T or F: You can't believe in both evolution and God.

[BurtWorm]

It's obviously false, even to me, an atheist. But this is the entire premise of the ID/Creationist argument. The only way to end the debate and keep Creationism (religion disguised as bad science) out of the schools--and to return evolution unashamedly to the center of high school biology--is to stamp Creationism firmly as what it is: the purveyor of a false dichotomy.

[bemildred]

1. You can believe whatever the hell you want.

That's the nice thing about belief, no messy rules or procedures.

[BurtWorm]

3. You can even believe in this false dichotomy.

But when a movement believes in it and tries to force its belief on the public schools, the nation suffers. So what is to be done?

[bemildred]

16. Everybody has to believe in something.

I believe I'll have another beer.
:beer:

[elperromagico]

4. Exactly. n/t

[rock]

10. If you don't believe two impossible things by breakfast

you're not doing it right. (With appoligies to the Red Queen).

[Call me Deacon Blues]

2. My wife's Catholic

and they have no problem whatsoever with evolution.

[Cleita]

51. Right.

I went to Catholic school and they taught religion right alongside science. When I asked one of the nuns about any conflict in her mind who taught both, her answer was simple. "Faith", she said, "is about the Kingdom of Heaven. Science is about the Kingdom of Earth." Now that was simple, wasn't it?

[tallahasseedem]

63. What a great quote...

Now if only everyone could feel that way.

[Cleita]

73. I don't know if it is a direct quote, but the gist of what I

remembered that she said.

[dave29]

5. you have a seriously limited view of what God

may or may not be.

Evolution is real. God may be real. Our evolution hasn't reached a point where we can answer that question definitvely - and if you think it has, you are practicing bad science.

[BurtWorm]

14. Did you misread my post?

I think you did. My point is about logic, not science.

PS: Answer what question definitively?

[dave29]

25. You posed a question about

belief in God and a scientific principle in opposition with each other. You discount a whole group of people who strongly believe in both God AND Science. So your premise is not a dichotomy at all, it is flawed in it's very basis.

What I meant about definitive answers was that the answer of "what or who or whether or not there is" God has yet to be answered to everyones satisfaction.

I humbly submit, if you think you know the answer to this question, you may call yourself an athiest, but you are in fact a fundamentalist.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. He didn't discount people who believe in both

God and science -- he affirmed that there's no problem with doing both. He thinks the idea that God and science are incompatible is a false one.

I think you must have misread his post?

[BurtWorm]

35. He did misread my post.

You summed it up very well. :hi:

[dave29]

43. ok I give

I think it was the double negative that threw me. Plus logic is not my forte, and I'm a kneeJERK Deist. Sorry.

[BurtWorm]

45. Well, I appreciate that admission.

:toast:

Now if only creationists would admit when they've been caught in bad logic and misreading.

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Oh well

That happens to everyone from time to time. It just seemed to me you were both saying the same thing!

[BurtWorm]

33. My question was "Is statement X true or false?"

It wasn't even a question about God or evolution, when you get right down to it. It's based on an idea promulgated by people like Philip Johnson and other ID/Creationists that either you believe God created each species separately and assigned a special purpose to "Man" or you believe in godless evolution. This is their false dichotomy, not mine. Evolution does not consider God, but that doesn't mean it is against God, does it? Many theists agree in the essential factuality (in the flexible, scientific meaning of the term) of evolution as an explanation of how species orginate.

My point is that if this false dichotomy is made clear, even to Creationists, it ought to be removed from the table. Why waste any more breath or effort on an empty argument?

[Coexist]

6. False

of course you can believe in both - you just can't believe in creation myths as written long ago by human beings trying to make sense out of the mysteries of life and the world around them.

[tecelote]

7. It would work if God was not a Republican.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. A false dichotomy...I like that.

It's a common problem with fundies...it's either all or nothing. Either you are ALL saved or you are completely unsaved. There is no middle ground. It is the reason they can act so "holier than thou".

[dave29]

12. such is the problem with athiests

who claim there is no God, and know they are right.

And I say this as a member of no "organized" religion.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Why attack atheists?

They are not the ones trying to force their beliefs on the country.

[dave29]

37. Then why tell me I should not believe in God or Creationism?

Athiesm is a rejection of God, and therefore puts it's proponents squarely in the middle of the moral superiority battle of claiming you have all the answers. Atheism is part of the problem, as is fundamentalism.

We DON'T KNOW all the answers. If we did, we'd have already formed a more perfect union, methinks.

[BurtWorm]

41. You can believe in whatever you want to believe.

But what should we teach the children about biology, for example? Should we teach them biology in biology class, or should we bullshit about religion just to avoid upsetting some parents' belief in a false dichotomy?

[dave29]

49. I believe religion should be left out of state schools - and that

private religious schools can do whatever they want.

However, I don't think we should discount "God" as having had a potential "hand" in the Universe until that question has been answered. Which it may never be.

I will add this though: don't censor teachers from speaking of God, as long as they don't act as a proponent for a specific theory or view. God is fair game for debate, in my book, just like any scientific principle. All ideas should be entertained less we close our minds for good.

I believe, very strongly, that we should apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to morality - and to how we face the world in general. As an underlying principle it promotes an understanding of relativity and leads to tolerance for one another's views. As a bonus, it appears to be an underlying principle of nature, which gives it gravitas, in my book.

Taking it a step further: the more definitively you believe in something, the more certain you can be you are in error somewhere else. In other words Complete faith, and complete lack of faith are BOTH the wrong approach.

It is the lesson we continue to fail to learn, and to pass on to our children. Keep an open mind, and that goes for athiests and fundies.

[BurtWorm]

53. What if a biology teacher says, "See how God designed the nervous system

of the fruit fly?" Should that be allowed? You can imagine how someone who has started down that road is going to procede. Or should a biology teacher just stick with science and leave God entirely out of it?

[dave29]

55. As I said

being a proponent of a specific view of God would be wrong and add that in a state sponsored school Biology class in particular, that it would also violate the separation of Church and State.

In my book, I would say, "how do you think the nervous sytem of the fruitfly evolved?" and see what they come up with. Let the kids debate it. You will see very quickly how parents shape their kid's belief systems - and find that nobody could answer the question with any degree of certainty.

[wtmusic]

24. Straw man

One must begin with the assumption that when there is no valid evidence for the existence of something, it doesn't exist.

[dave29]

58. One must not begin with any assumption

in my opinion

[wtmusic]

69. Discussion is meaningless without basic assumptions

and a waste of time

[dave29]

75. I disagree

;)

[wtmusic]

76. OK then -- 'I disagree' = 'I agree'

We have no basic assumptions, right?

;)

[dave29]

82. ad infinitum to absurdum

;)

[yurbud]

9. NOVA did a great episode on this at a Christian college

Where the kids were allowed to study evolution, and tried to figure out how it fit in with their belief in a literal Adam and Eve.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[BurtWorm]

54. Sounds very interesting!

When was that episode?

I was thinking it might be interesting to compare and contrast creation science classrooms with biology classrooms--how they operate, how well the children learn their subjects, how well they understand the subject they aren't taught. It would make a good film to show in towns and cities where this is a live controversy.

[yurbud]

86. link to pbs evolution @ Christian college episode

This is the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview.html

It's episode 7, "What about God?"

I used to be an evangelical, and in all honesty, I don't think there is a creation science classroom.

It is presented in Sunday school format, and anything beyond that is apologetics and PR.

The kids in this documentary are doing real science, but trying to mesh their belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible with it.

It's kind of sad because the effect is like watching a kid figure out there's no Santa Claus. It's worth buying.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. It's false

A true statement would be: One cannot at the same time believe in evolution and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

[havocmom]

13. One can believe in God without believing in a literal interruption of

the oft edited bible. Translated many times, edited even more by and for various powers, the bible is more an exercise in crowd control than the word of God.

Easy to believe God could do anything. Also easy to believe man can twist anything to suit his own purpose. Hard to believe everything man says.

[bullimiami]

15. truly life is miraculous any way you look at it.

whether it was created 5000 years ago or Billions there are questions that may always be beyond science from our vantage point in reality.
What is life? Where did the universe come from, when did it start or end? What is reality?

I dont see why there has to be a fight over it. There should be room for all.
But Im liberal and thats how I think, I guess there are those who 'know better' for everyone.
That is a problem. They lack tolerance and dont know how to get along with others.

[BurtWorm]

20. Should creationism be taught in schools, then?

Should it be taught in science class?

[bullimiami]

29. absolutely creationism should be taught in a religion class

and evolution in science class.

objectively.

[BurtWorm]

36. But creationists want them taught side by side.

Should they be? And if so how and in what context?

[dave29]

65. Theology should not be discussed in Biology class, period EXCEPT

in the context that there are many different worldviews on the wonders of nature, and that it is wrong to hold one persons views against them. We should also encourage and challenge students to think about all of the different worldviews and come to their own conclusions.

[BurtWorm]

67. Either you talk about other worldviews in Biology or keep God out of it.

This is a real dichotomy, offering a real choice, like either you're pregnant or you're not. There's no middle ground here.

[Tux]

17. Both work

I'm a Deist and evolution works for me. I have no conflict at all over it. Only those that wish to believe some fairy tales are literal instead of being metaphorical stories with important lessons.

[wtmusic]

19. Using 'belief' is a pretty weak test for validity

Given enough ignorance one can believe just about anything

[BurtWorm]

21. Creationism is ALL about belief.

This is their premise I'm citing.

[wtmusic]

39. Absolutely

but maybe what should be addressed first is what the purpose of teaching science in public education is. From there we consecrate the bedrock principle of scientific method. Shortly thereafter, creationism is toast.

[BurtWorm]

44. Creationists firmly believe evolution is a threat to their fundamental

beliefs. They believe it was even invented (by Satan) to undermine their faith. How can this obstacle toward mutual solution be dealt with? It's doubtful that someone who firmly believes this can ever be brought around, but surely reason and logic might influence people who lazily believe "Why not teach both side by side? If it shuts the creationists up and knocks the scientists down a peg or two, what harm is done?" The point is, evolution is not a threat to belief in God. It may be a threat to scriptural fundamentalism, but it isn't meant to be. It's meant merely to help humans understand how nature works.

[ladjf]

22. There is absolutely nothing ungodly about the process of

evolution. If there is an Omnipotent God, it would be able to create everything in any manner, including an evolutionary process.

[nolabels]

23. Only if you have a big enough imagination

If you told some of the people a hundred years ago of the future will bring they would think you a lunatic so I say go figure. As for creationism in literal sense it depends what you envision this thing called God to be

What is an Agnostic?
Bertrand Russell
What Is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
Since you deny `God's Law', what authority do you accept as a guide to conduct?

An Agnostic does not accept any `authority' in the sense in which religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as `God's law' varies from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying `God's law'.
How do you know what is good and what is evil? What does an agnostic consider a sin?

The Agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what is good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past held, that people who disagree with the government on abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation
(snip)
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm

[oneold1-4u]

26. There was a god around

Long before a real language or any written language! Before any churches or even the bible.
There are still remnants of faiths in greater power, all around the earth. Who are we today to give any needed understanding of the creation or destruction of this planet and cram it into free minds.

[LynnTheDem]

27. False. The narrow-minded "up-down, for-against" types lack brains

capable of wider views. It's not their fault, they were born idiots.

[BeTheChange]

28. F,,

I believe in both. To me, the two theories dont digress much at all.

[Lexingtonian]

31. the real trouble is

the Creationists' version of God. It's an import from the materialistic nature theist religions, i.e. paganisms, of the Ancient World. I don't think the God of the Creationists can survive a trial questioning whether He is actually Biblical or Christian. Of course, that is why they keep on trying to keep evolutionary theory on trial.

[Totally Committed]

32. If you believe that "God" created everything...

Why couldn't She/He/It create evolution? Certainly, creating a mechanism by which all "God's" vision for this world could come to be would not be beyond the scope, the ability, or the wisdom of a "Supreme Being"... right?

TC

[tecelote]

40. Yes, I'm more impressed with a God that used evolution to create

the world than I am with a god that whipped the world together in seven days. The God that threw it all together should have the power to look at what was done and make a few immediate adjustments.

The God that created the evolving world puts a bit more responsibility in our hands. It in no way diminishes the miracle.

[melv]

34. The Bible has always been at the mercy of it's interpreters.

Thus, we have all the splintering of denominatins, etc. Everyone gets something different from the bible. So, the answer to your question would have to be true.

[BR_Parkway]

38. Actually, one of the things people believe in about God is that

he/she is all-powerful, capable of anything and that the 'ways of God are mysterious and un-knowable'.

Doesn't seem like too much of a stretch of intellect to think that an all powerful God whose ways can't be understood by man could have caused evolution.

[johnaries]

42. The Tao Te Ching says:

(I'm paraphrasing)
In the beginning was the One.
And the One gave birth to Two.
The Two gave birth to Three.
And the Three gave birth to everything in the Universe.

Sounds like evolution to me!

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. We theistic evolutionists get shunted off to the corner in the argument

[BurtWorm]

48. You guys should be at the center of it.

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

66. :^) I agree

[NYdemocrat089]

47. You can believe in both. n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

50. There is nothing inconsistent about evolution and God. Nothing!

Some simple reading that will lay out why there is nothing inconsistent about evolution and God:

1. John Buehrens and Forrest Church "A Chosen Faith- An Introduction To Unitarian-Universalism"

2. John Buehrens, "The Unitarian-Universalist Pocket Guide"

3. John Buehrens, "Understanding The Bible - An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals"

4. J.H. Hertz, "Pentateuch and Haftorahs" (see the footnotes on Genesis).

5. Kenneth Miller, "Finding Darwin's God"

6. David Wilcox, "God and Evolution"

And, an interesting exercise is to read (President) Thomas Jefferson's Bible, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" to see how President Jefferson parses the Bible and extracts his version of "Truth" from his version of (Science) Fiction and (Blind) Faith.

An interesting read is David Clark and Lonnie Russell "Molecular Biology Made Fun and Simple" (postpone Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" for a later time), and read Darwin's "Origin of the Species."

If you know enough biology, biochemistry, and Bible - not a mere smattering surface knowledge - but some in depth knowledge -- there's no conflict. The people who see a conflcit haven't explored enough.

[Pockets]

52. TRUE (for some)

My wife refuses to believe in evolution.

Don't get the wrong idea -- she's as liberal as they come and can perceive the outright lies of the Bush administration with laser like accuracy.

But I think for some that evolution conflicts with their simplistic religious explanation. I say, let them believe in their fantasy if it makes them feel good. They can still be good Democrats.

[BurtWorm]

57. It may be true for some individuals, just as, for some the earth is flat.

But as a general principle, it's false. There are many theists who have no problem with evolution. The problem with the way things in the US are now is that this false principle is being promoted as one of equal validity with its negative.

Glad your wife is a good Democrat, though. ;)

[dave29]

59. If you lived 1000 years ago

and you looked down at the ground and had no scientific background, would you have believed the earth was round?

1000 years from now, people will look back at what we believed and what we taught, and think "those guys were idiots"

[BurtWorm]

61. But you're not arguing that we should teach anything and everything

because it *might* be true, are you?

[dave29]

74. no I'm saying

NEVER discount any possibility until is is proven false. You are walking a difficult line in this discussion because you admonish Creationism being taught in Biology class, which I agree with, but then substitute your logic with a statement asking me if a teacher saying "God created the nervous system" of this or that insect would be wrong. You've moved from the creationist argument to an argument that has yet to be solved.

And I do believe that pulling God out of any discussion in school would be wrong. Because that would be forcing your athiest views on children, and not allowing for the possibility that God does play a role in the Universe, which we do not know.

Athiests do not "own" science. I think that is where the breakdown is happening here.

[BurtWorm]

77. Again, my question is, if your child's one shot at biology is with

a teacher who spends a lot of time talking about God's creation and God's design, would you feel your child was getting a sound education in biology? Isn't the purpose of a biology class to learn about biology?

[dave29]

81. at this point

I'd be glad if my kid's biology teacher understood evolution, and wasn't a gym coach, to be honest.

Aside from that, I think you are making an all or nothing argument here, which is kind of absurd. I don't think creationism should be taught in biology - we agree on that. But I don't think "God" necessarily has to be kept out of the class room. That is my point.

[BurtWorm]

83. I don't think God has to be kept out either.

I would be uncomfortable, however, if my daughter's high school biology teacher mentioned God more than Darwin. A mention here and there of the controversy wouldn't trouble me. A day discussing the controversy wouldn't bother me. But constant insertions of the controversy, which in effect accomplish exactly what the creationists want--i.e., putting ID/creationism on par with evolution--would bother me.

[dave29]

84. we can both drink to that

at last

:toast:

[BurtWorm]

85. Well all right!

:toast:
:beer:

[Solon]

87. You present a difficulty that is not so difficult...

First, this is a science classroom environment, not theology or comparative religion. Science is not the purview of just Atheists obviously, but there is one rule, so to speak, that applies to science that you must understand. Science only works with the assumption that humans can only perceive the material world, not the spiritual world. As such, any mention of any God is simply not appropriate in such an environment.

Second is this, who is pushing what beliefs again? Is the absence of mentioning a God in this type of environment somehow offensive to theists? Look at me, to give an example, in such a class, if the teacher said: "God created/designed this fruitfly's nervous system." I would raise my hand and ask: "Which God?" An honest question, considering I'm polytheistic(almost henotheistic) in my beliefs. I would really like to know who is the God of Fruitfly anatomy.

So what would the teacher's answer be I wonder, maybe Yahweh? If so, how is that not inserting religion in a non-religious atmosphere?

[H2O Man]

56. They are the same thing ...

It's like asking if you believe in the ancestor or the womb.

[OrlandoGator]

60. False. I believe that God started evolution.

n/t

[mwb970]

62. Why can't "God" be the driving force?

Evolution is obviously occurring, but it goes against the tendency toward randomness in the universe. What is "pushing" it?

[OrlandoGator]

64. Something pushed the "go" button on the Big Bang.

My best guess is that's where God entered the picture.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Why did something (or someone) have to push the button?

and what or who pushed the button on that?

We are surrounded by natural processes that happen of their own accord. Why can't reality be something like that?

Man, everything that happens, somebody must be responsible for it.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course- but my own best guess calls an inability to conceive of anything that doesn't have someone pushing a "go button" behind it a little bit of a failure of imagination.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Maybe the idea that there is an inherent bias towards randomness

(or, more specifically, entropy) in the universe means we don't understand the universe as well as we like to think.

Even so-called "randomness" isn't necessarily what it once was thought to be.. Chaos theory as has developed over the past few decades has shown that there are intrinsic levels of order in chaos, as well as chaos in order. You look at living things, as well as the patterns generated by stochastic processes akin to the ones thought to be driving natural phenomena like evolution, and what do you see?

Well, I don't know what you see- but what I see is fractals... everywhere.

Our understanding is not complete (is it ever?), but I personally don't believe that's any more reason to ascribe the things we don't understand to causes for which we have no evidence.

[OxQQme]

70. There was a "Karl Rove" 4 thousand years ago

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Ancient_Civilisations_Six_Great_Enigmas.html
<snip>
By WILL HART & ROBERT BERRINGER

We stand today at an unprecedented turning point in human history. In recent years two versions of ancient history have formed. One, we shall call ‘alternative’ history, the other we shall refer to as ‘official’ history. The former ponders over a variety of anomalies and tries to make sense out of the corpus of evidence, i.e., the pyramids and timelines, why they were built, by whom and when. The latter conducts digs, catalogues pottery shards, and tries to defend its proposal there are no enigmas, and virtually everything is explained.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward371.htm
<snip>
It should be readily obvious that the “God” who has been identified as the “Creator of Heaven and Earth” is by definition an extraterrestrial -- inasmuch as creating Earth implies both predating the Earth and not being “of Earth” at the time it was created. This Creator God, however, is not necessarily the God of Genesis, nor the gods and goddesses of the other religions of the ancient world. In fact, mankind may have very little traditional literature which describes this Creator God.

I have 'esoteric' bookmarks up the gazoo and have spent the last ten years studying ancient 'herstory'.
"The Bible" as history is 'his story' and not humanities full story line. As laid out, it teaches FEAR. ie; if you don't do right you'll burn in hell!

[VOX]

71. When I was a kid, a cool pastor said to me, "Who else but God could make..

a man out of an ape?" He said this with a wink and a chuckle. He completely believed in evolution, but in keeping with his calling, gave the "credit" to God.

The ideas of God and evolution do NOT have to be contradictory.

[bertha katzenengel]

72. False. n/t

[scarlet_owl]

78. False. To me, evolution is more of a miracle than

God making things appear. As a religious person and as a person of reason, I don't see any conflict between evolution and belief in God.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. False

The vast majority of mainstream Christians believe in evolution.

When I was growing up in Minnesota (a state with a high level of religious affiliation, especially back then), there was only one student who objected to studying evolution, and he was a Jehovah's Witness. He refused to take biology class because of it, and whenever we had to give reports in a science classes, he would give an anti-evolution report, even in physics class. We thought he was weird.

Nobody ever thought Halloween was demonic or that teachers should lead students in prayer, either.

We did have a school-sponsored baccalaureate service and a Christmas concert, but that seems mild compared to fighting to have valid content removed from the science curriculum. Neither the baccalaureate nor the Christmas concert had any undercurrents of "stick it to the atheists." They were just long-standing customs that everyone repeated without thinking it through. (Most of the students were just as glad to give up baccalaureate, I'm sure.)

This was in a school where there were one Jewish family in the whole town, and only two or three students in my class who had no religious affiliation. Most others were Lutheran or Catholic, with the rest being mostly Methodist or Baptist.

[gtar100]

80. No amount of logic will break through the creationist mind

They revolve their minds around safety and being "saved". Evolution provides no definitive fruition; creationism does. There is a lot of social programming in their minds that has pitted creationism against evolution. It's interesting that from the outside, there is no threat from evolution to faith. That is, unless you lock your faith on something static.

[KitchenWitch]

88. God and Science are not mutually exclusive

IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion)

[Melodybe]

89. True, why can't evolution be God's master plan?

It is so perfect, it makes so much sense, why not?

[spindoctor]

90. I went to Catholic school and was taught all about evolution

Don't forget. The Big Bang theory was first published by a Catholic priest and rapidly embraced by the Vatican.

So yes, there is no reason that Evolution can't be viewed as part of God's plan. It is the fundamentalists who incist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, in which case the world as we know it was created in six days and Methusalem lived to be 524 years old.

oh well.

[Swamp Rat]

92. Other

I like polls. :D

[Selatius]

94. I don't see evolution and God as necessarily mutually exclusive

Rather, I see evolution as evidence of some sort of Creator. The belief in God as revealed through reason and the universe--that's what Deism basically is.

A person can believe in God without believing in the literal interpretation of the Bible. At least, that's my best guess. I don't claim to know the answers of the universe. I'm not that proud.

[mr blur]

95. Well, I understand that Darwin managed it (nt)

[Puzzler]

96. well...

... about the only thing evolution contadicts is the fundamentalists' god.

-P

[Warren DeMontague]

97. When you have an open-ended, all purpose explanation for everything

you can adapt it to fit any evidence or theory. You could even argue that "God", being all powerful, created the universe-- without a God.

Are evolution and belief in the God of western religion (because, really, that's what we're talking about here) mutually exclusive? No, I think the last Pope already settled that hash.

What I always find interesting in these discussions is how many people who count themselves as believers, who seemingly can't even imagine a universe, or even how anything could happen, period- without a God. In that case, no amount of natural explanation of phenomena is ever going to alter the fundamental belief, which is all well and good- but even more reason to remove it from discussion of "science", which is based on theory backed by evidence.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Also: A Belief in Evolution and in Invisible Magic Flying Green Monkeys

aren't mutually exclusive, either.

The credibility level for each is ascertained, at least as far as I'm concerned, by the amount of evidence backing them up - not by the fact that they're not mutually exclusive.

Just a reminder.