[bondserv]

This thread looks like a good one to pull this diddy out for.

The theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote.

Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.

One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else."

The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone."

Rom 1:19-25
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[Aquinasfan]

Even in these cases, Prof. Behe argues, they have not explained, step by step, how simple systems could evolve into complex ones.

And that's the argument, isn't it? How could 3/4 of a flagellum be of benefit to the organism?

[R. Scott]

Invoking God to explain what we can't otherwise account for, he says, is "a kind of idolatry," because true faith should come from within and not because we can't fully explain the natural world.
This needed repeating.

[tang-soo]

... For example, Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form a DNA molecule. He arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion.

That's not one in 100 Billion, but one in 10 raised to 100 billion power i.e. 1 followed by 100 billion zeros.

[Stultis]

Invoking God to explain what we can't otherwise account for, he says, is "a kind of idolatry," because true faith should come from within and not because we can't fully explain the natural world.

It's long been my view, that beyond this, many versions of creationism -- including both classic "creation science" and "intelligent design" -- are deistic rather than theistic. They focus repeatedly on arguing that God (or "intelligence") must be invoked here or there, to account for some occurrence or phenomena. But the corollary to a God who is occasionally present is a God who is occasionally absent.

I prefer what might be referred to as a doctrine of "continuous creation". The creation isn't just an event that occurred back then, "in the beginning," but occurs in each and ever moment as God's investment of being upholds the world in continued existence. In fact I wonder if the relationship between God and the creation isn't even more intimate than a willful investment of the former's being into the existence of the latter. It could be that that the material world is an aspect or manifestation of God's being. IOW the world is "part of" God rather than something apart from Him.

[MEGoody]

Whoopdeedoo - there are holes in the theory of evolution too. If the fact that 'holes' exist makes the theory not worth taking seriously, then I guess someone had better come up with another new theory to try.

[Theo]

Biologists used to just roll their eyes (and sometimes descend to name-calling) at all this. More recently, they've been joining with First Amendment groups to oppose moves to water down the teaching of evolution in classrooms.

"Biologists"? The way that paragraph is disingenuously written, one would think that all biologists are evolutionists. What if I wrote it this way:

Biologists have been joining with First Amendment groups to oppose moves to teach evolution in classrooms.

That's probably a true sentence as well. The dishonestly of the article is consistent with the dishonesty of arguments in favor of "evolution." But I'm so bored with evolution/creation conversations. We'll all personally find out in 100 years what's true.

Blessed are those who humble themselves before the creator prior to their meeting Him....