance, not an apathetic, ignorant, or agreeing one.

So, this is actually an argument about what "skeptical" means? As I have no problem reading people who believe that G-d guided evolution out of the Darwinist church, I'm content with interpreting this poll as saying that only 13% of respondents are Darwinists.

creeper:

You keep going back to them, the folks you say are ignorant and whatever, when the question is you and whether for purposes of discussions here you believe that Darwinism can be said to be guided by God.

A lot of the objections seem to center on wanting to discredit someone accepting the theory of evolution if they also believe that God played a role in the process.

Here are some words from a pretty religious man who sees a possibility to both regard evolution as viable (and who doesn't appear skeptical of it at all) and for God to play a role in it. He lays out his reasoning in detail:
http://conservation.catholic.org/magisterium_is_concerned_with_qu.htm

Just an example of the kind of worldview you would find in that unfortunately far too vague category "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process". And he is not a skeptic.

Orrin,

"You keep going back to them, the folks you say are ignorant and whatever, when the question is you and whether for purposes of discussions here you believe that Darwinism can be said to be guided by God."

No, I and my beliefs are not the subject at hand; it is indeed those folks.

I do think it is possible for purposes of discussion to find common ground between a belief in God's intervention and the modern theory of evolution. It is not my worldview, but it does appear possible by learned and intelligent men to construct such a worldview. (See the above link.) And if that is possible, just imagine what an ignoramus would be capable of!

creeper:

Okay, and accepting your view that Darwinism can be guided by God (or whatever other intelligence) there is no longer any conflict between Natural Selection, Creationism, ID, etc.

carl,

"If you agree with the statement A (and you did) then statement B is (by your own admission) a non-sequiter."

You are correct. The wording should be amended as you said.

However, I don't think that opting for "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" automatically makes one skeptical of Darwinism (and yes, David, that is part of this discussion, since it was sparked by a comment about Orrin grabbing undecideds to bolster his cases, a habit he has demonstrated cheerfully even since then) - as I think the link two posts previous demonstrates.

"with no evidence to the contrary I think you have to, that everyone in the poll understood the questions and understood the implications of their answers"

Now now - almost a third said they didn't know enough about Darwin's theory of evolution to have an opinion on the matter.

I'd imagine there is still plenty of heated discussion to be had between the different views, some of which are polar opposites. Perhaps you didn't read the Pope's nuanced view on the subject that I posted earlier.

[T]heories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

Sic Transit Darwinism

Creeper: I didn't say that 87% are skeptical, I said that only 13% are Darwinists.

Given your link to the Pope, that well-known unskeptical Darwinist, you must believe that the following statement is compatible with Darwinism:

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

creeper:

There's no difference anymore, especially if you accept the Vatican's Creationism as Darwinism.

"I didn't say that 87% are skeptical, I said that only 13% are Darwinists."

I know. It was Orrin who said that, and that's what I was disagreeing with.

Sounds to me like the Vatican has taken the theory of evolution on board and is pondering the ways in which God magicked souls into us.

And of course there's still plenty of difference between a view like that and, say, biblical literalism.

No, the Pope is pretty sure God made the bodies too. Are Darwinists?

AFAIK, the theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.

Yes, that's one of the ways in which it isn't science.

Why, is it a rule that something has to include that explanation to be considered a science?

Abiogenesis is simply a different, though related field.

Because Darwinism postulates that one natural force drives all of life throughout history but can't figure out how either life itself or the force came into existence.

What natural force does the theory of evolution postulate as driving "all of life throughout history"?

Because Darwinism postulates that one natural force drives all of life throughout history but can't figure out how either life itself or the force came into existence.

Aside from the howler that Darwinism postulates some natural force, all you have noted is the obvious:

Darwinism is agnostic on the question--it is completely undecideable, and may forever be. Further, and more importantly, it doesn't matter to evolutionary theory how life started, because the theory only addresses how it changed over time.

Thanks, though, for finally taking on board that Darwinism is not the least bit atheistic.

Jeff:

So if evolution is simply a teleological process initiated by an intelligent being it doesn't matter?

Orrin,

What natural force does the theory of evolution postulate as driving "all of life throughout history"?

selection/survival/fitness/whatever you choose to call it.

That's not a natural force, it's a consequence of the variability of traits and inheritance of traits confronted with survival pressures.

Be that as it may: you say that since the origin of this 'natural force' can not be explained, evolution is "not science".

Gravity is considered a natural force whose origin we do not know. Does this make physics "not science"?

Gravity isn't scientific either.

Mmkaaay...

Could you please define scientific?

Could you make your definition jell with a commonly accepted one (read: a dictionary one)?

Just so you're clear on this: gravity is not just a theory, like the theory of evolution, but a scientific law.

What is gravity?

Crack a dictionary.

Merriam Webster:

the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 1039 times weaker than the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter -- called also gravitation, gravitational force; compare ELECTROMAGNETISM 2a, STRONG FORCE, WEAK FORCE b : ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY c : SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Could you please define scientific?

So gravity is gravitational attraction?

It is what it says in the above definition.

Could you please define scientific?

Using that standard: scientific is science-like

So: "Gravity is not science-like."

How so?

And what is science-like?

And, more to the point: how do you define science?

No idea. The definition, like yours of gravity, is meaningless.

It sounds like you're being deliberately obtuse because you are unable to make sense of your own statement "Gravity isn't scientific" and are too recalcitrant to retract it.

I think if you took a step off the edge of a skyscraper, you would find that gravity very meaningful very quickly.

BTW, how can you employ the term science in a definition of your own devising when you have no idea what science is?

If gravity is gravitational attraction then scientific is science-like

1. Is it because you think it's a circular definition that you're being coy about this?

2. You have not explained why you think gravity is not scientific by any commonly understood definition of either term.

What is gravity?

You tell me. And tell me why you don't think it's scientific.

Your topic, you define it.

I already did.

You made the statement "gravity isn't scientific". What did you mean by it, and how would you define both gravity and scientific in the context of that sentence?

you defined gravity as gravitational attraction.

After you made your statement "gravity isn't scientific", I offered the dictionary definition of gravity, which includes (among others) the term. "gravitational attraction"

1. What do you find objectionable about the term "gravitational attraction"?

2. Did you read the rest of the definition, or did you just stop there?

3. You made the statement "gravity isn't scientific". What did you mean by it, and how would you define both gravity and scientific in the context of that sentence?