You only got to the divinely guided evolution, if you first answered yes to evolution. That is why the survey is defective in this area. If the survey was as you described originally, having three answers, it would have been a reasonable survey with very different results.

Of course things have changed over time. If you have a stupid survey that says pick A or B, and you believe they are both false, you will pick the one that reason finds less offensive. Stupid question, stupid answers.

Again, you can't read the very simple survey.

If I were to answer, I would have been in the 42% for the first question, factually wrong though it is. Had I known I could qualify the answer in a later question if I had picked the 48% answer, I would have selected that.

If the survey was as you described originally, having three answers, it would have been a reasonable survey with very different results.

Doubtful - just focusing on that one quetion you have

A. "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time"

B. humans have evolved over time (dont know the precise wording, but I dont think it said "man descended from algae")

Answer A is patently false. Answer B is not. It's not hard. I really doubt you would have chosen answer A.

---

_______________________________________________

You only got to the divinely guided evolution, if you first answered yes to evolution. That is why the survey is defective in this area. If the survey was as you described originally, having three answers, it would have been a reasonable survey with very different results.


Q.27F1/

28F2 Some people think that humans and other living things [have evolved over time]. Others think that humans

and other living things [have existed in their present form since the beginning of time]. Which of these comes

closest to your view? [ROTATE STATEMENTS]



48 Evolved over time

42 Existed in their present form since the beginning of time

10 Don't know/Refused (VOL.)



If you believe in divinely guided evolution, you choose: "Evolved over time" - no problem there at all.

---

_______________________________________________

Please post contact information. I could maybe do this in October.

I would have probably chosen A because the previous question put the whole thing in a religious context. Using the loaded term evolution rather than changed, adapted or developed would have contributed to my choice.

I wouldn't have made that interpretation. To me and to just about every nonscientist, the term evolution basically means we are descended from an amoeba or something. That is the common, though obviously not the scientific meaning. The term evolution by itself would rule out divinely guided evolution by my interpretation in this context.

These events bring out the weird ones that need attention. Turn your attention more to the millions of evangelicals donating moey to help or the Southern Baptist pledge to serve 1 mil meals per day.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

To me and to just about every nonscientist, the term evolution basically means we are descended from an amoeba or something. That is the common, though obviously not the scientific meaning.

Actually, most scientists refer to that as the "fact of evolution". The whole natural selection acting on variation due to mutation as the "theory of evolution". If people want to intentionally keep the ideas seperate that will call the "fact of evolution" ... 'common descent'.

The term evolution by itself would rule out divinely guided evolution by my interpretation in this context.

That would be mixing philosophy and science. There is no way to prove or disprove any divine interaction in the common descent or NS/RM process. One could only suggest that there does not appear to require divine interaction in the process ... but that does not mean that there isn't any or that there could not be any. We have no way of knowing that.

But, you accurately point out that it is your interpretation. There are also other interpretations that suggest that non-divine dependent evolution is how a loving and freedom giving God would have designed the process. The whole "allowing creation to become what it is to become without being overwhelmed by the divine" ... allowing "life to autonomously become something distinct from the Creator". I find the view interesting, but don't know my exact stance on the matter. At this point, in regards to the divine, I am content to understand that the whole point of evolution and/or creation was to get a being that is capable of having a personal relationship with the divine.

It's tricky business trying to figure out "what the divine would do".

I'm rambling on (sorry) ... most scientists, at this point, don't really make an attempt to seperate the ideas of common descent and NS/RM because they believe they are so inter-related now, as to be one complex concept. Scientists also don't usually (outside of debates with anti-evolutionists) decipher between macro and micro evolution. To them, the concepts are a flowing sequence ... in other words, it's all "evolution to them".

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

That is no fun. It is much easier to scan the blogs looking for an errant sentence upon which to pounce, rather than examine what they actually do.

So bascially you'd choose a totally wrong answer because you felt the word in the other answer was "loaded", or you're trying to make some kind of a point. Whatever....

---

_______________________________________________

As I stated earlier, that and because the previous question set the table as a religious interrogation. Having stated one question earlier that I believed in God, who was responsible for the creation of life on Earth, I am not going to say in the next question that I believe in evolution.

So the answer is yes, I would likely choose the answer that would be most consistent, even though factually wrong.

If I went for the one you suggest, then you would be saying the people who believe in God as creator are stupid because they also believe in evolution.

Stupid questions, stupid answers.

Having stated one question earlier that I believed in God, who was responsible for the creation of life on Earth, I am not going to say in the next question that I believe in evolution.


What a really silly statement.

If I went for the one you suggest, then you would be saying the people who believe in God as creator are stupid because they also believe in evolution.

No, I'd say that people who believe in God are smart enough to realize that evolution is not inconsistent with God.

---

_______________________________________________

Justify poorly worded and sequenced questions all you want. If you want to believe that 42% of the respondents actually believe life on Earth has never changed, go for it. I leave it to you to decide whether you or they are being stupid.

Art, I have no idea what percent truly believe that life has never changed on Earth, but it's not 0%. Furthermore, people who chose that answer (knowing it was totalyl wrong) because saying the word "evolved" made them feel like a godless heathen, well they're dumbasses as well.

---

_______________________________________________

Don't be a hater, bro.

T.

One thing that has always confused me about any religion that worships a loving god is why the god would allow such horrific things to happen to his people. If Jesus and God or whomever love mankind, then why do they allow hurricanes, tsunamis etc to happen? I thought the rainbow after the great flood in the bible was a promise that it would never happen again. Just curious because I can't really remember from high school.