Psalm 139:13-14

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

I myself believe in God's Machine. The universe being a system that can unfold on its own and in the process creates life.

But this sort of reminds me of a reverse Hitchhiker's Guide's babelfish dilemma.

Nothing is science can prove or disprove God's existence. It is a question of faith. However, man is not a perfect being. Therefore man should misinterpret what science teaches and be biased one way or the other. The fact that man has a choice to believe or not can only exist by design. Therefore God exists.

The point for many parents it to get the big picture across and make them understand what is going on . Problem.. how to do it without lying to them.. Answer.. Badly

It's true that Republicans have a problem with their base that doesn't think evolution is good science.

BUT... it's better than democrats, whose base doesn't think economics is good science.

Give the devil his due; this question was as diabolical as it was exploratory.

Make no mistake - there are compromises that must be made to accommodate evolution and the Old Testament. Those who are not so willing are the same ones who find one School Board a year to advocate teaching "Creationism" alongside evolution. Dangerous ground that, Intelligent Design notwithstanding.

The allure of teaching "Creationism" is a mantrap into which many conservatives might easily fall, including President Bush. Any wavering in support for evolution would be as injurious to the quest for centrist and independent voters as it would be red meat to some fundamentalists. Tactically speaking, this would be unwise and candidates word your answers with care.

For Rosie is salivating with the inevitable Taliban comparisons and to note that under Sharia law, belief in evolution cannot be other than a jailable offense.

For at least the last 100 years evolution has been about as well accepted in the scientific community as, say, Newton's Laws of motion, although I'm certain this comment will find the usual doubters. It is fair to say however, that there are no dispositive arguments against evolution and an election fought on these grounds would be a sure loss, however much I respect the strength of your belief.

Just the same, this is a landmine better sidestepped.

"...is there anything heretical in believing in evolution? No."

I've got to disagree. I used to think that, but I've grown since then. Evolution does not seek to "explain how God did it" - it replaces God. And that is what it is "designed" to do. As Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is exactly the point. One starts with the philosophical premise that God does not exist and the Bible is a lie. Something must explain life and that something is evolution. Evolution replaces God. Evolution (or the Cosmos, if you like) becomes God. It is either/or, not both. Two contradictory and competing philosophies.

My feelings run pretty much parallel to yours, Jay. I really don't see that religion has to be incompatible with science. It's entirely possible that someday science will prove the existence of God. Although He might not be anything like most think He is.

I think of God as a source. Something big of which we are all a smaller part of. Not a separate entity passing down edicts, punishing the unbelievers and "moving in mysterious ways".

Why should God have to punish the unbeliever anyway? We have people that do that.

Count on the creationists to find the area where evolutionists require faith; that the development of so-called 'irreducible complexities' was by natural means, because the scientists cannot yet explain them so.
=================================

IMHO, the Bible was written in a manner which could be understood by the vast, uneducated masses. We were taught that the earth was created in 6 days, because we would not be able to comprehend the idea of a billion years. Things were in effect 'dumbed down' so that we would get the 'big picture', rather than let the actual details obscure God's message.

But I'm appalled at the people who won't let the arguments of the ID people into public classrooms. Where, but science class, should we be discussing the theory of knowledge? Why do scientists and educators think that evolution can't hold its own in a debate about science? Are they afraid children are going to have to think?
==============================

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Jeff is correct, it is all about faith. No science can ever determine the mind of GOD. Just not possible. As far as evolution goes, I have no problem with it as long as it is taught as a theory, and have the teachers explain to the child what a theory is.

I have been around a while and I have seen scientists, many times, make incorrect assertions. Another ice age, eggs are bad for you, etc. For me, I will rely on my faith for eternity, not science. I do respect the dicipline and education of scientists though. This latest global warming sham is again showing how inaccureate scientists can be. ww

Jeff, your comment came in while I was typing. Are you saying that evolution, that for which we have a tangible fossil record of, was explained with the purpose of disproving God? I don't believe so. It was seized upon by some as a relacement, yes, but I don't believe that was the original intention.

Even so, many religionists, while unable to disprove the fossil record right in front of their faces, have adapted and come up with "intelligent design" theories. So not all are as unbending as you may think. They are indeed adapting.

How the hell did my comment post again so much later? Can you delete it please?

Nevermind. I'm tripping :-)

Oyster,

Obviously, I have no problem with the fossil record. How can one? It is what it is. It hardly proves (macro) evolution. The "fossil record" and the "geologic table" are not the same thing. One actually exits. The actual fossil record does not jibe with Darwin's theory. The Cambrian Explosion, the lack of transitional forms, the "appearance" of design, etc. are problems that are largely ignored or given unsatisfying explanations. The theory of evolution can never be disproved however, because it is the "incredible morphing theory." No matter what contradictory evidence is found it will always be absorbed and casually explained away. It is philosophy, not science.

Instead of taking Christians to task for this, why not take Matthews to task for demanding a one-word answer to a complex question? It was ~he~ that presumed that religion and science don't mix.

To me, the Creation/Evolution "debate" is a red herring. Coming at it from the extremes of either side, people are demonized as heretics or unthinking boobs who don't believe in science. While some on the Creation side are fearful of science, mainly out of ignorance, some on the Evolution side use it to "prove" the nonexistence of God.

Science can only carry us so far. The best criminal investigators can figure out a whole bunch from the evidence they find, but can never know conclusively the "why" of a crime unless the perpetrator gives an accurate first-hand account.

On the other hand, I cannot "prove" the existence of God through empirical means. Should that be surprising? I think not. It is certainly possible that "someone" created all that we see (whatever the mechanisms involved), but we are unable to see the Creator.

Dang! Gotta go! Conitnued later...

John not Kerry

"Coming at it from the extremes of either side, people are demonized as heretics or unthinking boobs who don't believe in science."

Not quite. The label of "heretic" is only applied to those who claim to be within the Christian faith. If you are not in the faith, you are simply an "unbeliever". May I suggest that this is the real political football? Politicians who say they believe in evolution do not have the courage of their convictions to go all the way and say that they do not believe in God. This would be true political suicide. As is usually the case with politicians, they try to have it both ways and placate the broadest number of people possible.

At least the ones who say they do not believe evolution have the courage to take a stand - and deserve respect for it.

The self described "liberal Democrat" editor of my local newspaper liked the evolution question so much he called our two Republican Senators to ask them to answer it. I mean it's so utterly pertinent to the problems of the world today, isn't it?

If a creator did fabricate the world, it certainly would have been by means found in nature; hence, the world is naturally created, by God.

Heh, heh. Dispute that.
==========================================

Jeff, the purpose of my comment was not to say there is proof of evolution or that evolution disproves creation. It was merely to demonstrate that more and more people are actively trying to find some middle ground with the "intelligent design" theory, though there is still a hard core group at both ends of the spectrum. On one end we have the, let's call them, "athiest evolutionists" who castigate those who are trying to reconcile their beliefs with scientific discoveries and the, let's call them, "unbending creationists" who also castigate the same group.

I am willing to entertain a lot of ideas myself. That more and more others are willing to do the same is encouraging to me. It does seem though that more Christians have been far more accomodating than the athiests.

But you're absolutely right about the politicians. I'd guess there are a lot of them who do not have the courage to admit to being agnostic and that neither science nor religion can give us all the answers.

Actually it does not require one to be of any religion what so ever to question the theory of evolution, after all it will always remain an artificial construct.

Jay, in some religions, let's say Evangelic, the word of the bible is absolute. Therefore, science must fit the text. In other religions, let's say Catholicism, the church's hierarchy can 'evolve' with scientific advances since they are not burdened by the mostly myths of the old testament.

Your line of science not disbelieving or replacing God, but a means to explain what and how He did it etc., was the best I heard of explaing science and God. It is what my father, a devout Catholic ,taught me. Beautiful and simple.

"The fact that man has a choice to believe or not can only exist by design. Therefore God exists." jpm100

Nice try jpm, but that line of thought is no different from the Cartesean attempt to prove "god."

Your definition is no more than man's self-wondering about what he believes amounts to having "choice" in a vain attempt to prove "design."

You can't break the chain. If we and our humble circumstance in the universe is proof of a "designer," then who designed the "designer?" Super-designer...ad infinitum?

This line of thought falls on our limited perspective of what we deem to be "cause and effect."

"That is exactly the point [evolution]. One starts with the philosophical premise that God does not exist and the Bible is a lie. " Jeff Blogworthy

Actiually, Jeff, that is just a bit simplistic.

Darwin began as a believer and signed on to the Beagle in oder to observe world-wide the proof of god's existence. By the time he reached the Galapagos, his observations had solidified the theory of evolution whicht he proposed.

The theory of evolution was born out of observation and not from a starting point of disproving god.

My father is an Engineer, a conservative, and a Catholic. I respect his religion, and have never known it to interfere with him properly executing his duties as a man of science. I don't care if people want to go to church or pray at home. I DO have a problem with people advocating for the teaching of Intelligent Design in the science classroom, as does my father--it has no empirical basis, and seeks to fill an imaginary explanatory gap with the preconceived notion of a Judao-Christian-Islamic deity. Why does the universe have to have a purpose? Why one "God"? Why not a hundred? And why assume He/She/It/They are benevolent, or omnipotent? I'm not as hostile towards religion as Dawkins, but I share his belief that when two theories are in competition, one of which is based largely on empirical evidence (albeit with explanatory gaps) and the other is predicated upon a supernatural phenomenon of which no credible empirical basis can be established with which to assert its existence... well, is there even a choice to be made for people who understand what science is and ought to be?

I don't understand why evolution only being a "theory" means it ought to be relegated to the "maybe" pile with ID. It is very likely true. The difference between a theory and a fact isn't as stark as the difference between fact and opinion, for instance. Our contemporary understanding of electricity is "merely" theoretical, after all, but I bet you're comfortable with the supposition that when you plug an electrical device into an AC outlet, it will be energized.

Kim:

"If a creator did fabricate the world, it certainly would have been by means found in nature; hence, the world is naturally created, by God.

Heh, heh. Dispute that."

Okay. Here's your argument, logically diagrammed:

A ---> B
B
ergo, A

or:

If A occurs, B occurs by necessity
B occurs
ergo, A also occurs

That's an elementary logical fallacy called asserting the consequent. Here's a simpler argument that commits the same fallacy:

"If I watch Hot Fuzz, I will laugh.
I'm laughing.
Therefore, I must have watched Hot Fuzz."

Alright, Wieder, my congratulations; you do metaphysics better than most. What a crazy mix of metaphysics and excrement you are, you poor piece of clay.
================================

No, no, SSN, it's much simpler than that; I'm simply negating the possibility of supernaturality. What ain't nature?

But, I appreciate the attempt at disputation. At heart, it was just a linguistic trick.
==================

You did spot the tautological element, which is the metaphysical metaphor for creation. It is all turtles all the way down, fool.
==============================

SSN, I believe the ID people massively underestimate the effect of time and the evolutionary value of some of the 'irreducible complexities'. There is immense survival value in mobility, which required the development of cilia, and there is untold survival value in the ability to maintain an 'internal milieu' which required a clotting mechanism among other things like membranes. This were so necessary that they were inevitable given the advantages and the time span. The IDers just don't have the right numbers plugged into the equations. They are right, though, that the evolutionists invoke faith to proclaim, nay insist, that the development of these complex systems was by natural means. They cannot prove that, yet.
========================

Why would God, have a creator?

The Universe has a Beginning and an End, God doesn't.

If God has no beginning then there is no need for God to be created?

And you suffer a common misconception, SSN, that ID advocates are all creationists in the biblical sense.

There is no better place than the science classroom for the ideas of the intelligent design advocates and those of the evolutionists to be debated. This is just explication of the theories of knowledge in a situation where most student are aware of the distinction and interested. If we do not bring this issue into the science classroom, we miss an opportunity to develop the philosophical richness of our culture, and we may well retard the elucidation of the actual natural mechanisms of the development of 'irreducible complexities'. I'm sorry you can't see it that way. Present this argument to your father and see what he says.
================================

The story of creation allows no room for "evolution" in Genesis. Each phase is completed with the phrase "and the evening and the morning were...", signifying the course of a day.

That's why Jews and Arabs still count the start of a new day at sundown.

Even on the eigth day and the creation of Adam's woman, where the English translation: bone/rib is used, the Hebrew word means "curve". So a curve is taken from Adam's body. The helix of DNA?
And the word "curve" happens to jibe with the sexes' interlocking parts :o) Cool!

So: dinosaurs(Behemoth) and deep space (Plieides and Orion) (Job), spacecraft (Ezekial), micro-organisms (Revelation), the spherical nature and rotation of Earth (Isaiah), the intended lifespan of man (120 years; Genesis), it's all in there.

Most of the confusion comes in translating the concise Hebrew or Koine Greek into (say) the more fluid English. And because of the political imperatives of royal translators. The most obvious example is substituting "servant" for the original "slave", because being slaves of God will overide being "subjects" to a man, even if the man is a king.

Ah, I took you too literally. Apologies.

The thing about creationists/ID proponents that really bothers me is their dogged insistence that the complexity of c