[whattajoke]

I imagine if our modern-day scientists had lived in the time of Moses, they would have explained how impossible the exodus was, much less the idea that bread would just fall out of the sky, or that stone tablets would magically have words appear on them.

I imagine you are partially correct. However, they would not "have explained" impossible things, they'd simply have asked for evidence that those events occurred. That's a BIG difference. And, I also imagine many, many people in Moses' day had the same doubts, hence, the world wasn't instantly converted to Judaism immediately.

BTW, Joseph Smith found some magical tablets in New York with a magical text on it. And that was far more recent. Why don't you believe him?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Getting off topic, but the reason everybody didn’t accept or believe what they could see in Moses’ day is because God hardened their hearts.

Remember that Pharoah was ready to let the people go, before God had completed the punishments. God hardened his heart, essentially forcing Pharoah to oppose him, so that God’s plan would be fulfilled.

Hebrews explains that we, as His creation, have no right to expect an explanation as to why God would choose to create some people simply to force them to a life which ends in hell, while He creates others who He, through his Own good pleasure, not by anything we do, chooses to bring into a saving relationship.

We obviously exist, so we ask why. Scientists, who must explain things on the basis that there is nothing supernatural, must find an explanation that supposes there is no creation. Creation itself would be outside the scope of science, so if Creation is in fact the truth, at best Science would have no explanation at all for how we are here, and at worst would have found some set of scientific observations that could be shaped into a theory to explain our presense.

If the 2nd is true, then you would expect that new discoveries would upset the story, but that given time the scientists could work any new discovery into their existing story, just as you can write software that successfully predicts things like the stock market observed up to the present time, simply by finding the equations that yield all the current observations, even though the program might fail on the next big change (at which point you could “fix” the program).

SO the problem a believer has is this: does Science show there is no creator BECAUSE there is no creator, or because Science must of necessity assume there is no creator and is simply yielding the result of the assumption?

Intelligent Design is an attempt to cross the bridge between science and the supernatural, but it fails, because even if there is an Intelligent Designer, science can no more postulate or show that than it can a creator.

99% of the fights we have could be avoided if we simply stopped teaching the mythology of origins (which is a history lesson anyway) in our science classes. Teach the actual mechanisms of evolution that we can observe — they are clearly science. Teach the implications of that theory, and show kids how to use the theory to make predictions and speculate about the past.

But stop teaching history in science class. Nobody KNOWS what happened at the origin of the universe, or if there is even such a thing. IT is all speculation.

It’s not like we couldn’t fill every hour of every high-school science class with hard science, or that our students are already so well-versed in true science that they need a break from it with mythology.

And if you stop teaching origins, nobody will argue to teach intelligent design, because they won’t have to balance one story with another.