Replies

There is a difference between "Evolution" and "Evolutionism." The former is no threat to religious belief whatsoever, unless one's model of divine causality is so restricted as to permit the intervention of God only as a primary cause of the material creation of the form of man, a viewpoint which simultaneously denies that God can act as the secondary cause, working through material processes he created which, by definition, means that these material causes are contingent upon his creative impulse. Denial of God's ability to act through contingent material processes or denial that their results are still from God and according to God's plan represents a limitation placed upon God's omniscience, which in the opinion of many who are both religiously inclined and see no conflict between evolution and religion, is a theological error.

The real conflict is between "Evolutionism" -- the argument made by some scientists that the evidence for evolution disproves the existence of God -- and religious belief. Those scientists who advance this supposition make the opposite epistemological error of Creationists and the same one as Intelligent Design advocates. Whereas Creationists begin with the primacy of the metaphysical arguments of translated scripture interpreted in its literal sense and cross into the scientific; ID supporters and "Evolutionists" begin with the physical evidence and cross into metaphysics. Since materialistic and metaphysical inquiry are both entirely distinct from each other in the rational methods they apply to reach logical conclusions, any such crossovers must be rejected as methodologically unsound.

And as a final comment, anyone who rejects the Theory of Evolution for religious reasons should understand that they are rejecting much more than a scientific explanation for the origins of the material form of man. The sciences of Geology, Biology, Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics (yes, Astrophysics), Paleontology, Botany, Taxonomy, Zoology, Physics, and their many subdisciplines have all produced findings which converge in the Theory of Evolution in its modern form. To reject the Theory of Evolution is to reject so much of science that the problems created in the process are insurmountable by any standard of rationality worth the name.

As always, excellent observations, clearly and beautifully presented...

And as a final comment, anyone who rejects the Theory of Evolution for religious reasons should understand that they are rejecting much more than a scientific explanation for the origins of the material form of man.

You seem to be saying that evolutionary science is incapable of positing a mechanism for human intellect. If true, I'd like to know on what basis you make this supposition.

The sciences of Geology, Biology, Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics (yes, Astrophysics), Paleontology, Botany, Taxonomy, Zoology, Physics, and their many subdisciplines have all produced findings which converge in the Theory of Evolution in its modern form. To reject the Theory of Evolution is to reject so much of science that the problems created in the process are insurmountable by any standard of rationality worth the name.

Horse manure

Evolution is susceptible to falsification just like any other scientific theory, and and it shares no special privilege that should insulate it from criticism...nor should it.

If evolution falls, then so be it and let the chips fall where they may.

Physics right now is becoming increasingly subject to a similar problem, in that, most physicists are drawn to string theory, and If it turns out to be incorrect, then that will have a great impact as to the progression of knowledge in classical/particle physics.

That wouldn't be the fault of science though, but rather scientists.

Rhetoric like yours does no true service to science.

I do agree that TOE is a system of thinking and belief which encompasses modern scientific disciplines. Problem is that by its design the system models what God is and how His creation took place.

TOE is the ultimate restriction upon the Creator, their model sits in a fenced higher estate and some allow for the attachment of a creator by their definition.

The created ones have designed their own system of creation.

To reject the Theory of Evolution is to reject so much of science that the problems created in the process are insurmountable by any standard of rationality worth the name.

This is often pointed out in the evolution threads. It never bothers the most stridently persistent of the anti-evolution posters. It therefore seems appropriate to use terms broader than "creationist" when speaking of such people. Although they often claim otherwise, they are actually science-deniers, and all that this implies.