I have to admit that the GOP is at a severe disadvantage if its leaders continue to be belligerent towards evolution. The Biblical creation account is perfectly compatible with evolution, and we don’t have to allegorize/mythologize the Bible to do it. Just accept the Genesis account for what it is: a Sportscenter highlight given to Moses in a vision. All the details are simplified and the timing is compressed, but the facts are still dead-on accurate (when you account for language difficulties). Nor do we need to compromise on the theological significance of Genesis: e.g. Adam was literally created by God from dust, and he and his wife sinned and ruined the relationship with God that originally existed. Naturalistic evolution does not conflict with any of this.
And unfortunately, intelligent design is not much different from creationism. It is philosophy, which is fine and can be taught as such, but it isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught in school. However, I will admit that it is irritating for teachers to promote their philosophy (atheism) when they teach evolution, but I’m not sure how to handle that.
BTW, even though I am an evangelical Christian who belives in evolution (and doesn’t want ID taught in science class), I do believe the magnitude, threat, and cause of global warming is being manipulated and exaggerated in order to push a radical leftist political agenda.
Why do you feel the need to dismiss a straightforward reading of Genesis so easily?
I see evidence of variation within a species and so-called ring-species(fruitflies begat fruitflies that can't breed with original fruitflies). But beyond that, I don't see any hard evidence of molecules to man evolution. The fossil record doesn't really support it. Our best scientists biasing conditions orders of magnitude in their favor can't reproduce it, yet I'm expected to believe it happened by random chance?
Works for me.
God: "Moses, this is how the world was created, speeded up 100 billion times"
(two weeks later) "do you need to see it again?"
Moses: "No thanks, I think I got the gist"
Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism. It is a thesis, which can be put forward and argued for or against just like any other thesis.
Mostly it relies on statistical probability to demonstrate that a general theory of evolution is improbable because it has astronomically large statistical odds against it.
Some Darwinians have recognized that these are legitimate objections to a general theory of evolution, and have retorted with the theory that there are an infinite number of universes, and ours just happens to be the one where evolution worked. If I may say so, that’s not a very persusasive answer. A thesis, yes, and they are welcome to argue it; but it’s not very persuasive. The problem is that a reasonable thesis has to be capable of disproof, and that one certainly isn’t.
As a Catholic, I agree with you that evolution and divine creation as described in the Bible CAN be compatible. But strict evolutionists won’t allow that, either—or the view that perhaps there IS general evolution, but guided by God. Neither that nor any other view except strict atheist Darwinism is permitted in the public schools and in practice most universities, where contrary arguments are usually answered by refusal of tenure.
Please take this in the generous spirit it's intended: You are ignorant of Scripture.
The Bible clearly says that death is the result of sin. Evolution clearly says that death is the vehicle through which the evolution of life takes place.
Incompatible. Period.
Also, check out the phrase "after their kind." I imagine you've never noticed that before. And check out the order of creation.
My friend, there is freedom in believing God, and being slow to believe human theories conceived to supplant the truth of Scripture.