Replies

I'm curious to know myself. My impression, from what I've seen from you here and in the past, is that you basically ascribe to "theistic evolution" (i.e., the idea that evolution took place much as described by science, yet under the guiding hand of God). I sure could be wrong about that, so let's have it!

That pretty much sums it up. I believe in God, and believe that he doesn't go around creating fossils in order to fool people. I don't think God's hand will be revealed, because we're intended to have free will and that would throw a wrench in things.

My lack of atheism makes me unqualified to speak according to many. I don't accept that principle. My ideas on evolution are not tied to my faith, as science is God's tool, no need for magic. I'm learning more about ID simply because I keep getting accused of lying about being an ID backer. Can't say I've researched the theory enough yet though, but I'm reading more on it out of a new found curiosity.

My major gripe with evolution backers (other than myself)is that too many of them are simply dogmatic attack dogs. For example, I don't think that current scientific understanding of mutation in evolution is correct. In fact, this article opens up a possibility. But I'm not allowed to voice that opinion without being called a closet ID proponent, a troll, and worse.

If evolution is taken out of schools (its taught in Catholic School by the way) it will be because these cranks ruined its reputation.

I'm an atheist, and I have no problem with that point of view. My problem is with people who say evolution cannot have occurred much as science describes it (from a phenomenal standpoint). Beyond that, if people have metaphysical explanations for why it took place as it appears to have taken place, that's perfectly fine by me.

In short, I have no problem with religion in addition to science. I have a big problem with religion in place of science. And that is hardly because I want to drum religion out of schools and society (as I've been accused), but rather because I have a paramount self-interest in the progress of science and all the benefits it might bring, in particular to me! :)

My problem is with anything that I feel holds back progress.

As for the degree to which science "explains everything" you'll get no dispute from me. Science explains many things quite well, but we are hardly at the end of science so far as I'm concerned. Humanity has been doing science for a bare twinkling of atom by comparison to the grand sweep of the universe's history, and our scientific knowledge is growing exponentially, so who knows where we'll be in another thousand years, not to mention another 10,000 or 100,000 years.

I have no doubt there's plenty left to learn. Heck, most of what we have learned so far was achieved in merely the past few decades. An infinitesimal timespan in the grand scheme of things.