It seems that the word “creationism” is out because of very bad denotations with that one and Intelligent Design is in. I’m not sure I like Intelligent Design any better than Creationism to be honest. My father who was a very religious man and an engineer was a Creationist.
Most people I meet are evolutionists, even those who believe in God and go with the next question “both” but that it started with evolution and God spurred it along. Sounds crazy to me. I’m a Creationist, pure and simple who believes once that happened, like most things that God gave us, evolution spurred things along as that is what seeds, children and most living things on this earth do: they evolve into higher forms.
Again no surprise here, Democrats are against Intelligent Design being taught at all. While there is no proof of pure evolution, and it really is a philosophical belief based on speculation, which is what they call us, they want their version of the truth taught and taught only. Again, Republicans disagreed.
Related articles
- Discoveroids React to the Martian Landing (sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com)
- Intelligent Design Crowd Whines About Wikipedia ‘Censorship’ (patheos.com)
- Casey Defends Intelligent Design (sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com)
In my anguish... 
Evolution is not meant to explain the creation of life anyways, that falls under abiogenesis. Evolution deals with the diversification of life.
LikeLike
Thanks. I thought the data was interesting. Sociologically, at any rate.
Darwinism is, I’d say, highly speculative, as no one was around to observe the evolution of modern species from ancient ones. Evolution (genetic corruptions and variations-within-species) happens every day, but not the sort of evolution that Darwinism requires, which is the change of simpler organisms into more complex organisms through mutation and natural selection. This latter sort of evolution is a highly unlikely occurrence, as mutations corrupt genetic information rather than add new information; and as natural selection can only select for options that already exist. A good case can be made that the genomes of all species are devolving, rather than evolving, because of the cumulative effect of mutations and the thinning of the gene pool.
Why, then, is Darwinism accepted by science? Quite simply, because they have accepted a philosophical belief that everything that exists must have a natural explanation. At this point in time, the only natural explanation that feels scientifically respectable is Darwinism. In other words, Darwin has won the debate because there is no one standing at the other podium. Unless, of course, you allow Intelligent Design into the room.
LikeLike
Hi EFL
Yes you are right, evolution is a scientific fact, and I do make that assertion but what I should have been clear on, there is no basis in fact for evolution as a creation mechanism. It is true that “evolution” happens to all species but to postulate and extrapolate that because animals like the whale once walked the earth and now swim means that we were all amoeba under the skin is totally in the realm of fantastical speculation. The whole idea of “Lucy” and her “baby” has been disproved as a hoax. See the National Geographic for more. Thanks though for dropping in.
LikeLike
Hi Lyric,
I got it from http://www.political.com I found them on Facebook, when I clicked on some poll they had and registered. Now I get their daily polls. I don’t always answer but this one was very interesting. you can register and take this one yourself, click this. It’s still ongoing. I hope you found the information interesting. I hope you decide to take it as well. Thanks for dropping a line.
LikeLike
Where did you find this polling data?
LikeLike
Evolution is not a philosophical belief based on speculation. It is a scientific theory based on data.
LikeLike