"Surveys show that most scientists do not fall in the last column, as is commonly believed, nor in the last two columns. They are mostly in the first three columns."
Do you have a source for this? It's contrary to some of the surverys I've heard of, so I'd be very interested in a study or survey that showed otherwise.
And, as you can see, you're certainly not the only longwinded commenter here. :)
'Salt beds are assumed to come from the sea, while the salt in the sea is assumed to come from the land. Are we certain of our estimation of sources? Why would we assume that ingredients for salt are legitimate if embedded originally among other soil particles, but not legitimate if in a pool or salt bed. The originality of one vs the other is as much a philosophical as it is a scientific question. '
Salt beds that come from former oceans often have remains of ocean life in them. That's how we know in that direction.
And we know that the minerals that make the sea salty came from land for a variety of reasons, including how the Great Lakes are saltier than river water. But see this for more info: http://www.utdallas.edu/~pujana/oceans/why.html
The fact that we're having this conversation even now, in 2011, is ridiculous. The amount of scientific illiteracy in the comments here is also ridiculous. Evolution isn't something you can just wish away - it's a fact, more proven and better understood than gravity.
I mean, seriously. How can you justify this in the face of all the evidence? I've never been so ashamed of my denomination.
For more of my thoughts, I wrote a lengthy article here. But seriously, people, come on! Didn't you ever take bio in highschool?
You suggest a lot of authors for me to read, and it's funny, because I have read them. I've read Behe's stuff before and he's wrong. He hasn't done his research, he cherry-picks the data (not unlike you do) and his reasoning is sloppy and inconsistent. I'm familiar with Thomas Kuhn, who thought that the changing nature of science was a virtue, since it meant science could change it's mind in the light of new evidence. He would not have appreciated his work being misinterpreted like this. I've read Hume, who was not a scientist but a skeptic and a man who would have thought your unwavering acceptance of the Genesis as literal fact intellectually disgusting. The fact that you would claim Hume proved anything shows you do not understand his goals and ideas.
But anyway, how many biology texts have you read?
[quote]I am not sure how evolution is more proven and understandable than gravity. Under "normal" circumstances every time you throw an object up in the air it falls at 9.8 m/s/s. Every time. I am not aware of any "natural laws" that we can measure happening right now in the area of evolution.[/quote]
Fallacy - an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible. Gravity is not well-understood, but it is easily observed. Evolution is also easily observed (just look at dog breeding) but it's also very well understood. As for natural laws, you could take a look at natural selection....
This doesn't mean it's proven. No scientist would say that. They would say it's well supported, or that evolution is useful for making accurate predictions. They would say the same thing about Germ Theory, or Kinetic Molecular Theory - not that they're proven, but that they make accurate predictions. Do you doubt the existence of germs or atoms, too?
You seem to be convinced that, since science changes, it is faulty. This is not the case. Science makes predictions, uses evidence, and adapts as our understanding grows. This is it's strength. This is the reason you have a computer to type your stupid ideas on and place them on the web - science is good at finding answers, and not afraid to admit when it's wrong. It's the reason you can sit in a room with electric light, unafraid of scurvy or rubella and be an ass.
[quote]There is absolutely nothing compelling about current science to lead me to accept evolution. There is nothing compelling in science to alter the traditional understanding of Genesis. As for me, I think the more solid ground is to stand on a Biblical worldview. General revelation should always be interpreted in light of God's Word. It is Jesus Christ who opens our eyes to see the world for what it really is. Let's look at the world through the lense [sic] of scripture rather than vice versa.[/quote]
But with this paragraph, I realize we will never understand. While I may be convinced if you have evidence that the world is young or that creationism is true, you claim that nothing about science today can change your mind. This makes it obvious that you do not know anything about modern science. Go read "The Greatest Show on Earth" or "The Rough Guide to Evolution" or "Why Evolution is True" or "Your Inner Fish". Ask yourself why God would give us all this evidence if it was all a lie. Ask yourself why we find fossils from billions of years ago if God made the world so recently. Ask yourself why we find evidence of human civilization from thousands of years before the claimed beginning of the world.
Then ask yourself if it perhaps more likely that what science has shown to be the case is true. Ask yourself if it is more likely that Genesis is a metaphor, that Adam and Eve are literary characters, that this is the useful parable that God told Moses so Israel could understand, a little, about where they came from.
By "science", I meant the sum of human knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictive models. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I also took the liberty of personifying science in order to reference the idea of scientific consensus. When I said, "Science knows x," I meant that the consensus among scientists in the relevant field was x. i.e. Science says our planet is round -> Most (likely all, :P) physicists and geologists agree that our planet is round. Again, I should have clarified.
Regarding the age of fossils, evidence for the correctness of dating procedures used by modern science can be found here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html. This article was written by a Christian geologist in hopes of educating fellow Christians about the correctness of modern dating methods. I do not accept it on blind faith - we know that science is able to date fossils, rocks, etc correctly through experiments and evidence.
[quote]....how circular reasoning resulted in a final age determination. This is not a good scientific practice, but it happens very often in this branch of science.[/quote]
Do you have a source for this claim? This is a pretty serious accusation to make.
[quote]Rather than denigrating their conclusions, it would be most helpful if you explained why you disagreed with them rather than characterizing their points of view as "not having done research, sloppy, inconsistent, cherry-picking."[/quote]
Behe's main argument is that some systems in organisms are irreducibly complex - that is to say, they are mutually dependant on each other and so could not have evolved separately. A common example is the eye - some people claim that half an eye is no good, so it is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. However, as it turns out, half an eye is about half as good and many creatures have such structures, like in the rag worm: http://bit.ly/kxj4VP. The rest of his examples are similarly easy to refute. (More criticisms can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html)
[quote]Evolution within dog breeds are still within one species. Attempts to breed different species fails.[/quote]
That is rather missing the point. By selecting for different traits, the population changes over many generations until the small differences between individuals add up to something huge. A good example of this is the domesticated silver fox, which was simply bred to be tamer and ended up with a very different appearance and brain structure. Anyway, you're wrong about breeding different species. See: Beefalo.
[quote]The fossil record shows no transitionary animals.[/quote]
Please define what you mean by "transitionary". I don't think we're thinking of the same thing, because I can think of several such fossils, some of which I saw with my own eyes at museums. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.
[quote]Stephanie, please be careful, not only how you write, but in how you interact with others. On your blog, "Casting Off" you show great concern for the marginalised in society, but not so great concern for those who are willing to disagree and not accept your point of view, I'd be disappointed to consider you a hypocrite.[/quote]
I'm sorry that you think my tone is too harsh. I was pretty upset when I wrote the first comment - I'm honestly sad that this is still an issue. But I do not hold respect for bad ideas or bad science, and will not pretend I do. I think people should not face discrimination. Ideas, especially bad ones, deserve no such protection. If you thought I was attacking people personally instead of their ideas, I apologize.
[quote]Facts are not the same as theory. Evolotion is one theory attempting to explain the facts. Creationism is another theory attempting to explain the facts. [/quote]
I agree.
[quote]Evolutionary theory is antagonistic toward God, it begins with the assumption there is no God, selection happens naturally and randomly. [/quote]
Not randomly - due to selective pressure from the environment, or through human intervention.
Regardless, evolution is not antagonistic towards God. It just does not require him. By this logic, my laptop is antagonistic towards God, as is my toaster and the plants growing by my window. Are embryos antagonistic towards God? How about rain? These are all things that we understand well, and all things that have purely natural explanations, just like the diversity of species. That doesn't mean God isn't part of it - it just means he set it up well enough that it doesn't need to be micromanaged.
[quote]If you consider Genesis a metaphor, do you also consider the plagues as metaphor? Is it all metaphor? Did Jesus really become conceived of a virgin woman by the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't an evolutionary theory say it is impossible?[/quote]
I don't know. That's a question for theologians. I don't think we need to be afraid, though - if it's true, all evidence will point there.
There are already some theories: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006052713779
GTE? I've never heard it referred to that way. Interesting. Anyway, here's a few thoughts.
[quote]Not at question, here, is whether there are biological evolutionary processes at all, but whether macro evolution suffiiciently accounts for the gradualist rise of all species from one primordial living cell. This discussion touches on philosophical, theological issues and epistemological questions as well as purely scientific inquiry. [/quote]
Well, no, it doesn't. The answer might have implications for philosophy, theology and epistemology, but the answer will only be found by scientific inquiry. That is, the fact that the world was round (or germ theory or how to do organ transplants or how to calculate the probability of winning the lottery) was established through science only. These other fields had to adapt to these discoveries, but they did not bring the discoveries about.
When the CRC asks, "Does our theology allow evolution?", they're asking the wrong question. They've got it backwards. Evolution is true or it isn't, but it's truth is not dependent on Reformed theology. They should be asking if evolution is true, and, if it is, what this means about what the CRC believes.
[quote]Did I mention that not one of these credible voices feels compelled to subscribe to GTE although on the evidence they have been convinced of an ancient universe and other related issues? Are these also morons who somehow just didn't grasp their high school biology courses...[/quote]
Yes.
Or they're lying. Or they never really looked into the issue. Regardless, it's a moot point: there are many more brilliant scientists who disagree with you. (See: http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves) The way to resolve it isn't to take a poll - it's to look at the evidence, read the papers, review the experiments and make up your mind. And the evidence is not on the side of creationism.
[quote]The issues here are of such gravity that they deserve it and much better than the dismissive ridicule that you have brought to it in your posting. [/quote]
You may use more words than I did in my original post, but you are just as dismissive as I was.
[quote]the theory of evolution postulates that every species is actually transitional and/or intermediate. That the "intermediates" are only intermediate relative to other species. [/quote]
YES! Yes! Exactly! That's exactly right!
[quote]This transition is not proven, nor even provable. It is merely assumed. The evidence could never ever prove that members of one species changed into another species. It can only demonstrate that some species resemble other species in many ways. [/quote]
... Now you may have lost me. Are you saying that you would need a specimen of every single creature leading back to a common ancestor to believe that evolution occurred for that case?
What about looking at the DNA, and seeing how much is the same? What about using mathematical models to track how fast the DNA of a creature changes through time, and then applying those models in other similar situations? That's far more common than looking at the shape of fossils and guesstimating relations.
I mean, if you doubt that creatures that resemble each other closely - in phenotype(physically) and genotype(genetically) - are related, you're not doubting evolution. You're doubting genetics and that's a whole other kettle of fish. I'm not sure how you could doubt genetics now that we can look closely at gametes, DNA, etc.
Sir, your post is full of non sequiturs. I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to say. Here's my best guess. Feel free to clarify.
First, I'm not sure how I'm like a ragworm. The "in other words" did not really explain. Is it because you think I'm not seeing the whole picture? That I'm seeing things in black and white? (both of which, I don't think I am.)
[quote]In other words, whenever someone might suggest that perhaps some species or great orders were individually created, the evol theory and those that propose it and support it would laugh. [/quote]
Why shouldn't we laugh at the idea that species are created distinctly if this is not the case? You're confusing blind tolerance with truth. The question isn't whether people are nice about other ideas - it's whether those ideas are true.
[quote]They would say that scientific investigation has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with any interventions by God. It deals only with naturalistic explanations of how things happen and how they came to be.[/quote]
Yes. We have big brains and a desire to explain things - features that many people believe came from God. We use our brains to investigate the world around us, but, in so doing, we cannot assume a God.
This is because God is not controllable. You cannot do an experiment with God's involvement and without. But, by assuming no divine influence, we have been really quite successful in figuring things out. ie. Medicine, clean water, the nature of the solar system. We're good at this. Assuming a god did not work out - when we did that, people thought a chariot pulled the sun across the sky.
[quote]It is a belief system that does not tolerate other hypotheses. [/quote]
Hypocrisy alert.
[quote]The theory of evolution also suggests that man is nothing more than a sophisticated animal, no more and no less. That religion, and our idea of god is something that evolved throughout time, and is continuing to evolve, due to our relationship with the rest of nature, our fear of the unknown, and our desire for security and purpose. That God is man-made, rather than man being God-made. [/quote]
No. The theory of evolution does not postulate that god is man-made. That's atheism. Evolution is about the diversity of life on this planet, and has nothing to say about the existence of gods.
I'm beginning to think that your problem isn't with evolution, but with science generally and natural explanations for things specifically. That's a problem, in my mind, but also an indicator that we will not reach a solution. I think science is a powerful tool for finding truth, and you think it's... what? Wrong? Blasphemous? Dangerous?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Short, sweet and to the point. I like this post.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Hello! Nice to meet you!
I just have a question about your comment:
"Surveys show that most scientists do not fall in the last column, as is commonly believed, nor in the last two columns. They are mostly in the first three columns."
Do you have a source for this? It's contrary to some of the surverys I've heard of, so I'd be very interested in a study or survey that showed otherwise.
And, as you can see, you're certainly not the only longwinded commenter here. :)
Thanks!
Stephanie
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
'Salt beds are assumed to come from the sea, while the salt in the sea is assumed to come from the land. Are we certain of our estimation of sources? Why would we assume that ingredients for salt are legitimate if embedded originally among other soil particles, but not legitimate if in a pool or salt bed. The originality of one vs the other is as much a philosophical as it is a scientific question. '
Salt beds that come from former oceans often have remains of ocean life in them. That's how we know in that direction.
And we know that the minerals that make the sea salty came from land for a variety of reasons, including how the Great Lakes are saltier than river water. But see this for more info: http://www.utdallas.edu/~pujana/oceans/why.html
Yes, I think this idea is fairly certain.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The fact that we're having this conversation even now, in 2011, is ridiculous. The amount of scientific illiteracy in the comments here is also ridiculous. Evolution isn't something you can just wish away - it's a fact, more proven and better understood than gravity.
I mean, seriously. How can you justify this in the face of all the evidence? I've never been so ashamed of my denomination.
For more of my thoughts, I wrote a lengthy article here. But seriously, people, come on! Didn't you ever take bio in highschool?
Stephanie
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
duplicate post.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
You suggest a lot of authors for me to read, and it's funny, because I have read them. I've read Behe's stuff before and he's wrong. He hasn't done his research, he cherry-picks the data (not unlike you do) and his reasoning is sloppy and inconsistent. I'm familiar with Thomas Kuhn, who thought that the changing nature of science was a virtue, since it meant science could change it's mind in the light of new evidence. He would not have appreciated his work being misinterpreted like this. I've read Hume, who was not a scientist but a skeptic and a man who would have thought your unwavering acceptance of the Genesis as literal fact intellectually disgusting. The fact that you would claim Hume proved anything shows you do not understand his goals and ideas.
But anyway, how many biology texts have you read?
[quote]I am not sure how evolution is more proven and understandable than gravity. Under "normal" circumstances every time you throw an object up in the air it falls at 9.8 m/s/s. Every time. I am not aware of any "natural laws" that we can measure happening right now in the area of evolution.[/quote]
Fallacy - an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible. Gravity is not well-understood, but it is easily observed. Evolution is also easily observed (just look at dog breeding) but it's also very well understood. As for natural laws, you could take a look at natural selection....
This doesn't mean it's proven. No scientist would say that. They would say it's well supported, or that evolution is useful for making accurate predictions. They would say the same thing about Germ Theory, or Kinetic Molecular Theory - not that they're proven, but that they make accurate predictions. Do you doubt the existence of germs or atoms, too?
You seem to be convinced that, since science changes, it is faulty. This is not the case. Science makes predictions, uses evidence, and adapts as our understanding grows. This is it's strength. This is the reason you have a computer to type your stupid ideas on and place them on the web - science is good at finding answers, and not afraid to admit when it's wrong. It's the reason you can sit in a room with electric light, unafraid of scurvy or rubella and be an ass.
[quote]There is absolutely nothing compelling about current science to lead me to accept evolution. There is nothing compelling in science to alter the traditional understanding of Genesis. As for me, I think the more solid ground is to stand on a Biblical worldview. General revelation should always be interpreted in light of God's Word. It is Jesus Christ who opens our eyes to see the world for what it really is. Let's look at the world through the lense [sic] of scripture rather than vice versa.[/quote]
But with this paragraph, I realize we will never understand. While I may be convinced if you have evidence that the world is young or that creationism is true, you claim that nothing about science today can change your mind. This makes it obvious that you do not know anything about modern science. Go read "The Greatest Show on Earth" or "The Rough Guide to Evolution" or "Why Evolution is True" or "Your Inner Fish". Ask yourself why God would give us all this evidence if it was all a lie. Ask yourself why we find fossils from billions of years ago if God made the world so recently. Ask yourself why we find evidence of human civilization from thousands of years before the claimed beginning of the world.
Then ask yourself if it perhaps more likely that what science has shown to be the case is true. Ask yourself if it is more likely that Genesis is a metaphor, that Adam and Eve are literary characters, that this is the useful parable that God told Moses so Israel could understand, a little, about where they came from.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
By "science", I meant the sum of human knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictive models. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I also took the liberty of personifying science in order to reference the idea of scientific consensus. When I said, "Science knows x," I meant that the consensus among scientists in the relevant field was x. i.e. Science says our planet is round -> Most (likely all, :P) physicists and geologists agree that our planet is round. Again, I should have clarified.
Regarding the age of fossils, evidence for the correctness of dating procedures used by modern science can be found here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html. This article was written by a Christian geologist in hopes of educating fellow Christians about the correctness of modern dating methods. I do not accept it on blind faith - we know that science is able to date fossils, rocks, etc correctly through experiments and evidence.
[quote]....how circular reasoning resulted in a final age determination. This is not a good scientific practice, but it happens very often in this branch of science.[/quote]
Do you have a source for this claim? This is a pretty serious accusation to make.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
[quote]Rather than denigrating their conclusions, it would be most helpful if you explained why you disagreed with them rather than characterizing their points of view as "not having done research, sloppy, inconsistent, cherry-picking."[/quote]
Behe's main argument is that some systems in organisms are irreducibly complex - that is to say, they are mutually dependant on each other and so could not have evolved separately. A common example is the eye - some people claim that half an eye is no good, so it is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. However, as it turns out, half an eye is about half as good and many creatures have such structures, like in the rag worm: http://bit.ly/kxj4VP. The rest of his examples are similarly easy to refute. (More criticisms can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html)
[quote]Evolution within dog breeds are still within one species. Attempts to breed different species fails.[/quote]
That is rather missing the point. By selecting for different traits, the population changes over many generations until the small differences between individuals add up to something huge. A good example of this is the domesticated silver fox, which was simply bred to be tamer and ended up with a very different appearance and brain structure. Anyway, you're wrong about breeding different species. See: Beefalo.
[quote]The fossil record shows no transitionary animals.[/quote]
Please define what you mean by "transitionary". I don't think we're thinking of the same thing, because I can think of several such fossils, some of which I saw with my own eyes at museums. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.
[quote]Stephanie, please be careful, not only how you write, but in how you interact with others. On your blog, "Casting Off" you show great concern for the marginalised in society, but not so great concern for those who are willing to disagree and not accept your point of view, I'd be disappointed to consider you a hypocrite.[/quote]
I'm sorry that you think my tone is too harsh. I was pretty upset when I wrote the first comment - I'm honestly sad that this is still an issue. But I do not hold respect for bad ideas or bad science, and will not pretend I do. I think people should not face discrimination. Ideas, especially bad ones, deserve no such protection. If you thought I was attacking people personally instead of their ideas, I apologize.
[quote]Facts are not the same as theory. Evolotion is one theory attempting to explain the facts. Creationism is another theory attempting to explain the facts. [/quote]
I agree.
[quote]Evolutionary theory is antagonistic toward God, it begins with the assumption there is no God, selection happens naturally and randomly. [/quote]
Not randomly - due to selective pressure from the environment, or through human intervention.
Regardless, evolution is not antagonistic towards God. It just does not require him. By this logic, my laptop is antagonistic towards God, as is my toaster and the plants growing by my window. Are embryos antagonistic towards God? How about rain? These are all things that we understand well, and all things that have purely natural explanations, just like the diversity of species. That doesn't mean God isn't part of it - it just means he set it up well enough that it doesn't need to be micromanaged.
[quote]If you consider Genesis a metaphor, do you also consider the plagues as metaphor? Is it all metaphor? Did Jesus really become conceived of a virgin woman by the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't an evolutionary theory say it is impossible?[/quote]
I don't know. That's a question for theologians. I don't think we need to be afraid, though - if it's true, all evidence will point there.
There are already some theories: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006052713779
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
GTE? I've never heard it referred to that way. Interesting. Anyway, here's a few thoughts.
[quote]Not at question, here, is whether there are biological evolutionary processes at all, but whether macro evolution suffiiciently accounts for the gradualist rise of all species from one primordial living cell. This discussion touches on philosophical, theological issues and epistemological questions as well as purely scientific inquiry. [/quote]
Well, no, it doesn't. The answer might have implications for philosophy, theology and epistemology, but the answer will only be found by scientific inquiry. That is, the fact that the world was round (or germ theory or how to do organ transplants or how to calculate the probability of winning the lottery) was established through science only. These other fields had to adapt to these discoveries, but they did not bring the discoveries about.
When the CRC asks, "Does our theology allow evolution?", they're asking the wrong question. They've got it backwards. Evolution is true or it isn't, but it's truth is not dependent on Reformed theology. They should be asking if evolution is true, and, if it is, what this means about what the CRC believes.
[quote]Did I mention that not one of these credible voices feels compelled to subscribe to GTE although on the evidence they have been convinced of an ancient universe and other related issues? Are these also morons who somehow just didn't grasp their high school biology courses...[/quote]
Yes.
Or they're lying. Or they never really looked into the issue. Regardless, it's a moot point: there are many more brilliant scientists who disagree with you. (See: http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves) The way to resolve it isn't to take a poll - it's to look at the evidence, read the papers, review the experiments and make up your mind. And the evidence is not on the side of creationism.
[quote]The issues here are of such gravity that they deserve it and much better than the dismissive ridicule that you have brought to it in your posting. [/quote]
You may use more words than I did in my original post, but you are just as dismissive as I was.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
People like me? People who support good science?
Somehow, I don't think that's what you meant.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
[quote]the theory of evolution postulates that every species is actually transitional and/or intermediate. That the "intermediates" are only intermediate relative to other species. [/quote]
YES! Yes! Exactly! That's exactly right!
[quote]This transition is not proven, nor even provable. It is merely assumed. The evidence could never ever prove that members of one species changed into another species. It can only demonstrate that some species resemble other species in many ways. [/quote]
... Now you may have lost me. Are you saying that you would need a specimen of every single creature leading back to a common ancestor to believe that evolution occurred for that case?
What about looking at the DNA, and seeing how much is the same? What about using mathematical models to track how fast the DNA of a creature changes through time, and then applying those models in other similar situations? That's far more common than looking at the shape of fossils and guesstimating relations.
I mean, if you doubt that creatures that resemble each other closely - in phenotype(physically) and genotype(genetically) - are related, you're not doubting evolution. You're doubting genetics and that's a whole other kettle of fish. I'm not sure how you could doubt genetics now that we can look closely at gametes, DNA, etc.
Perhaps you could clarify?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Sir, your post is full of non sequiturs. I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to say. Here's my best guess. Feel free to clarify.
First, I'm not sure how I'm like a ragworm. The "in other words" did not really explain. Is it because you think I'm not seeing the whole picture? That I'm seeing things in black and white? (both of which, I don't think I am.)
[quote]In other words, whenever someone might suggest that perhaps some species or great orders were individually created, the evol theory and those that propose it and support it would laugh. [/quote]
Why shouldn't we laugh at the idea that species are created distinctly if this is not the case? You're confusing blind tolerance with truth. The question isn't whether people are nice about other ideas - it's whether those ideas are true.
[quote]They would say that scientific investigation has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with any interventions by God. It deals only with naturalistic explanations of how things happen and how they came to be.[/quote]
Yes. We have big brains and a desire to explain things - features that many people believe came from God. We use our brains to investigate the world around us, but, in so doing, we cannot assume a God.
This is because God is not controllable. You cannot do an experiment with God's involvement and without. But, by assuming no divine influence, we have been really quite successful in figuring things out. ie. Medicine, clean water, the nature of the solar system. We're good at this. Assuming a god did not work out - when we did that, people thought a chariot pulled the sun across the sky.
[quote]It is a belief system that does not tolerate other hypotheses. [/quote]
Hypocrisy alert.
[quote]The theory of evolution also suggests that man is nothing more than a sophisticated animal, no more and no less. That religion, and our idea of god is something that evolved throughout time, and is continuing to evolve, due to our relationship with the rest of nature, our fear of the unknown, and our desire for security and purpose. That God is man-made, rather than man being God-made. [/quote]
No. The theory of evolution does not postulate that god is man-made. That's atheism. Evolution is about the diversity of life on this planet, and has nothing to say about the existence of gods.
I'm beginning to think that your problem isn't with evolution, but with science generally and natural explanations for things specifically. That's a problem, in my mind, but also an indicator that we will not reach a solution. I think science is a powerful tool for finding truth, and you think it's... what? Wrong? Blasphemous? Dangerous?