Naturalistic evolution - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* US Polls */HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://www.usatoday.com → https://www.usatoday.com

2018-09-26T18:43:25Z

‎US Polls: HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://www.usatoday.com → https://www.usatoday.com

DavidB4-bot: /* top */Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: and and → and

2016-07-29T13:25:04Z

‎top: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: and and → and

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T16:30:25Z

clean up & uniformity

Aschlafly: Reverted edits by AznBurger (talk) to last revision by Ed Poor

2011-09-02T02:30:00Z

Reverted edits by AznBurger (talk) to last revision by Ed Poor

AznBurger: bad link repair

2011-09-02T02:15:37Z

bad link repair

Ed Poor at 15:21, April 22, 2010

2010-04-22T15:21:39Z

Ed Poor at 15:21, April 22, 2010

2010-04-22T15:21:25Z

Ed Poor: "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation"

2010-04-22T15:21:01Z

"a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation"

RodWeathers: template

2008-12-24T21:45:24Z

template

TerryH: Reverted edits by Nairolf (Talk); changed back to last version by Tolerance

2008-08-18T22:21:50Z

Reverted edits by Nairolf (Talk); changed back to last version by Tolerance

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 * 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process.<ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
 * 18%: evolution took place without God playing a role (just teens polled) <ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20311</ref>
-"Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process." <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm</ref>
+"Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process." <ref>https://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm</ref>
 *All: 12%

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 The primary claim of Evolution is that human beings "have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life". The secondary claim is that science can explain this process satisfactorily in terms of natural forces and processes.
-When evolutionists say that someone "believes in evolution", they imply that the person accepts both the primary and and the secondary claim. However, surveys such as the March 2001 [[Gallup Poll]] <ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref> show that this is an enormous exaggeration. The reason they get away with this is that the term ''Creationist'' is ambiguous.
+When evolutionists say that someone "believes in evolution", they imply that the person accepts both the primary and the secondary claim. However, surveys such as the March 2001 [[Gallup Poll]] <ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref> show that this is an enormous exaggeration. The reason they get away with this is that the term ''Creationist'' is ambiguous.
 ==Naturalistic evolution and Creationism==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Thus it is "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of [[creation]]"<ref>Christian author Glenn S. Sunshine wrote, "scientists can simultaneously accept undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation—and yet believe in God" [https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9118] </ref>
+The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Thus it is "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of [[creation]]"<ref>Christian author Glenn S. Sunshine wrote, "scientists can simultaneously accept undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation—and yet believe in God" [https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9118]</ref>
 Put this way, it makes a crucial distinction between the more general or vague formulations espoused by proponents of Evolution.
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 About 15% of Americans believe in unguided evolution, while 80% reject it and 5% have no opinion.
-<ref> Humans developed, with God guiding (37%).  God created humans in present form (45%). 37 + 45 = 82. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm] </ref>
+<ref>Humans developed, with God guiding (37%).  God created humans in present form (45%). 37 + 45 = 82. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm]</ref>
-*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html</ref>
+*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html</ref>
 ==Naturalistic evolution and Theistic evolution==
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Poll results vary.
-* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process. <ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
+* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process.<ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
 * 18%: evolution took place without God playing a role (just teens polled) <ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20311</ref>
 "Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process." <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Conservapedia will '''drown''' in vandalism!
+The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Thus it is "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of [[creation]]"<ref>Christian author Glenn S. Sunshine wrote, "scientists can simultaneously accept undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation—and yet believe in God" [https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9118] </ref>
-<div style="text-align:center">I'm a conservative Republican that lives in Pennsylvania. I attended Glenn Beck's rally in Washington, D.C.</div>
-<span style="text-decoration:blink; font-size:20px">{{PAGENAME}} has been vandalized by Willy on Wheels!</span><div style="text-align:center">I'm a conservative Republican that lives in Pennsylvania. I attended Glenn Beck's rally in Washington, D.C.</div>
-<span style="text-decoration:blink; font-size:20px">{{PAGENAME}} has been vandalized by Willy on Wheels!</span><div style="text-align:center">I'm a conservative Republican that lives in Pennsylvania. I attended Glenn Beck's rally in Washington, D.C.</div>
-<span style="text-decoration:blink; font-size:20px">{{PAGENAME}} has been vandalized by Willy on Wheels!</span>
-−
 The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Thus it is "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of [[creation]]"<ref>Christian author Glenn S. Sunshine wrote, "scientists can simultaneously accept undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation—and yet believe in God" [https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9118]</ref>
 Put this way, it makes a crucial distinction between the more general or vague formulations espoused by proponents of Evolution.
@@ Line 20: / Line 14: @@
 About 15% of Americans believe in unguided evolution, while 80% reject it and 5% have no opinion.
-<ref>Humans developed, with God guiding (37%).  God created humans in present form (45%). 37 + 45 = 82. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm]</ref>
+<ref> Humans developed, with God guiding (37%).  God created humans in present form (45%). 37 + 45 = 82. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm] </ref>
-*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html</ref>
+*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html</ref>
 ==Naturalistic evolution and Theistic evolution==
@@ Line 38: / Line 32: @@
 Poll results vary.
-* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process.<ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
+* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process. <ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
 * 18%: evolution took place without God playing a role (just teens polled) <ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20311</ref>
 "Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process." <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Thus it is "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of [[creation]]"<ref>Christian author Glenn S. Sunshine wrote, "scientists can simultaneously accept undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation—and yet believe in God" [https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9118] </ref>
+Conservapedia will '''drown''' in vandalism!
 Put this way, it makes a crucial distinction between the more general or vague formulations espoused by proponents of Evolution.
@@ Line 14: / Line 20: @@
 About 15% of Americans believe in unguided evolution, while 80% reject it and 5% have no opinion.
-<ref> Humans developed, with God guiding (37%).  God created humans in present form (45%). 37 + 45 = 82. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm] </ref>
+<ref>Humans developed, with God guiding (37%).  God created humans in present form (45%). 37 + 45 = 82. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm]</ref>
-*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html</ref>
+*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html</ref>
 ==Naturalistic evolution and Theistic evolution==
@@ Line 32: / Line 38: @@
 Poll results vary.
-* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process. <ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
+* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process.<ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
 * 18%: evolution took place without God playing a role (just teens polled) <ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20311</ref>
 "Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process." <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, April 22, 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Thus it is "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of [[creation]]"<ref>Christian author Glenn S. Sunshine wrote, "scientists can simultaneously accept undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation—and yet believe in God" [https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9118] </ref>		The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Thus it is "a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of [[creation]]"<ref>Christian author Glenn S. Sunshine wrote, "scientists can simultaneously accept undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation—and yet believe in God" [https://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9118] </ref>
−
−	* undirected evolution—a view that was expressly intended to take God out of the picture of creation
−

	Put this way, it makes a crucial distinction between the more general or vague formulations espoused by proponents of Evolution.		Put this way, it makes a crucial distinction between the more general or vague formulations espoused by proponents of Evolution.

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 *Women: 8%
-==Notes==
+{{evolution}}
 <references/>
 [[Category:Evolution]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:21, August 18, 2008
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	The '''Naturalistic evolution''' theory (or '''unguided evolution''') posits the view that new species of life came into being as a result of [[natural causes]] only, that is, without any supernatural intervention (compare [[Creationism]]). Put this way, it makes a crucial distinction between the more general or vague formulations espoused by proponents of Evolution.

	+	Evolutionists frequently claim that they are ''not'' atheists or materialists, and even that evolution is compatible with religious faith. However, this claim rests on an ambiguity (most likely a deliberately framed one). The term ''unguided evolution'' cuts through this fog.
	+
	+	The primary claim of Evolution is that human beings "have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life". The secondary claim is that science can explain this process satisfactorily in terms of natural forces and processes.
	+
	+	When evolutionsts say that someone "believes in evolution", they imply that the person accepts both the primary and and the secondary claim. However, surveys such as the March 2001 [[Gallup Poll]] <ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref> show that this is an enormous exaggeration. The reason they get away with this is that the term ''Creationist'' is ambiguous.
	+
	+	==Naturalistic evolution and Creationism==
	+
	+	[[Young Earth Creationism]] is the belief that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". However, there is another "creationist" idea, [[Old Earth Creationism]], which states that God's creative process for life on earth took millions of years.
	+
	+	About 15% of Americans believe in unguided evolution, while 80% reject it and 5% have no opinion.
	+	<ref> Humans developed, with God guiding (37%). God created humans in present form (45%). 37 + 45 = 82. [http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm] </ref>
	+
	+	*These numbers shows that skepticism that life developed via purely unguided evolutionary processes remains very high. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/why_many_people_dont_care_that.html</ref>
	+
	+	==Naturalistic evolution and Theistic evolution==
	+	Naturalistic evolution may be contrasted with [[Theistic evolution]] which suggests that evolution happened but was guided by God to produce mankind.
	+
	+	==Usage==
	+
	+	Many evolutionists object to the term ''unguided evolution'' on the ground that the [[Theory of Evolution]] is a scientific theory which is concerned only with naturalistic causes and makes no reference to "guidance" other than the guiding effect of [[Natural selection]].
	+
	+	==Partisanship==
	+
	+	The concept of unguided evolution is important in the legal debates over evolution education in U.S. public schools. Evolutionists generally argue that evolution should be taught as a "fact" and without any discussion of whether it has been "guided" or not.
	+
	+	== US Polls ==
	+
	+	Poll results vary.
	+	* 9-12%: Humans developed, but God had no part in process. <ref>http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm</ref>
	+	* 18%: evolution took place without God playing a role (just teens polled) <ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20311</ref>
	+	"Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process." <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm</ref>
	+
	+	*All: 12%
	+	*Men: 17%
	+	*Women: 8%
	+
	+	==Notes==
	+	<references/>
	+
	+	[[Category:Evolution]]