[NicknamedBob]

ECO said, "Indeed. Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (1998)..."

"Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

And thank goodness for that! You see, it's all part of God's plan.

Whatever you may think of Darwin, whether as a judas goat, or a Judas, or as simply a dedicated researcher, he has executed God's Will by providing an alternative explanation for the existence of things that does not require an unmistakable evidence of God's hand in it.

God wants us to have faith, and free choice. Without a possible material explanation for how species evolve, and come into existence, it would seem irrefutable that "Goddidit".

With Darwin's explanation, we can examine evidence dispassionately, (we don't, but we could!), and apply the materialistic viewpoint to our own challenges here on Earth; producing better-yielding crops and stronger beasts of burden, and we can still pause at the end of day to wonder and be appreciative for what we were "given".

[CottShop]

[[Whatever you may think of Darwin, whether as a judas goat, or a Judas, or as simply a dedicated researcher, he has executed God’s Will by providing an alternative explanation for the existence of things that does not require an unmistakable evidence of God’s hand in it.]]

Ys- God allowed Darwin to advance earlier discoveries (By Religious folks) of Microevolutionary adaption- Yes God is allowing the fight between ID and Macroevolution- I have no problem with hte fight- when kept strictly objective- however it’s when certain folk start interjecting false accusaitons and false claims, and claiming they are evidnece, and belittling and demeaning those who present coutner evidnece showing why the evidnece present4d By macroevolutionsits isn’t true, that is where hte problems arise.

[[God wants us to have faith, and free choice. Without a possible material explanation for how species evolve, and come into existence, it would seem irrefutable that “Goddidit”.]]

Yes, God does want us to have faith- in certain things- however He never demanded we simply shut down our brains and reasonings, and just accept what Macroevolution tells us- He EXPECTS us to examine the supposed evidneces for macroevolution carefully and honestly, and to expose the problems, and He also expects us to discover and present what scientific evidence htere is for Intelligent Design- if hte evidnce is out htere- it behooves us to find it, and not just ignore it and just claim Goddidit-

God gives us certain degress of wisdom and knowledge, and He expects us to use it as best we can to discover the depths of whatever evidence is available and understandable, and so far, it is quite understandable that ID & IC exist, and the deeper we look, the more we discover just how integral IC and ID really is to hte survival and flourishement of species

[[With Darwin’s explanation, we can examine evidence dispassionately, (we don’t, but we could!), and apply the materialistic viewpoint to our own challenges here on Earth; producing better-yielding crops and stronger beasts of burden, and we can still pause at the end of day to wonder and be appreciative for what we were “given”.]]

Yes, we can and have discovered Microevolution, and have explored how microevolution can be utilized and manipulated to better suit our needs- it’s just that when Macroevolution is htrown on hte table that we MUST be as dispassionate and objective as possible in order to discover the TRUTH, and the most plausible scenarios- Which we are doing, and it is turning out that Macroevolution has nothign to stand on scientifically, except for assumptions, and that ID and IC are apparent all throughout the species, and the more plausible and realistic scenario is ID

[BroJoeK]

I usually manage to read a book or two a month, selections often influenced by the debates on FreeRepublic. Last week I picked up this book:

Scott, Evolution Vs. Creationism

Among other points of interest, you might note that she corrected what I learned in high school science class (many years ago) about the nature of science.

The way I learned it, back then:

Scientists begin with data.
From which they form hypotheses to explain the data
A tested and confirmed hypothesis then becomes a theory.
A theory tested and confirmed many times may become a "scientific law." And there are relatively few "laws of science."

Well turns out, that's not right, because it misses the main point.

The actual sequence is as follows:

Science begins with facts, which are confirmed observations. Example: "living things are composed of cells."

From the facts, scientists form testable hypotheses to explain the facts. Example: "If brightly colored male guppies are more likely to attract predators, then in environments with high predation, guppies will be less brightly colored."

Sometimes a confirmed hypothesis can be reduced to a scientific law, which is usually a mathematical statement of what will happen under certain circumstances. The scientific law says WHAT will happen, but it does not explain WHY.

To explain WHY requires a THEORY. A scientific theory is a confirmed hypothesis explaining why facts and laws work the way they do. No theory is "proved," but theories are confirmed, or might be disproved.

Point is: a theory is not "less than a law," but rather uses facts and laws to form higher explanations of what is going on in the natural world.

In short: a theory is still a theory, no matter how many times it's confirmed.