Evolution AND Creationism

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:57 pm

I deliberately didn't put "vs." in the title. That's because most people believe that evolution implies that God doesn't exist and therefore cannot coexist with Creationism.

I disagree. The Creator of the Universe created many systems. Electromagnetism and gravity are just two of them. The constants of the Universe such as the acceleration of gravity, the speed of light, Plank's constant, and Pi are set in such a way as to make life possible. Life will always try to survive and procreate. Intelligence is sucha wonderful survival trait, that where life evolves, so will intelligence. That implies another system to me.

So why can't Evolution just be another of God's systems?

I laugh when people point out that evolution is just a "theory." When does a theory become a theorem (fact)? Easy, when it can be proven that it works for every single condition or example possible. That's why the Pythagorean Theorem is not a theory. It works for every single right triangle possible.

For Evolution to become a theorem, we would have to examine all life on every planet in every galaxy in the Universe to make sure that there is not a counter example. That is flat out impossible, but one thing is already proven....

Evolution explains every single example on this planet.

So I believe that Science and Religion do not have to be mutually exclusive:

Science tries to explain HOW the Universe works.

Religion tries to explain WHY the Universe works.

There shouldn't be any friction at all!:o

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:14 pm

I agree, but what is needed is for both sides of this issue, who do not agree, to look into this possibility. Come up with a way to do that and you might even be able to bring about a solution for world peace..............

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:41 pm

God created Evolution.

He created it in seven days.

Those seven days were long and boring - cable not having been invented yet - so boring that it seemed to take millenia to pass.

Just this second a thought came to me. Why would God go to all the trouble of making the laws of nature, only to break them? I mean, it's not like he was in a hurry or anything.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:44 pm

Personally, I believe that evolution is nothing more than adaptation to the environment. I do not believe that anything evolves, a term that implies improvement. The adaptation is very subtle that we miss important nuances and believe that something has evolved when instead, it has merely adapted.

For instance, while we, as a race, have advanced technologically, we have forgotten the skills we had before, such as lighting a fire without matches. Matches are often carried as a vital item when hiking and camping, but if they get wet, you could be in a lot of trouble. Striking flints, spinning wood, and so forth are known about, but a lot of people simply haven't practised the skill which can be hard work. A magnifying glass would be better.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:45 pm

johnkellycrossland wrote: "VS." doe not change the fact the this is GOD you are speaking of...

True enough, that's my point. It's possible to believe in a Creator, and still believe in evolution.

Why all the rants, raves, and general anger to this subject?

And the threads on Church and State, HOLY COW?!

Since the dawn of time, the subject of "Why are we here?" has been a hot one.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:32 am

Jives wrote: True enough, that's my point. It's possible to believe in a Creator, and still believe in evolution.Let me see whether we agree on meanings, Jives. Presumably, the idea of God as a first cause demands that God is (and was when these "constants of the Universe such as the acceleration of gravity, the speed of light, Plank's constant, and Pi" were "set") self-aware? An idea of God being at any time unaware of His own existence would leave me puzzled about what you mean by the word.

Presumably, also, when one talks about God loving people to the extent that "not one [sparrow] will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father", this is the same God being discussed. The same God who responds to prayers today carries the same memories and nature as the God who created all things before time existed - this is the same Being, the same Person?

We would agree that there are no particles in the universe which span the same range, no planets, stars, galaxies, or energy that existed over the same frame of reference?

If that's the God we're talking about, He seems far more likely to me to be an invention of man than an entity.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:43 am

I don't think our lack of understanding of the mysteries of God is a valid point. Things 'are or are not' and it isn't based on what "we understand it to be".

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:53 am

SOJOURNER wrote: I don't think our lack of understanding of the mysteries of God is a valid point. Things 'are or are not' and it isn't based on what "we understand it to be"I've carefully avoided the mysteries of God, I'm checking that we're singing from the same dictionary before voicing an opinion. A prime source of confusion is people using the same word to refer to two different things.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:56 am

spot wrote: I've carefully avoided the mysteries of God, I'm checking that we're singing from the same dictionary before voicing an opinion. A prime source of confusion is people using the same word to refer to two different things.

Wouldn't that also be true with discussions between believers and non-believers. Different source?

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:11 am

SOJOURNER wrote: Wouldn't that also be true with discussions between believers and non-believers. Different source?I'm sure anyone can debate anything intelligibly so long as they place the same weight and meaning on the words they employ. Half the battle is agreeing the meaning of the words. Getting that part of the ground transparent leaves the debaters in a position to see the points being made, instead of reading their own interpretation into what's been said.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:15 am

spot wrote: I'm sure anyone can debate anything intelligibly so long as they place the same weight and meaning on the words they employ. Half the battle is agreeing the meaning of the words. Getting that part of the ground transparent leaves the debaters in a position to see the points being made, instead of reading their own interpretation into what's been said.

I think it is important to have a mutually valid source also. Otherwise how do you begin to respect the others viewpoint? Maybe some things are not debatable in a totally logical manner??

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:24 am

SOJOURNER wrote: I think it is important to have a mutually valid source also. Otherwise how do you begin to respect the others viewpoint? Maybe some things are not debatable in a totally logical manner?I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just not sure which source I have used here that you'd want to find an alternative for. As far as I can see, I've only used one quoted source, the NIV Matthew Chapter 10, for one incidental comment. Are you saying I should find souces for other points? If so, which points? All the rest that I wrote were questions designed to agree terms.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:33 am

spot wrote: I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just not sure which source I have used here that you'd want to find an alternative for. As far as I can see, I've only used one quoted source, the NIV Matthew Chapter 10, for one incidental comment. Are you saying I should find souces for other points? If so, which points? All the rest that I wrote were questions designed to agree terms.

I was talking in general terms, not specifically taking issue with you.

Aside from coming to agreement on what words mean, the source has to be acknowledged by both parties, also, to go further into a debate -- otherwise it is just a discussion..............

I was discussing. Apparently you were wanting to debate.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:37 am

SOJOURNER wrote: I was discussing. Apparently you were wanting to debate.Not at all, I was putting a question to Jives, who I hope will join in when he comes online. I agree with you entirely that sources, where used, have to be agreed as authoritative by both sides. I agree also that the point is irrelevant so far in this thread.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:44 am

spot wrote: Not at all, I was putting a question to Jives, who I hope will join in when he comes online. I agree with you entirely that sources, where used, have to be agreed as authoritative by both sides. I agree also that the point is irrelevant so far in this thread.

I see. I'm sure Jives will be along any time now................. I did not know it was a private conversation. I'll just lurk here and learn.............

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:46 am

This is the problem with not seeing a face in conversations like this. I'm certain, Sojo, that you misinterpreted Spot this time. :-6

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:51 am

Accountable wrote: This is the problem with not seeing a face in conversations like this. I'm certain, Sojo, that you misinterpreted Spot this time. :-6

and I thought I was just making light of it.............

(see the green grin on the smilie)

Pssssssssssss. I cannot lurk if you call me out............

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:52 am

SOJOURNER wrote: I did not know it was a private conversation.The conversation isn't private. It's a public thread. My question was addressed to Jives, which is why I said "I was putting a question to Jives". I have no problem with the thread branching out or other people picking up on my comments - it wouldn't be my place to dictate what gets posted, even if I'd started the thread which I didn't. I don't see that I've disagreed with anything you've said here, either. I've merely asked why you think sources are relevant to what I wrote.

bigdaddy · Post by **bigdaddy** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:53 am

May I inquire if the discussion is evolution v creationism, or the existence of God?

I am asking for clarification before adding my own 2 cents worth, little that they are.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:57 am

Jives said:

Evolution AND Creationism

I deliberately didn't put "vs." in the title. That's because most people believe that evolution implies that God doesn't exist and therefore cannot coexist with Creationism.

I disagree. The Creator of the Universe created many systems.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:00 am

SOJOURNER wrote: and I thought I was just making light of it.............

(see the green grin on the smilie)

Pssssssssssss. I cannot lurk if you call me out............

:yh_doh

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:03 am

bigdaddy wrote: May I inquire if the discussion is evolution v creationism, or the existence of God?

I am asking for clarification before adding my own 2 cents worth, little that they are.Jives started the thread by refering to "The Creator of the Universe" and "God" in the first post. I'm checking what he means by God. Many people, myself included, have a relationship with reality which we enterpret as a relationship with God because we need words and that one happens to fit conveniently with other people's accounts of their own experiences. I have no idea or interest in whether what I talk with is the Creator of the Universe, but it doesn't relate to or overlap with my own limited understanding. I have a view on evolution, but my use of the word God doesn't extend that far, I use other language in discussing it. My query to Jives is intended to tease out the meaning he employs with the words he's used in this thread.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:05 am

Accountable wrote: :yh_doh

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:05 am

bigdaddy wrote: May I inquire if the discussion is evolution v creationism, or the existence of God?

I am asking for clarification before adding my own 2 cents worth, little that they are.Were you hoping that it is versus, or isn't?

bigdaddy · Post by **bigdaddy** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:22 am

spot wrote: Jives started the thread by refering to "The Creator of the Universe" and "God" in the first post. I'm checking what he means by God. Many people, myself included, have a relationship with reality which we enterpret as a relationship with God because we need words and that one happens to fit conveniently with other people's accounts of their own experiences. I have no idea or interest in whether what I talk with is the Creator of the Universe, but it doesn't relate to or overlap with my own limited understanding. I have a view on evolution, but my use of the word God doesn't extend that far, I use other language in discussing it. My query to Jives is intended to tease out the meaning he employs with the words he's used in this thread.

Thank you, Spot. So do you think that your relationship with reality is similar to other's experiences with what they term as God? If you have a talking relationship with it, is it God, conscience, an entity, or an unknown?

I understand that you trying to ask Jives to elaborate more on his original post.

bigdaddy · Post by **bigdaddy** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:24 am

Accountable wrote: Were you hoping that it is versus, or isn't?

I would like to see the term versus in it, but the area of interpretation is larger then that. I think each individual will present a unique view on their own concepts conerning evolution and creationism-whether they are compatible terms or not.

I do not think they are.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:43 am

bigdaddy wrote:

I do not think they are.

Why not?

okay, okay, so I'm a noisy lurker.............

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:44 am

bigdaddy wrote: I would like to see the term versus in it, but the area of interpretation is lager then that. I think each individual will present a unique view on their own concepts conerning evolution and creationism-whether they are compatible terms or not.

I do not think they are.Why wouldn't they be? I mean, I can see some people arguing that they do cancel each other out, but must they?

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:48 am

bigdaddy wrote: Thank you, Spot. So do you think that your relationship with reality is similar to other's experinces with what they term as God? If you have a talking relationship with it, is it God, conscience, an entity, or an unknown?Do I think that my relationship with reality is similar to others' experience with what they term as God? Absolutely. I wouldn't be so interested in their experiences otherwise. Neither would I learn so much about my experience by comparing what they say with what happens to me. Is it God, conscience, an entity, or an unknown? I have no idea, so it's an unknown. Applying Occam's razor suggests that what happens is a consequence of my own consciousness and the nature of reality, rather than an external Being. Other people's interpretations include a whole range of explanations. I have no idea how to penetrate the veil of reality, I don't believe it's possible from a human perspective. They key word there is "believe". If someone's belief system includes an external Being, then that's what they work with.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:05 am

spot wrote: An idea of God being at any time unaware of His own existence would leave me puzzled about what you mean by the word.

I'm with you there. If God were not self aware, then what possible motive ould he have for Creation? My personal theory is that he was incredibly lonely, why else create intelligent life, if not to live through them and keep him company?

The same God who responds to prayers today carries the same memories and nature as the God who created all things before time existed - this is the same Being, the same Person?

Yes, I'm thinking the same thing, although I have to admit with the advances made in membrane theory and the possibility that therre are an infinity of Universes, the Creator begins to take on mammoth proportions. Still doesn't stop Him from existing, just makes his existance boogle the imagination. And I'm just as guilty as anyone of personifying him, giving him human characteristics. It's possible that he is far from human.

We would agree that there are no particles in the universe which span the same range, no planets, stars, galaxies, or energy that existed over the same frame of reference? If that's the God we're talking about, He seems far more likely to me to be an invention of man than an entity.

Entity seems a perfect word for Him. A being that is all-seeing, and all-knowing, intermixed at the very subatomic level with every bit of matter in the Universe. The string theorists gave me an idea. If, at the basis of every sub-quark, there is nothing but a vibration wave, and it is this wave that gives rise to differeing forms of matter, why then there must be a quadrillion (just a number that I can get around in my head, most likely it's much, much bigger.) of vibration waves all interacting at once.

Here on Earth, we call that a song. So if the Universe is a song, doesn't that imply a singer?

Thus...All Creation is a song in the mind of God.

That thought has a beauty and simplicity that I find comforting. Truth? Who knows?

You and I sit here, the product of millions of years of evolution arising from self-replicating molecules that formed from the heavy atoms blown apart from a star, then condensed here.

Thousands of miles apart, we flash our thoughts across to each other in streams of electrons, contemplating not the incredible process that brought us here, but the possiblity that some "entity" designed and started this process, and is even possibly still guiding it.

It's a freakin' miracle, life is. That's what makes me believe in God.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:20 am

Far Rider wrote: My definition of science: How God makes things work.FR, science is a process, it's a technique. A rough sketch of the technique is

Define the questionGather information and resourcesForm a hypothesisPerform experiments and collect dataAnalyze dataInterpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesesPublish results.The bit in the middle is usually taken as a repetitive cycle rather than a step.

As for the ape-man link, where does the fossil record come into your thinking? The changing shape of human skulls as you go deeper back in time, until you reach a branching point which ties together ape fossil changes with man fossil changes? The 19th century evolution-deniers just said as a matter of belief that God laid down the fossil record when creating the planet. It never struck me as a likely explanation. Obviously it could be true, who can tell? If you believe it then that's an end of the enquiry. If you refuse to put credence in juju magic then it's an uncalled-for complication of what seems to be a far simpler mechanism. So long as belief overrides enquiry, then there's no point of contact between these ways of thinking.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:31 am

Thank you Jives, that's a lot of thinking.

I have no problem with the Creator beginning to take on mammoth proportions (though it conjures a wonderfully blasphemous cartoon image in my head). And I agree with the elegance of the song - Tolkien starts the Silmarillion with a great evocation of that metaphor. Nothing in your post indicates why you relate that aspect of Creation with the personal voice who answers prayer, though. What, other than belief, makes you connect the two, since they seem so wildly unassociated?

As to flashing our thoughts across to each other in streams of electrons, just bear in mind that I need mine back, they're a loan not a gift. I sound far too positive already without losing more.

bigdaddy · Post by **bigdaddy** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:42 am

Occam's Razor: One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything..................since one Entity is at question, that doesn't make the requirement of understanding more difficult but easier.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:49 am

bigdaddy wrote: since one Entity is at question, that doesn't make the requirement of understanding more difficult but easier.My universe includes, evidentially, me. Introducing anything besides me involves interpretation of my experiences. I am the only given entity for which I need no evidence.

bigdaddy · Post by **bigdaddy** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:53 am

The universe revolves around me, every night when I return from work.

Since you need no evidence for yourself, what other forms of evidence do you require for the existence, of anything else? The topic is evolution and creationism, what empirical evidence do you have for evolution?

I am asking for specifics....................thank you.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:18 am

bigdaddy wrote: Since you need no evidence for yourself, what other forms of evidence do you require for the existence, of anything else? The topic is evolution and creationism, what empirical evidence do you have for evolution?

I am asking for specifics....................thank you.I was paraphrasing Descartes, who saw only the necessity of recognising his own existence as a given irreduceable fact. In the same way, I'm content to go from that basic assumption to my extended knowledge of the remainder of the universe by observation and rational enquiry.

What empirical evidence do I have for evolution? Quite simply, the fossil record. It's empirical to the extent that I've dug fossils from cliff-faces myself, and I consequently and reasonably accept the word of others that their museum collections aren't faked. I see in them frozen snapshots of forms of life which have been and gone. I accept the radio-isotope dating of the finds in that I don't doubt the integrity of the researchers who published them. I can see with my own eyes the patterns of change and complexity between succeeding species which have built as time passes.

As for accepting evolution as the mechanism for such change, I have a fair grasp of the mechanism of genetic inheritance, the nature of random variation, and the reasonableness of the idea that random changes which provide improvement to the chance of survival can accumulate over time.

The alternative creationist viewpoint of Divine intervention in nature creating a fully-formed working ecology without invoking such mechanisms seems needless. The central aspect of creationism in particular, that the species homo, Man, is not a consequence of the same evolutionary mechanism, seems especially needless.

Perhaps now would be a good moment for you to add your own 2 cents worth?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:44 am

Jives.

My personal theory is that he was incredibly lonely, why else create intelligent life, if not to live through them and keep him company?

KJV, Genesis 1:26

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." God was not alone. There are several verses in Genesis where this is indicated in this manner.

This particular verse also answers another of your statements,

And I'm just as guilty as anyone of personifying him, giving him human characteristics. It's possible that he is far from human.

Clearly, we were made in God's image and the image of those that were with Him.

It's a freakin' miracle, life is. That's what makes me believe in God.

I certainly agree that life is a 'freakin' miracle'. Nonetheless, whether this is an indication of God's existence or not, I simply cannot imagine absolute nothing. I find it easier to imagine infinity.

bigdaddy · Post by **bigdaddy** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:47 pm

spot wrote: I was paraphrasing Descartes, who saw only the necessity of recognising his own existence as a given irreduceable fact. In the same way, I'm content to go from that basic assumption to my extended knowledge of the remainder of the universe by observation and rational enquiry.

What empirical evidence do I have for evolution? Quite simply, the fossil record. It's empirical to the extent that I've dug fossils from cliff-faces myself, and I consequently and reasonably accept the word of others that their museum collections aren't faked. I see in them frozen snapshots of forms of life which have been and gone. I accept the radio-isotope dating of the finds in that I don't doubt the integrity of the researchers who published them. I can see with my own eyes the patterns of change and complexity between succeeding species which have built as time passes.

As for accepting evolution as the mechanism for such change, I have a fair grasp of the mechanism of genetic inheritance, the nature of random variation, and the reasonableness of the idea that random changes which provide improvement to the chance of survival can accumulate over time.

The alternative creationist viewpoint of Divine intervention in nature creating a fully-formed working ecology without invoking such mechanisms seems needless. The central aspect of creationism in particular, that the species homo, Man, is not a consequence of the same evolutionary mechanism, seems especially needless.

Perhaps now would be a good moment for you to add your own 2 cents worth?
Thank you, Spot.................*reaching into pocket for some change*

It would be interesting to be very specfic and discuss a specific fossil record, which we can do later on in this thread. I understand the principals of genetics, evolution, etc. This does not mean that I necessarily believe that evolution and/or creationism can be considered as mutually exclusive. Creationism believes that all living creatures were created by God, not just man alone. This does not involve the concept of evolution, from a Biblical viewpoint, because that does not exist.

Some people seem to have no problem meshing evolution and creation as compatible concepts-I just do not perceive them as working together harmoniously to explain the presence of the current universe, and our life forms here on Earth. I therefore, am more inclined to support the theory of creationism.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:55 pm

spot wrote: Not at all, I was putting a question to Jives, who I hope will join in when he comes online.

I'm back, what's the question?

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:02 pm

Jives wrote: I'm back, what's the question?http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=34 just before the question mark, you can pick up there.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:25 pm

bigdaddy wrote: It would be interesting to be very specfic and discuss a specific fossil record, which we can do later on in this thread.I'd hate to give the impression of knowing fine detail, but I suggest that we can take http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/ex ... ution.html as our starting point - it seems to give examples in the sort of detail we've been discussing. If you want us to get tighter in, you can propose alternatives or I'll find supplemental pages.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:28 pm

spot wrote: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=34 just before the question mark, you can pick up there.:yh_rotfl smartass!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:10 pm

Spot writes:Nothing in your post indicates why you relate that aspect of Creation with the personal voice who answers prayer, though. What, other than belief, makes you connect the two, since they seem so wildly unassociated?

You're right, I left that out. My belief has to do why my beliefs on the reason for Creation. Why would a omnipotent, and all-powerful being create such a construct as the Universe with it's myriad of lifeforms (on Earth at the very least, if not everywhere) and it's awesome majesty and variety?

The only reason I can think of is to consider what it must be like to be an all-powerful being in a vacuum. What coud possibly be more boring than sitting alone in a black realm of hyperspace with nothing to sense, and nothing to experience?

I believe God created the Universe so that He, himself could live through his creations. What a wonderful adventure it must be to experience every breeze passing down every moutain, every wave on every shore, and every thought, emotion, passion, and action of every living creature in all the Universes!

The Bible backs me up a little on this with it's "God is in the rocks and the trees. God sees everything." point of view.

So to boil it down to one sentence, "God's mind created the Universe because He, himself, wanted to live." Hmmm....

either that, or he was bored and lonely. They both work.:-2

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:12 pm

Oh, and I forgot, that's how he can both hear and answer prayer, after all he is inside your own mind and atoms, and therefore knows what you will pray for before you do.:-2

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:19 pm

Jives wrote: Oh, and I forgot, that's how he can both hear and answer prayer, after all he is inside your own mind and atoms, and therefore knows what you will pray for before you do.:-2Might I refer you to a theological treatise called "Bruce Almighty" for a detailed analysis of that question.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:24 pm

bigdaddy wrote: what empirical evidence do you have for evolution?.

Sure thing: Spencer Well's recent "Journey of man" Documents very clearly our own evolution as we traveled across the planet. DNA doesn't lie.

http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail255.html

Then there's this:

http://gwgilc.people.wm.edu/PDFs/HG_Sci00.pdf

And this:

http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Avise_1992_MolBiolEvol.pdf

But by far the most comprehensive and esiest to understand is this site:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures.

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory.

In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory.

Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact.

That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionallyÃ¢â‚¬â€taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:29 pm

Jives wrote: Why would a omnipotent, and all-powerful being create such a construct as the Universe with it's myriad of lifeforms (on Earth at the very least, if not everywhere) and it's awesome majesty and variety?That, I think, is a major problem that was posed as long ago as by Epicurus, three hundred years before Christ: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not Omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" I assume that biblical literalists set that question aside because their degree of belief overrides their ability to face the question honestly. Describing man as possessed of free-will rather ducks the question of the extent of the evil consequences of natural acts, even if it (possibly) excuses His non-intervention in man-made unpleasantness.

I find it far easier to find God impotent and powerless but good.