Replies

Being a Geologist myself, I'd love to hear about "the Geologic Column". Just that phrase alone is vague at best. One would not use that if they new what they were talking about.

Having faith and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive. God has used physical science (as we refer to it) for a long time now, why not evolution. One can publish data in support or opposition to evolution anytime, even though the overwhelming evidence points to evolution model.

But, but, but, don't you know that there is a vast evolutionist conspiracy to keep ID from becoming a scientific theory?

It would disprove evolution and upset all those evolutionist apple carts.

Didn't you know that?

Sorry, just have to see that sometimes, I wonder if it looks as silly to IDr's as it does to me?

Having faith and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

IMHO the real issue is not the usual formula of "religion vs. science."

The creationist side of the argument recognizes that there are those who use evolution as an argument against the existence of God. And so, without much thought, they attack the theory of evolution with the intent of "protecting God."

This provokes serious scientists, who naturally want to "defend science."

The waters are muddied here, in that many scientific defenders of evolution (e.g., Dawkins) are also loudly atheist in their views.

At any rate, the sound and fury of this argument abated for me once I realized what was really at issue in this debate. It is only tangentially a "science vs. religion" issue. The real battle is over "God vs. Atheism."

"Having faith and believing in evolution are not mutually exclusive."

I have long maintained this, but I also maintain that mixing the two, or using the one to prove(or disprove) the other, is the height of folly.

Simply put, the standards of proof for each are at polar opposites. That's why it is called "faith".

Whilst no P.H.D-wielding scientist, I do utilize scientific principles (Sound physics, ocean topography/geology, radio theory, Doppler theory, etc...) on a daily basis, and they ALL can be seen to work, every time, without fail. Thus, I can conclude that these principles are factual. I need not make "a leap of faith" to believe that the Doppler effect exists!

I would have to do just that to believe in Creationism. Creationism is a theory which sprang up wholly developed, and now is ever seeking proof of itself. Evolution, however, developed over time with some parts being tested and rejected, and others being proven and kept. Rather than needing the science tailored to fit it, it fits the available science.

I must be an innocent...I cannot understand why the Creationists feel so strongly that, to be good Christians (and the greater bulk of them are), they must disprove a proven theory. Is their own faith so very fragile? Religions of the world have, after all, adapted to scientific discoveries which contradicted their dogma without shattering themselves.

I personally believe that the universe was created by God, but that evolution is simply part of the creation process. The creation story was written in a simplified form for people who didn't have an advanced understanding of chemistry, biology etc. Billions of years of evolution might seem like a long time to us, but it's a heartbeat to God.