[pieceofthepuzzle]

I really don’t see how evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Personally I believe evolution is a wonderful thing for God to have built in to creation; an ever renewing adaptive creation. It frees God up to do other things, like help us to learn how not to keep killing each other. The funny thing is that while some in the scientific community point fingers at the ‘fanatical’ creationists, they themselves have become somewhat unscientific and fanatical by purporting that creation is inconsistent with science or evolution. The most accomplished scientists in the world cannot explain why we exist. The most creative and knowledgeable physicists can’t explain why the laws of physics are what they are, and cannot say with certainty that there isn’t someplace we don’t know of at which physical laws are different than what we perceive in our own observable universe. At some level it’s about humility.

[GodGunsGuts]

If you are speaking about variation within the created kinds, then we agree. But the Church of Darwin would have us believe that we DESCENDED from pre-biotic slime, through simple celled organisms, and so on down the line right down through the apes. The Bible is absolutely opposed to evolution in this sense.

[jdhighness]

This whole “creation Vs. evolution” debate would make our spiritual fathers quite upset, I would guess.

In fact, I would guess that an exegesis of the Bible would support a guided *evolution* way more than an instant Creation.

MAIN POINT: Check out Lecture 1 here

http://www.blackhawkchurch.org/resources/events.php

No where in the entire Old Testament do they talk about God making a material universe. The Hebrew word for “Create” found in Genesis is “bar’a”. To *that* culture, bar’a meant “assign function”—NOT make out of nothing. Material structure is our concern; the ancients didn’t care about it, they cared about function/purpose.

God Bless,

Jonathan Highness

[razzle]

Having bonzo the chimp as a great great grandfather is not (as far as I can tell) something to be proud of, and doesn’t seem like a “wonderful thing for God to have built into creation” (when did we learn right from wrong), nor does the idea that all this life stuff was just a chance mutation (mutation is the opposite of creation).

Despite all this, its the evidence that points to ID, not the philosophy.

[Delacon]

Totally agree. Why is it wrong to try to figure out how the magician pulled the rabbit out of the hat. Evolution is a miracle. So is gravity. So is matter. So is the universe. So are the minds we have that god miraculously created to observe and try to understand these things.

[70times7]

I think the issue for many in the ID camp is that scripture is rather specific in its description of creation. Some do "spiritualize" what is stated, meaning it is an allegory rather than a literal account of factual information, but that position can present problems. What parts of scripture are accurate and what parts are meant only as stories to illustrate a point?

Perhaps the parts that condemn homosexuality don't really mean what they say. Some seem to think that issue is misrepresented. Maybe that whole “thou shalt not steal” statement doesn’t apply – how sure are we that it restricts one from “borrowing permanently”? Or maybe that whole salvation thing is a problem – a lot of people have trouble with that. Would a loving God really condemn someone to hell for not accepting His son’s sacrifice of Himself as payment? If I prefer not to believe that – hey, no big deal, right?

Now please don't misunderstand, I am not giving the same weight of importance to creation and salvation. But if Gods word is accurate and trustworthy for the salvation of my soul why is it not to be believed regarding the origin of humanity?

I readily state that I think ID is an end run around the wrong headed application of the establishment clause. But that is where we are left because of the reaction of so many on both sides of this debate. I am confident God is able to withstand the truth and I am secure enough in my faith that I am pleased to see it brought forward in comprehensive debate. It seems the article’s author is secure enough in his faith as well. It is just a shame that there are so many on both sides who are not secure enough.