Replies

Law as in the “Law of Gravity”.

Without getting all "pointy-headed" on you, the term "Law of Gravity" is in error. In fact, Newton's gravitational theory has been superseded and no longer applies in science. There is no "Law" of gravity. And note, there are zero "laws" in biology. The "highest grade" (so to speak) an idea can achieve is to be a theory. Airplanes and computers succeed based entirely on "theories." The Theory of evolution is a very strong idea - the strongest there currently is to explain the diversity of life.

(like the evolution of the eye).

A great example! It's quite well explained in the literature and even though creationist websites like to quote Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye is,"absurd in the highest degree," they seem to always ignore the next 1000 words he wrote to hypothesize how such an organ could evolve. Amazingly, he was very near the mark. If you are interested in the many years of research into this interesting topic, Google is your friend.

Interestingly, our eyes are not ideally fit for sitting at a computer nor reading a newspaper. Why is that?

I believe in Intelligent Design, which is as incapable of absolute proof as Evolution. And I have yet to see it disproved scientifically.

Your first statement is inadvertently correct; that is, one can not absolutely prove evolution. Science does not deal in absolute proof - it deals in evidence. Evolution has 150+ years worth of it. ID has, to date, nothing but a couple layman pop culture books written by lawyers, etc and a failed bid to insert ID to the curriculum in PA.

FWIW, ID also contradicts creationism, which is fine by me, but it must be noted that ID specifically attempts wild gyrations to disassociate itself from "God..."

...My faith in God drives my belief system

... Which you don't do. All ID has done to date is nitpick pieces of science which it claims there is no explanation (Argument from incredulity) which provides the ironic joy of watching real scientists studying harder and writing more about those specific supposed holes in the TOE. In one sense, ID is tightening up the TOE here and there. So thanks.

I shall not cravenly apologize for this or accept the “theory” that it is symptomatic of a degraded intellect.

Your high-minded insult is appreciated. It's nice to read something like that here for once. I'm sorry you have difficulty accepting facts which you and your particular flavor of Christianity can't remedy with your particular interpretation of Scripture.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic so I an not of the sola scriptura (sp?) persuasion. My belief is rooted in the teachings of the Church, but in the evidence provided by my senses as well. I see the infinite complexity of the universe as incapable of random, accidental incarnation whether by “Big Bang” or in tidal pools. There is no amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo that can deter me from this position.

I do have a question for you. Is this wealth of research and analysis meant to increase human understanding or simply to disprove the existence of God? If it is the latter, which I suspect, where is the good in stripping from
people the solace, certaintude and the moral compass drawn from their beliefs in God? Science and secular humanism will not replace these fundamental human wants. Despair, disorder and moral relativism will creep into the holes left and civilzation will suely collapse, but with the imprimatur of the scientific community (which will make it all peachy-keen).

I know, more than one question. I must endeavor to become more precise.