Apparently about twice as many people believe in creationism versus evolution as being the underlying force driving the Universe.

How could this be? Simple science seems to support the former more than the latter. The notion of a Big Bang as being the starting point of the Universe is now virtually undisputed and supported by all sorts of physical observation including the Hubble Space Telescope. Hence the really only debate can be was the First cause of the Big Bang and intelligent act or a random one. Most people who are generally intelligent being likely identify it with being an intelligent act by some super natural being, i.e., God.

The other fact that is now universally accepted is that the Universe is expanding at an expanding rate. Again this is strongly supported by science and physical observation. Consequently the Universe is in a continual state of change or flux but the cause is now unclear why and is attributed to so called "Black Energy" a phenomenon that is not well understood but which does not appear to be randomly caused thereby undercutting the notion of arbitary evolution which atheist semm to be enamored with.

Physics and cosmology are, at that level, decidely difficult subjects to debate. I wouldn't attempt to defend them or argue against them.

You're entitled to your beliefs, just don't legislate them on my children, hmmm?

I understand how physics enters in...but how can the universe be affected by trashy girls learning to cut hair and do nails?..........Oh!!...cosmolo­gy!....That's much different...Never mind......

In terms of posting in the "new" Fray you seem to be doing OK so far as I can tell.

Good morning.

Twice as many people believe in creationism as opposed to evolution? I highly doubt that assertion.

There is no reason why a "big bang" can't be random and the definition of "the universe" changes. Other solar systems have been discovered, new galaxies have been discovered and new planets seem to be discovered all the time.

Your conclusion that this "black energy" phenomenon "which does not appear to be randomly caused thereby undercutting the notion of arbitrary evoution ...." makes no logical sense. First of all, evolution is not a random process. Second, even if it was, there is no logical reason why an ordered change in the universe negates any random causes of evolution. That's like saying the fact that a poker game has rules undercuts the notion that poker has any random luck or chance during the game.

Finally, its not just "atheists" who choose to follow scientific methods rather than faith-based explanations.

.... about the Big Bang?

I thought that the big deal with creationism was that it accepted the literal truth of the Bible. That is stories in the Bible are literally true, The world was created in six days, Adam and Eve, etc. Evolution challenges the literal truth of the Bible.

However, there is really nothing in science that speaks to "first causes." The Big Bang is an event. You are saying that the Big Bang was caused on purpose. But others are going to claim that it just happened. There is really no way to "test" either claim. Both sides are entitled to their beliefs.

Are you a biblical literalist?

confused at times.....

First, evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, except they are both theories within the disciplines of science. Evolution is a theory on speciation here on earth and the Big Bang is the theory on how the universe began.

By the way, we know more about the science of evolution than that of cosmology. While most of the universe appears to be dark matter and energy, there are few dark species or those infamous <i>missing links</i> in evolution.

The major <i>dark knowledge,</i> in evolution is how life began. In cosmology, planets, solar systems, and galaxies appear as strange attracters in chaos theory, and the strangest attractor of them all is life.

Life in its most basic form is nothing more than chemistry. But it's chemistry with an attitude. Chemistry with a purpose and that purpose is to reproduce that chemistry. While we have found life no where else in the universe, just about everywhere we look on earth with find life. Given enough time, life will evolve and incorporate the whole of the earth until the planet become one big ball of living tissue.

As to why so many supposedly educated people believe in creation rather than evolution, go ask Paris.

….that evolutionary theories do not address the origin of the universe (that falls within the scope of cosmology) but in your post you appear to imply that evolution addresses the origin of living organisms (“The major dark knowledge in evolution is how life began”). The origin of life also isn’t within the scope of evolution but falls within the scope of a separate field of inquiry termed abiogenesis.

Evolutionary theories only address change in the genetic composition of populations of living organisms over generations, without regard for how life on earth might have arisen in the first place. Whether life arose by self-assembly, was seeded onto the planet by aliens, or was magically "Poofed!" into existence by a god or gods is all teh same to evolution, which only describes what occurs once it's already here.

One of the problems I have with evolution is that it does not address the catalyst for the changes that evolution is attempting to explain. Unless you can argue that need spurs genetic change. However, then you are getting away from pure evolution and getting into mental and/or spiritually induced change, which would lead into a whole new theory in which evolution would only be a small part.

Before you 'know' the difference between 'creationsm' and 'evolution', you at least have to 'know' what 'evolution' is and..... scientific 'data' for it especially 'fossils'. And... you should also know the difference between a 'monkey' and a 'primate'.

If one does not know these differences, then 'creationism' is easier to understand as it does not require any knowledge of facts; just a 'repackaging' of words. Would most creationists know the difference between 'cretanism' and 'creationism'?

Actually isn’t necessary to know all of these to identify the most fundamental difference between creationism and evolution: the former is a religious paradigm supported only by subjective personal faith in the authority of a preferred religious scripture or oral tradition which lacks any credible objective support while the latter is an scientific theory derived from a very large body of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry (the fossil record and fossil transitional series, as you mention, but also genetic and peptide homologies, conserved retroviral insertions, pseudogenes, transposons, biogeographical distribution of species, comparative anatomy, etc.) that is a comprehensive, predictive, tentative and falsifiable.

You're free to believe what you what!

I believe that the the Universe is not an "Isolated system" left to its own vagaries and that there is an intelligent external force that can and does intervene from time to time both in the material and intellectual domain and that the Bible does reflect human thoughts that have been so influenced by that intellectual intervention.

“One of the problems I have with evolution is that it does not address the catalyst for the changes that evolution is attempting to explain.”

>>What catalyst are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge none is needed, as natural mechanisms which introduce change into population gene pools have been identified and are known to operate in living populations at a small but non-zero frequency (chemical and energetic mutation, gene transposition and duplication, etc.) Genetic changes that result in differential fitness are known to be subject to selection with respect to environment.

“Unless you can argue that need spurs genetic change.”

>>Need has nothing to do with it, and change does not need to be ‘spurred’—genetic mutations occur at a non-zero rate in living populations pretty much constituitively. Given a biological mechanism for inheritance that is less than 100% accurate and selection with respect to environment evolutionary change isn’t only explainable but inevitable

What is the source of your belief that an ‘intelligent external force’ exists and intervenes from time to time to achieve a preferred and predetermined goal? If it’s rooted only in religious faith, by what argument should one accept your assertion of faith that this is the case yet reject other’s equally sincerely held belief that it is not?

As to the bible, isn’t the simplest explanation for its reflecting human thoughts the fact that it’s demonstrably the work of human authors?