Actually, being a scientific theory, Darwin's theory never said anything one way or another about God. God is outside the realm of science. It is fundamentalist religious people and atheists who interpret evolution as being inconsistent with God. Atheists already do not believe in God, so evolution really hasn't done anything but confirm that belief. I fail to see why fundamentalists are so threatened by a theory which makes no mention of God. If you built a robot which was designed to build a machine that produced an inovative new product, did you not invent something? Who deserves the patent? The robot? The machine? I don't think you could argue anything other than that you invented the new product. Similarly, if God created the universe using the big bang as a tool and then allowed it to proceed according to the laws of nature He established, then who created the universe? The big bang? No, God did. Similarly, if the universe proceeded in such a way as to make inevitable the development of life and then life evolved according to the theory of evolution, who created humans? Evolution? No, again God is the creator. It is even possible to reconcile the six day timeline in Genesis with the big bang theory and evolution given a proper understanding of the nature of time. Time is a relative quantity. The duration measured by an observer depends on the reference frame of that observer. It is entirely possible that a duration of six 24-hour days measured from the reference frame of the universe immediately after the big bang is equivalent to a duration of tens of billions of years as measured from our current reference frame. So which is the correct time? Both! That's what relatvity tells us. The first thing God created in the Genesis account is light. The only thing present in the milliseconds after the big bang was light. There are other parallels, but I am not enough of an expert on the science or the Scripture to fully deal with them. The point is that there is no threat to a belief in God coming from science.
The "organized tends toward disorganization" seems to
suggest the myriad possible changes of natural selection.
Also, species boundaries are changed through evolution.
Reproduction outside of a species doesn't occur because
the species is redefined by the successful changes it
adapts and absorbs.
This may be a fair point to ponder. A threat from science, no. From people, yes. I have always been more concerned about those who have made "science" their God than science or the scientific process (thanks PH).
It seems many of them are determined to prostheletize(sp?) "science" and force our future fry-scoopers to question their parents' intelligence, or integrity.
Therein lies the rub. If it's only science, then testing or challenging it should not be a problem.
Science is not a problem. People are.
"Similarly, if God created the universe using the big bang as a tool and then allowed it to proceed according to the laws of nature He established, then who created the universe?
I don't have a problem with calling God's action the "Big Bang."
"The "organized tends toward disorganization" seems to
suggest the myriad possible changes of natural selection."
Natural selection only suggests survival of the fittest, not species jumping as one of the "myriad possible change."
"Also, species boundaries are changed through evolution.
Reproduction outside of a species doesn't occur because
the species is redefined by the successful changes it
adapts and absorbs."
Seems like a catch-22, is there a species boundary window that opens and closes?