I am conservative, do not believe in Creationism but find intelligent design to be the most promising scientific approach to origins of life questions. Evolution provides a fine mechanism for shaping an organism to its environment but provides little to explain life's diversity and almost nothing towards the questions of origin.

It seems to me the Left tries to paint anyone who questions the omnipotence of evolution as slack jawed "Creationists" in order to marginalize us all. Your casual linkage of "creationism" and "intelligent design" seems to further their purpose and undermine the point of this post.

Do you see it differently?

99% of my fellow Christian creationists have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when they spout off about "microevolution is true, macroevolution is false." They are equally uninformed about what constitutes a "species."

Assuming perfect genes at Creation, inbreeding would not be a problem; heck, Eve was Adam's XX clone! No problem finding Cain a wife; she was probably his sister or niece.

But once the Flood hit, the gene pools would shrink dramatically, due to being reduced to two breeding pairs for unclean and seven for clean animals. The recorded drop in the patriarchs' ages following the flood would reflect that, from over 900 to around 120. The sudden increase in microbes from the carcasses would also account for part of that drop in lifespan.

I personally have no problem with divergent evolution on a genus level post-Flood or a family level pre-Flood. However, I want to see a "tree of life" based on DNA, not traditional morphological taxonomy, before I go any further.

JLS:

Evolution provides a fine mechanism for shaping an organism to its environment but provides little to explain life's diversity and almost nothing towards the questions of origin.

Can you list a single book you have read on the origin of life -- that is, the development of life from non-life -- from a scientific perspective that you have read?

How about a book on evolution written from a scientific perspective by an author who supports evolutionary biology?

Dafydd

It's difficult to give credence to anyone who believes in a literal global flood. How did snails reach Hawaii, penguins Antarctica, or kangaroos Australia? Terrestrial snails can't swim the oceans, and they're notoriously slow. You might claim that birds carried them part way, but for birds to pick up only the right species, and leave none behind, would take a miracle, as would getting most other species to the right place.

Any explanation that requires unlimited miracles to make it work is not a good explanation.

JLS, one big argument in taxonomy circles at the moment is between DNA based and anatomy based family trees, and the DNA people are winning. Genetic trees exist for all the major groups of species, and for how they all fit together.

Mostly though, DNA and anatomy confirm each other, not something a designer would do. Convergent evolution produces animals that look similar, but with differing genes. A designer would reuse the genes, unless they were deliberately trying to imitate evolution.

Note too, in some of the cases where DNA-trees have produced unexpected results, subsequent fossils have confirmed them.

Evolution is the great counterexample cited to prove that the Right is no more rational than the Left.

The Abrahamic Religions have been a pain since Judaism first started forming as a religion – around 538 BC when Cyrus released the Jews. Another 100 years went by before the Torah started gaining "recognition as Scripture". Judaism was still – basically – being formed when Christianity shows up, and then some 600 years later Islam arrives. The Top 3 Abrahamic Religions have been fighting over the ownership of God ever since - as if God could be owned!?!

If the Abrahamic Religions took the time to study Ptah/Enki (Ptah-Egypt and Enki-Sumer) they would discover that their god/s had evolved from Ptah/Enki, i.e. Evolution. In fact, there is no non-biblical evidence of a Hebrew/Israelite race until around 1000 BC, and that is sketchy.

Now we’re stuck with communists running America … Thanks Christians!

Dafydd:

Can you list a single book you have read on the origin of life -- that is, the development of life from non-life -- from a scientific perspective that you have read?

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.... Michael Behe. Doesn't go directly to your question of "life from non-life" but approaches the question from the other end and seeks the explanatory limits of evolution.

Totally scientific, brilliantly reasoned. No connection to creationism as far as I can see. Why blur the distinction?

I read The Language of God a while back. I'm curious what you thought of it, Dafyyd.

I'm largely agnostic when it comes to evolution. I don't know nearly enough about it (and it's a topic that crosses so many different fields that I'm not sure any one man can truly be an expert) to have a firm opinion.

All I know is that too many of my fellow Christians purposely ignore vast amounts of scientific data because a long time ago some atheists attached the non sequitur conclusion to the data that science precludes God.

jls:

I am conservative, do not believe in Creationism but find intelligent design to be the most promising scientific approach to origins of life questions. Evolution provides a fine mechanism for shaping an organism to its environment but provides little to explain life's diversity and almost nothing towards the questions of origin.

Firstly, in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, "Intelligent Design" was held to be creationism with the serial numbers filed off. If you look at the history of the movement, you find that ID is the result of camouflaging creationism in order to sneak religion into science classrooms.

Secondly, so far as ID can be pinned down to any position, it seems to make the claim that the known, or at least knowable, laws of nature are insufficient to explain the origin and diversity of life.

So I put the question to you:
Do you believe natural law is sufficient to explain the origin and diversity of life, or do you invoke extra-natural events (miracles)?

Your answer should not require more than one word.

Dafydd has a good point in his question to jls, and jls's answer is insufficient. If all you read is a book by Behe, you don't really have a handle on the issue. You have to read one of the rebuttals as well. How do you know it was "brilliantly reasoned"? You mean, it sounded pretty good. Too much of religious discussion on this topic takes place within an echo chamber.

Only thing is, I can't criticize jls: Most of us live our lives this way. How many who believe in evolution read Behe's book? Or did they just read a few rebuttals? How many of us are really competent to understand either side of the Global Warming issue? We read the one we agree with, we conclude that it's "brilliantly reasoned", and now we know The Right Answer.
I'm not sure how to fix this, either; not too many of us have the know-how to really research these subjects down to the nitty-gritty.

It's not so easy for me to agree with Dafydd and Hal (and Dr. Collins) that there is no reason for religious people to oppose belief in evolution. The Argument from Design has always been one of the most important classical proofs of God's existence, and I don't see how it will be easily abandoned.

Karmi, I don't find it helpful that whenever these kinds of questions come up, people show up and start sneering at religion. Some of us disagree with you, and what's it got to do with anything here? Are you an expert on the subject? You might be, of course, but you didn't need to be to write what you wrote, you just needed to Google some website that agrees with your views.

MikeR,

I sneer at the Abrahamic Religions after having one of them crammed down my throat during youth. Now I have another group - communists - trying to cram their agenda down my throat. Sorry if my original reply in this thread offended you.

Anyway, my point was that Evolution exists in more than just biology, i.e. it also exists in religions, e.g. the Abrahamic Religions evolved from the religions of ancient Sumer and Egypt.

Karmi, I deny being offended. I just don't think this stuff is helpful. I'm sorry someone taught you wrong as a child. But, you know, there are plenty of secular people cramming things down people's throats today just the same. If you don't like religious people, you're going to have a hard time fighting the (other?) crazies in this country. As I once heard Dennis Prager point out to Christopher Hitchens, he may disapprove of religion and religious people, but Americans opposing evil in the world largely consist of religious people - and Christopher Hitchens.

The problem starts with semantics. I don't know a single person that does not believe in:

any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

or

a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

or

unfolding, change, progression, metamorphosis.

You get the idea.

But what some people mean by evolution is Natural Selection and/or Common Ancestry.

The problem that Conservatives have in this area is that we allow the media to control the narrative. Obviously the religious tend to be more conservative and Republican than your general media, who do not tend to be Republican or religious. Therefore, they ask questions at debates like, "Yes or no, do you believe in evolution?"

If Conservatives want to appeal to common sense they should stand up for semantics and say, "As a non-scientist being told that I share a common ancestry with apes? Where's the evidence? Show me the evidence and i'll believe it."

Because the truth is, the evidence doesn't exist.

And most people have enough common sense to see that a disagreement with common ancestry is reasonable.

Natural Selection is a little more complex than that and can't be easily dealt with. While most people understand, "You share common ancestry with apes" they don't really grasp the nebulous concept of natural selection.

But i'm sure people smarter than I could find just as reasonable ways to show doubt in that area as in common ancestry.

But we're made to look dumb not because of the position we take but instead because of the inability of our talking heads to be clear on what they believe where evolution is involved.

Yes, things evolve. No, we don't share common ancestry and things do not evolve by the process of natural selection.

In this I find i'm in good company with Ben Stein and Michael Medved.

JLS:

Can you list a single book you have read on the origin of life -- that is, the development of life from non-life -- from a scientific perspective that you have read?

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.... Michael Behe.

That's why I specified "from a scientific perspective," JLS. Michael Behe is not a scientist; perhaps he was at one time, back in the 70s and 80s. But like Richard Dawkins, he ceased doing any scientific work when he stumbled into his monomania of "intelligent design" (ID). At this time, the only journals he appears in are published by the ID-propagandist Discovery Institute (where he is on the BoD) or other avowedly creationist/IDist political pressure groups.

Reductio ad irreductium

His thesis of "irreducible complexity" is a joke, not science. He has repeatedly identified structures that are supposedly too "complex" and "interconnected" to be broken down into small, microevolutionary steps -- the human eye, the bacterial flagella, and so forth.

But when those very structures are broken down (by actual scientists) and a series of sub-steps are shown, each with a clear survival advantage, that lead to that structure -- thus completely debunking his example -- then Behe just drops it and moves to some new structure!

He never even admits that he was wrong... he just stops talking about that example in scientific debates (though he continues to flog the long dead horse in his books for the gullible public).

God in the gaps

This is a well-known fallacy called the "God in the gaps" argument. Science doesn't claim perfection, naturally; by its very nature, it's ongoing. And "ongoing" in this case means there are always aspects that are not explained. Even when scientists finally get a good model of those aspects, there are smaller, more detailed parts that are not fully explained (and other aspects in other areas).

All of which is to say that at any one time, there are always "gaps," both large and small, in grand evolutionary theory... aspects not yet understood or modeled. (If that were not so, then science would attain perfection and cease. But since humans are not infinite, we can never know "everything.")

The "God in the gaps" fallacy has two parts. First the ID proponent asserts that every unexplained gap in the theory is therefore inexplicable; that because nobody has explained X yet, that means X will never, ever be explained.

Next, the IDer asserts that every "inexplicable" gap in evolutionary theory can only be filled by the invisible finger of God -- the "intelligent designer" -- who simply wills it so. Can't figure out yet how this one particular allele appeared? Aha, it must have been the Designer! Not sure of every miniscule step in the evolution of the blood-clotting cascade? Bang, the supernatural Designer strikes again!

Of course, as science progresses, those "gaps" get smaller and smaller... which means that God gets squozed into a tinier and tinier deity-space, until He disappears entirely. At one time, evo-bios didn't know any of the steps in the evolution of the bacterial flagella... the little, hair-like fibers that allow it to propel itself around and through cell walls (this was one of Behe's crowning examples).

But then they began to discover other, less complex systems that evolved earlier and were subsequently combined into a new structure, the flagellum. One by one, the "gaps" in the evolutionary model of flagella were filled; the remaining gaps -- the little holes in which the supernatural Designer might still lurk -- shrank away to next to nothing.

Thus, it's not evolutionary biologists but "God in the gaps" master debaters like Behe who are killing belief in God.

Behe is to evolutionary studies as Wilhelm Reich was to psychology and biology: a nutbag who uses his own weakness as a weapon, constantly claiming that the "scientific establishment" is conspiring against him and suppressing his work; he plays upon the sympathy and lack of scientific knowledge of his readers to persuade them that he is right and every scientist is wrong (without having to go to all the bother of making a scientific argument).

Evolutionary elucidations

There are numerous books written for lay people that specifically discuss origins of life -- which is an entire field of research right now, and has been for several decades. I recently read one that was recommended to me by several graduate students in various aspects of the biological sciences: Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins, by Robert Hazen (George Mason University, Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Earth Sciences).

If you want to educate yourself on current evolutionary theory -- not "Darwinism," which is a nonexistent religion of Darwin worship invented by creationists as a straw man to knock down -- I recommend Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer; Zimmer is a science writer, not a scientist; but this is basic enough stuff that you don't need decades of research to understand it.

Also, you might try The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, by Sean Carroll -- which I bought but have not read yet; it was recommended by the same gradual students and post-docs who recommended Hazen and Zimmer. Carroll is a Professor of Molecular Biology, Genetics, and Medical Genetics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, specializing in evolutionary developmental biology (a.k.a., "evo-devo") -- which studies how different organisms develop in the womb in order to determine their ancestral relationship.

In particular, Carroll has published in the area of how ancient DNA strands persist in contemporary organisms -- and how they often are drafted into controlling completely different functions than they used to do a billion or two years ago.

Last thoughts

I think that if you read these three books, JLS, you will be shocked and nonplussed... both at the depth of the field of evolutionary biology (and the related field of origins of life), and at the shallowness and adolescent "teen logic" of the critique of it by people like Behe, and by creationist clubs like the Discovery Institute.

Dafydd

OK, let’s drive a stake through the notion that creationism and intelligent design are nothing but religious concepts.

Is anyone reading this an atheist who believes in creationism or intelligent design? Does anyone reading this know of anyone who meets these criteria? (Someone specific -- preferably well known or published.)

Maybe that’s not fair. How about this: Does anyone know an atheist who doesn’t believe in evolution? If so, what is their alternative theory? (And does their theory bear any resemblance whatsoever to either creationism or intelligent design?)

[Note to the literal minded: No, the notion that few (if any) atheists reject evolution doesn’t prove anything. It’s just food for thought.]

With all due respect, this is a strawman created by the left to tar conservatives and Republicans.

The evolution / creation argument is all on the extremes -

* There are evolutionists who affirmatively reject any possibility of a Creator;

* There are evolutionists who look at evolution as an explanation of the mechanics of creation - they don't see evolution and a Creator as mutually exclusive;

* There are creationists who purport to know the exact means and methods the Creator used in forming His creation (and say it wasn't evolution);

* And there are people who believe there was a Creator and He used evolutionary processes in forming His creation.

You're only tagged with the 'worst' of the 'Creationists' if you accept the premise of your political opponents.

I wonder - if you reversed the premise, would they accept it? I doubt it.

Admit what you don't know:

You don't know if there is a Creator or not - that's a matter of faith.

By definition, matters of faith cannot be proved - regardless of your opinion about a Creator, have the humility to acknowledge YOU DON'T "KNOW".

If you believe there is a Creator, you don't know what methods He used to create His creation.

Finally - if you don't know, then you're a damned fool if you act like you do.

The answer to the argument from design is two-fold. Much anatomy is badly designed, and natural selection can produce decent designs.

In the human eye,the retina is effectively plugged in backwards. The nerves run across the front of the retina, then are funnelled through the blind spot. The human throat allows us to choke on our food, the only mammal that can. The human back is prone to all kind of ailments, being ill-suited for a biped. Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.

On the other hand, the logic of natural selection is sound, and has passed numerous experimental tests.

On the broader point, the consequences of believing something is true are irrelevant to its truth. Even if believing in evolution led inevitably to atheism, or left wing philosophies, that be be no argument against its truth - the truth is not obliged to have only consequences e find acceptable.

Here's how a Darwinist wins an argument...

http://www.insightcruises.com/top_d/sa03_top.html

As Darwin did before him, Coyne noted that the development of new breeds through artificial selection is a good model for the evolution of new species by natural selection. He then offered a comment about dog breeds, also found in his book [Why Evolution Is True]: “If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, paleontologists would consider them not one species but many—certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today.”

And the punchline...

Let’s simply say that dog breeds are different species. Take two that Coyne highlights for their differences—the 180-pound English Mastiff and the two-pound Chihuahua. They’re both considered members of Canis lupus familiaris, and in principle artificial insemination could produce some sort of mix or possibly an exploding Chihuahua. But face it, the only shot a male Chihuahua has with a female Mastiff involves rock climbing or spelunking equipment.

Biologists clearly continue to include the two types of dogs within the same species out of modesty. But with creationists fighting evolution education throughout the country, the time calls for bold action. Let’s reassign the trembling, bug-eyed Chihuahua to its own species. Voilà, humans have observed speciation.

I hope he was just joking.

But face it, the only shot a male Chihuahua has with a female Mastiff involves rock climbing or spelunking equipment.

Not necessarily. That Chihuahua could go out and make outrageous amounts of money. Works for humans!

On a more serious note, I've always felt that the ID/Creationist group has two major problems. One, is the inability to grasp the time spans involved, The human mind simply has a problem grasping time enough for a mountain range as great as the Himalayas to be worn flat a grain at a time, or continents to move from one side of the planet to the other. The second is hubris. If you believe in the Almighty, why the assumption that an immortal, omnipotent, omniscience being works on our clock? His/Her/Its "day" may be the hundreds of millions of years it took to go from single cell to us. And His/Her/Its method might be the evolution being railed against. After all, if you have to take care of falling sparrows on the other side of the universe, evolution is an excellent method to put things on "auto" until "you" can get back to it. And being made in His/Her/Its image, means what exactly?

Comprehension of time and not making man the measure of God, makes the opposition to evolution asinine. IMHO, of course.

Robert, I wasn't presenting the Argument from Design for discussion, though that might be interesting a different time. My point was very specific: This argument is important to religious belief, and has been for thousands of years. The theory of evolution is seen as a threat to it, and therefore is seen as a threat to people's religions.

But my main point stands; I don't see that anyone has commented on it. Dafydd, I'm sorry that religious people have an important area of profound ignorance. But most everyone else has lots of them too. It all depends on what the echo chamber around you is saying.

Worse, they even damage my credibility, due to guilt by association; and I'm bloody sick of it. Every time I argue science with a liberal, I must spend the first 500 words defending myself from the false charge of rejecting evolution -- and the next 2,000 words mitigating the damage from the same charge -- but more true this time -- leveled against the Right in general.

This is only a problem because "liberals" are so bound up in bigotry and prejudice that it consumes the whole of their mind and blinds them from seeing who you are. That is their malfunction, not the creationists.

Don't take it out on the creationists. There's no need to throw them under the bus, either (do it to Julia).

Call the "liberals" on it.

Unless you like that kind of abuse.

If god designed or created any species, why the heck did he do such a crappy job of it? How do you explain vestigial organs not just in man, but numerous other species as well? What about the junk DNA - DNA that seems to serve no purpose whatsoever? Why recycle so much of the DNA code in similar animals? Why organize animals into recognizable phylums? Why make any animal remotely related to any other?

Evolution perfectly answers each and every one of these questions. Really, to believe in intelligent design is an insult to whatever deity you believe in, because the world isn't all that intelligent. The ecosystem on the Earth is messy, illogical, unfair, and remarkably similar to the kind of results you'd expect if stuff just happened in an uncontrolled, unplanned, and chaotic way over a long period of time.

I suppose you could take refuge in God "starting" evolution. In essence this saying the God set Plank's constant, g, the speed of light, etc. Possible. But if true, then there is absolutely no point in studying intelligent design. Why? Because such a study would involve a recitation of physical constants that we otherwise can't explain.

Which brings me to this: the involvement of god or supernatural forces, in any way shape or form, automatically negates your argument as science. Science involves observations of the physical world, creation of a theory to explain those observations, testing of the theory by new observations and experiments, and refinement of the theory.

Intelligent design involves the following: Observation of the physical world, "gee God must have designed things this way." Why? Who knows?
Further refinement of the theory, further observations, are unnecessary and pointless. Predictions? I dunno. What testable predictions could you make?

Creationists have set themselves up as refs, not players on the field of science, and spend all their time calling fouls and moving goal posts.
I think we need to turn the tables on creationists. Instead of making evolutionists explain everything to their satisfaction, make creationists do actual science (observe, theory, prediction, observe). Have them make one, single testable prediction regarding intelligent design.

Internally I personally resolve the question of God thus: It is not that God makes the world the way it is, rather God let's the world be what it is.

It is not that God makes the world the way it is, rather God lets the world be what it is.

Forgive me, I don't see the distinction - "permitting" the world to be what it is implies God has the ability to withhold His permission ... is it such a leap from a God who could destroy creation by withdrawing His permission to a God who creates in the first place?

Be that as it may ....

I have a hard time understanding the vitriol toward intelligent design. If, as so many say, it is entirely flawed, then it will eventually fade away as those flaws become known.

I guess it bothers me to see so many conservative intelligent design critics adopting the same tenor & tone of Algore, et al. on AGW - - there's a "how dare you dispute my beliefs on this subject" quality to it all.

To the main point -

Dafydd, why do you accept the premise? Do you insist these yahoos are obliged to defend every word spoken by Jeremiah Wright? If they aren't, why are you obliged to defend every jot & tittle from anyone who agrees with you on anything?

Dafydd:

Thanks for the mini essay and the recommended reading list. I have ordered the three books you suggest and look forward to the reading.

BTW I agree with the thrust of your post:

Second, each is fundamentally a scientific question, from climate science, to nuclear physics, to aeronautics and cybernetics, to the optimal pursuit of medical research, to economic science, to the biological sciences.

Great insight and it follows that "scientific credibility" is crucial to winning the debate.

My question from the beginning was "Why blur the distinction?" between creationism and ID. They are clearly two different sets of ideas and combining them would only seem to make the "wart" appear larger.

Some seem to think that ID is a disguised form of creationism and it is important to unmask the Trojan horse. You seem to believe that they are both non scientific and therefore need to be held at a distance. Suggesting one equals the other is a quick way to dismiss.

I humbly suggest that you give "The Edge of Evolution" a try. Darwins Black Box asks some novel questions and offers some preliminary thoughts but the Edge is much better devleoped.

Worse, they even damage my credibility, due to guilt by association; and I'm bloody sick of it. Every time I argue science with a liberal, I must spend the first 500 words defending myself from the false charge of rejecting evolution -- and the next 2,000 words mitigating the damage from the same charge -- but more true this time -- leveled against the Right in general

Because you allow them to side track you, Just smirk and respond I believe in Science and Data, not Blind Faith like they and YOU do.

Then let THEM respond to the charge.

I can't believe I registered for this site, since I hardly ever do that, but the comments against Dafydd are just not very bright.

He's absolutely right about this, and the best any of you ID/Creationist types can say is that it's the leftists and atheists who are bigoted, and we can safely ignore them.

WRONG!!!

A landslide majority of people in the USA basically accept evolution as science, including a large majority of Christians. Period. Conservatives will never win another important election if they are confused with ID/Creationist/anti-evolutionists.

Period. Full stop. It matters not what you may believe. I assure you that the left is in love with you folks for delivering the majority to them, perhaps forever.

And, btw, thanks for making it necessary to defend conservatives as logical, intelligent, as described in the piece. /sarc

If you have an emotional problem with either being "descended from apes" or with evolution being "against the Bible", your problems are only beginning:

1) Linguistics has disproved the Tower of Babel story. The languages that currently exist in the world evolved over time, and were not created "poof" like in the Biblical story. Sorry.

2) Geology demonstrates the time frame of "Creation" and it's a lot longer than 6000 years. That's where the phrase "geological time" meaning millions or even billions of years comes from. Modern geology dates from even before modern biology (Darwin) and religious people in the early part of the 19th century realized that geology was causing enormous problems with traditional Biblical "learning".

There are lots more examples from the history of science, but those two are good enough to wreck any serious attempt to prove that we should rely on the Bible for this kind of knowledge.

This didn't bother Christians in the 19th century, by the way - check out Louis Agassiz, the great biologist, who was one of the first Christian evolutionists.

The Book of Genesis is beautiful poetry, but not really scientific at all. The moon isn't a star, and btw how were there days before the sun was created? It doesn't matter! And man doesn't have one less rib than woman, as learned people thought before it was legal to autopsy a human body (that one goes back 500 years).

Everybody here who's a Christian probably celebrates Western culture, but the very heart of Western culture is our history of inquiring into the nature of things. These inquiries do indeed give the Bible a hard time as science, even if it was accepted as scientific until people learned better.

But consider the Muslim god by comparison. Allah can do anything, including changing the rules and contradicting himself, if that pleases him. The Muslims attack the Jews for having a consistent God, who is obviously weaker than Allah because He has to obey His own laws.

But think about it - without that restriction, that God not contradict the laws of science which He Himself has established, we have no Western culture. We have no science. We would be as backward as so many other cultures whose people may be lovely but which are forever condemned by their lack of logical consistency - they can't be sure that the rules today, even in science, will be the same as they were yesterday.

This is why, in a very deep way, all scientists believe in the Jewish/Christian God, since they count on Nature, or Creation, or whatever you want to call it, to be consistent. It's a big deal.

When you ID/Creationist/anti-evolution guys get into politics, you absolutely turn the world over to people who don't think consistently, who only want the power to rule over your lives according to their own inconsistent politics.

A Pox on You!!

While I agree that acceptance of evolutionary biology does not preclude a belief in God, there is a very good reason why religious people would oppose belief in evolution: It makes the Christian God story "product" much harder to sell to a wide audience, especially so if you are using the Bible as persuasive evidence.

It's a natural and common sense question, if God is responsible for the origin and diversity of life, would evolution over millions of years really be the way He would do it.

Further if the Bible has got that fact set wrong, it calls into serious question all Biblical authority. People will accept that the old and new testament cultural practices are of an earlier time, (i.e no we don't stone adulterers now ha ha and women are allowed to speak in church without headcovering) but not on the biggest of all questions we are born wanting an answer to - origin of man.

This is a big problem if you are trying to maintain belief and attract new believers (often for purposes noble, and sometimes ignoble!) Some like Francis Collins may be willing to accept the Bible as allegory, but most people simply won't, and this is why the religious and especially religious leaders resist accepting the science, and it's not a foolish reason at all.

Kevin:

You're assuming God is bound by linear time - He isn't.

You're also assuming God's ways and methods can be understood by man - and the Bible says the wisdom of man is foolishness to God.

Think a bit about the notion of man telling God the methods he used to form his creation don't make sense ..... at some point, it gets pretty silly.

That fallible human beings come up with 'hair-brained' interpretations of God's Word isn't evidence that God doesn't exist ... it only 'proves' we're fallible.

The "religious & religious leaders" brush is too broad.

BD,

It is not vitriol, it is hopeless frustration.

"You're assuming God is bound by linear time - he isn't"

Classic nonsense. Is God bound by linear time or isn't he? You don't really know, do you? Guess what? Neither do I. How do we prove it either way? I have not the slightest idea.

Look, seriously, you, me, the Pope, and just about everyone else - what do we really know about God? I mean, really, truly KNOW? What does he look like? Where does he live? How old is he? What are the extent of his powers? Can he unmake himself? Actual observable facts, not stories, not sayings, not feelings, not philosophical arguments, but provable and testable facts?

sound of crickets chirping...

That is the essence of the problem. If we know absolutely nothing factually about the supposed prime motivator of all things, after literally thousands of years of thought and effort, I'd say give up and move on.

I'll go even one step further - God hides himself pretty well. I humbly suggest that God wants to be hidden. Why else would God leave so few clues for us to follow? The logical answer is that God doesn't want us to prove he exists through science. He wants us to have faith. To have belief. Obvious evidence of God's existence would negate that.

So, from a scientific perspective I find intelligent design offensive because it is not scientific. But from a religious and moral perspective I find it equally offensive because it attempts to prove what God obviously does not wish to be proved.

Believe, don't believe. It is an individual choice. But to gin up some cockamamie version of science to protect your religious beliefs? Can you see how that might be very offensive to some people?

Intelligent design will not fade away, but with any luck it will have the same relation to evolution that astrology has to astronomy.

Geoman:

As I understand it, the general proposition of ID proponents is not "the God of the Bible is real," it is "creation did not 'just happen'." There may be some who claim otherwise, but I've read others who simply say "there was a creator - I'm not saying who he is, just that he is."

If evolution is truth, then the challenge will spark further understanding of the complexities of that truth. If it isn't, then its shortcomings will be exposed.

Either way, we win.

I have no patience for so-called scientists who seek to shut down rather than answer their critics. IMO, true science requires willingness to question any assumption and to follow the evidence wherever it goes.

We've seen science perverted in the whole AGW debate. It ought not be acceptable anywhere.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)