Well good. Then it didn't need Darwinism afterall now did it? Just an intellectually honest investigation within the proper eschatological boundaries of such systmatic methods as science and such theories as those of evolution.
If an exploration of the development of life obviates God, then I submit that this is because our understanding of God is limited and imperfect. We will simply have to rethink the nature of God, given that our current understanding is inherently flawed. Needless to say, this is our fault, not God's.
No, that is of course, not what I referred to when I asked "How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?" This is what I said:
(Keep in mind, that I'm not talking about open minded research of life sciences and origins, within the eschatological boundaries of theoretics, 'forensics,' and the modicum of actual science involved. I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.)
None of this requires anyone who believes about God only what is revealed in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, for example to rethink the nature of God the Creator. Did someone tell you it would? Darwinists?
Depends on what you mean by "needs Darwinism". Except in light of the theory of evolution, there is no rationally accessible explanation for why mitochondria have their own DNA.
No, that is of course, not what I referred to when I asked "How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?"
In that case, I think will need some specific examples of what you have in mind before I can begin to formulate an answer for you.
None of this requires anyone who believes about God only what is revealed in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, for example to rethink the nature of God the Creator. Did someone tell you it would?
Is the book of Genesis literally true? Some folks think it is - I suspect that they will have little choice but to rethink what they mean by "God the Creator", or be forced to simply ignore the ever-evolving truth. If it turns out that belief in the book of Genesis as a literal account of creation is not tenable, is that God's fault? Or theirs?