Thanks. I like that story. I haven't heard it in a long time.
But I feel like I've come full circle. About a year and a half ago when I registered on FR, I kept trying to say that this argument seems to keep cycling because Creationist/ID'ers want to talk about theology, whereas evos want to talk about science, which in my mind is a lower level knowledge.
When evos talk about species they want to talk about what things look like and the current guesses about them. Creationist/ID'ers want to start from a faith-based world view and work back. While science can be informed by faith (many big time scientists were), the knowledge involved still needs to proceed from what can be observed and/or demonstrated.
A perfect example of what goes wrong when science is narrowly based on scripture is the Arab world. While they were able to briefly make use of knowledge absorbed from conquered civilizations, they never really went anywhere with it. They are now almost completely dependent on others for technology.
Given the tendency of religious factions to splinter (250 Christian churches in the US alone), its makes sense to me to allow science to be the low level exercise it is and allow people of faith to participate in it. We are already at a point where embryos can be designed in vitro and implanted into a woman to be grown. Within the next 50 to 100 years, there will be a lot of very strange possibilities for what can be done with people and its imperative that people of faith participate in this process, otherwise anything can happen. Most of it bad.
By opting out of the scientific process, people of faith will be unemployable in many areas of science and be isolated from a decision making role.
Well, there is your problem. You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science. Read Dr. James Shapiro, and/or you might actually read some of the links that Gore3000 has provided. Such as this one
The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling. Equally interesting, however was the discovery that the oldest subfamily of HERV elements is closely related and gave rise to the youngest and most recently active group of these elements. This suggests, the authors say, that "ancient families of HERVs may be capable of retaining the potential for biological activity over long spans of evolutionary time."
Interest in retroelements, which McDonald has been studying for more than a decade, has been growing recently. In a paper published last December in Nature Genetics, two researchers from Tufts University, Jennifer Hughes and John Coffin, identified 23 new members of the HERV-K group — the assemblage thought to contain the most recently active members. They found that at least 16 percent of those elements had undergone rearrangements that resulted in large-scale "deletions, duplications, and chromosome reshuffling during the evolution of the human genome."
The widespread presence of these viral elements led Coffin to tell one science magazine that humans probably have "more viruses in our genes than genes in our genes."
Just how these retroviral elements have moved around in the human genome and possibly changed organisms at the morphological level remains speculative. But there is increasing evidence that they may have been — and may still be — a driving force between evolution at the cellular and organismal levels.
What threads have you been reading? The article above is about scientific facts and the evolutionists only want to talk about religion and bash Christianity. Religious people are trying to meet the evolutionists on their own field and the evolutionists refuse to defend their side and instead attack either their opponents religion or their opponents themselves. If evolution were science, they could easily meet the attack on their theory on scientific grounds. They cannot.
By opting out of the scientific process,
Who is opting out of the scientific process? Are you making the ridiculous and easily refutable claim that all scientists are atheists? Discuss the scientific questions presented against evolution instead of bashing your opponents. Again if evolution is science - defend the science of evolution.
What is wrong with this statement?