Redstate

A sensible discussion. I wish I wasn't at work.

... I'm interested in what you think.

Unless I misunderstand you, you are attempting to either prove or disprove a supernatural event by scientific method.

Let us turn to your reference Wikipedia

The supernatural refers to conscious magical, religious or unknown forces that cannot ordinarily be perceived except through their effects. This word is often used interchangeably with preternatural or paranormal. Unlike natural forces, these putative supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.

For what it's worth I think the "big bang" theory requires no less credulity than believing in the "seven days" version.

great, great resistance to the idea that the earth was round by mostly religious "scientist" as they called themselves. On the other hand there were once alchemist who determined that life could be created in a bottle. Both were wrong of course.

Facts are in a haze for biological evolution, they are strong for geologic evolution and as far as some physics are concerned, have not been disproved at all. For instance; so far there is not a single experiment that has done anything but to reinforce all aspects of the Quantum Physics Theory.

It may very well be that throwing a 10 lbs. metal ball into a concrete wall and me and others observing that wall became damaged is only a theory or hypothesis that it became damaged, but it sure does look that way to me.

For instance; it is my observation that there are no written accounts in any religious doctrine that refer to living with creatures resembling dinosaurs, especially those that were 30-40-50-60-70 feet and more in height and length. Why is that? Were those fossils put there by God? And , if they were why? And, why isn't there any reference to them?

Certainly, if we did indeed live with such creatures someone would have written about them and described them accurately as they have described most things from history to the best of their ability. This probably means God put them there and that they were never alive at all. But why did he do that? What does he want us to do? Is that a test of our faith? Is that what this fossils are all about? My observation says no, but nevertheless, it could be a faith test.

I am very spiritual, and have no problem in the thought of our interpretationn of some things in any religious doctrine as inaccurate. A simple return to my childhood and the experience of going to many different churches in dozens of cities and towns shows me how different each pastor, minister, rabbi or other can interpret and retell their readings. Nor do I have any problem in the thought of many parts of science not being incorrect.

To me, God never meant for anything to be absolute, as everything changes in time, no matter how he created it.

As with earth itself, one day, as both the bible and science note, there will be no earth and it will be destoryed by fire. Wow, in this point they both agree.

He's at least suggesting that the "young earth" part of what some creationists believe could be proven wrong.

I haven't gone as far as characterize the creationists' theory of how the earth and the rest of existence came to be as supernatural.

Do you view the creation story as being outside of just contemporary scientific understanding, or do you think that scientific understanding will never reach the point of being able to explain the creationists' story? In other words, if creationism is supernatural and outside of science now, do you think that will always be the case, or do you think that science will be able to explain the creation story and back the story up with enough observable evidence that an honest scientific person would be able to say that the theory of intelligent creation is the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe?

characterize an act of God?

To attempt to prove an act of God, outside acknowledging it exists, seems to me to border on the futile.

From your construct, creationists would then have the additional burden of poking and prodding the Almighty to prove His existence.

that science to confirm creationism in time. But, I think the other too, that it is the measurement of time that creationist may end up having incorrect.

Given your faith and your mention of destruction by fire, do you think that the events described in Revelations (interpreted tightly or loosely) describes the fate of humans, the fate of Earth, or the fate of the rest of the universe? In other words, assuming that the end times happen with the good people going to a heaven and the sinners going to hell, could sinners escape eternal damnation by fleeing Earth?

Just some random musings...

...because it is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a full blown theory of the original of the universe and all it contains that one has the option of believing or not.

By definition, Creationism cannot be scientifically disproven because it is not a scientific hypothesis. It has not been developed as an hypothesis. The assumptions that would underlie such an hypothesis have not been adumbrated. Those assumptions have not been tested by experimentation. Nor have the design and results of those experiments been published.

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, Darwin's theory was the first scientifically viable alternative account of the origin and diversity of life on earth. Prior to Darwin no consistent alternative existed to the stories of myth and the origin as revealed in various sacred texts.

Darwin's hypothesis that biological diversity can be accounted for by genetic mutation refereed by the viability of the mutations is a scientific hypothesis that has been subjected to 150 years of the testing and revision as the scientific method and tradition requires.

Meanwhile, certain assumptions of the theory of evolution have proven deeply offensive and challenging to those who believe the revealed truth of the original testament of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god must be taken at its word. The faithful believe that human dignity is offended by the assumption that we are descended from "lesser" species and that the creation of Adam and Eve is not literally true. Their beliefs are further challenged by the requirement that evolution as currently understood can only occur over a great deal more time than a literal reading of the original testament would permit.

Creationism is essentially a scientific sounding term for a literal reading of the original testament. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a position taken regarding the validity of the revelation contained in the original testament.

Darwin's hypothesis that biological diversity can be accounted for by genetic mutation refereed by the viability of the mutations is a scientific hypothesis that has been subjected to 150 years of the testing and revision as the scientific method and tradition requires.

All this is fine and good for subspecies mutations. To date there has been no evidence of creation of a new species that can propagate itself. Hybrids such a mules, ligers, wallaroos are sterile.

Added to that there is more art than science in taxonomy (which is being established daily as DNA is analyzed) the identification of species itself is a doubtful accomplishment.

But that's what science does. And sometimes those mysteries that seemed forever hidden to human understanding yield to the inexorable grasping of our curiosity, and become known.

For the record, the formation of the Earth and the solar system is in no way, shape, form, or matter controversial. The formation of the universe is understood back to within 1e-45 seconds after the big bang -- and we're probing deeper. There's still room for God -- but there's also room for no God, if you prefer.

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is 'mere'. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? -- Feynman

my faith is in God (For lack of a better description) in whatever form that may be, because I do not know. My faith is not in a man made book. If there are any relevances between them it is small and sometimes coincidental. (i.e. destruction by fire) and (man will be able to do all things in time [near the end] according to Christian scripture and those related to it).

To be spiritual, for me I cannot exclude all others with differing religions or faiths. All others with different views. All others with polar opposite religious reflection. This to me is absurd. I think translation of religious text is far more likely to be incorrect than current science.

To me all religious doctrine seems to have one overwhelming message, "BE GOOD TO EACH OTHER".

I have no idea the fate of mankind on earth other than what I see that science has provided, and that could be incorrect I realize. I believe God or whatever, never meant for us to ignor and make ourselves stupid. i.e. "The earth is flat".

I have no idea what will eventually happen to the universe either with science or doctrine.

And finally, and most controversial I am sure, I go back when I did decades of work on this subject years and years ago, I think the concept of hell as a total joke. When the Spanish first began the translation in the 1100's they had no idea what "Zero" meant. I am not even going to say here what that ended up doing to the original message, but it was enough for me to dismiss many parts of the biblical text altogether.

As with the idea of creationism, it is defined as being undefinable, not available to scientific scrutiny because it's creation was Godly. So too was the bible to me, it is argued to be created devinely and by God and not available to scientific scrutiny nor available to literal interpretation because we cannot understand those things created devinely.

If you take the literal arguement for creationism and why it cannot be disproven by scientific means, then so too the bible has the same rules apply by biblican definition and cannot be interpreted accurately or literally, but only losely for a general message with nothing specific that it relevant.

If you accept the universality of God then moving off planet is not going to help you. When its over, its over everywhere, fat lady singing or not. :-)

Would I be misrepresenting the creationist views by saying that creationists think that each species on Earth are generally identical to their form when first created by a higher power as described by religious texts?

That is, throwing aside categorizations that humans invent for living things, plants and animals and other living things have basically reproduced since the beginning of time without any significant changes? So, I could go back in time to minutes after the creation and easily identify modern versions of life? (A human is easily recognized as a human, blue jays as blue jays, and so forth.)

If this is the case, then in the eyes of a creationist, are species like Neanderthals and other advanced (but inferior to humans) primates parallel, but extinct species?

... but is there textual support that it is about the end of Earth, or the end of humanity? At one point, there wasn't much of a difference. However I'm wondering how it would be interpreted given modern technology.

Even the young Earth proposition is quite unfalsifiable. It is, after all, quite reasonable to posit that an omnipotent, ineffable God might very well have created a universe which appeared to all scientific inquiry to have existed for many billions of years, even though it may have existed only since, say, Wednesday. An infinite and omnipotent God is hardly to be bothered by concerns of detail or scale; He could, it is supposed, have created the universe, in toto, complete with photons in mid-transit from stellar and non-stellar objects.

Likewise, (macro)evolution is difficult to disprove, because the timespans it is presumed to operate on are far, far longer than a human lifespan--which is practically as good as infinite.

cjkarr "...with the good people going to a heaven and the sinners going to hell..."

Just for clarification, Chritianity does not support your formulation.  We believe everyone is "bad" (sinful), but that belief in Jesus Christ will enable eternal life with God (the opposite of hell.)  

I realize you were simply trying to pose a question, but please, it's just as easy to posit it correctly:

"In other words, assuming that the end times happen with believers in Christ being eternally joined with God, and non-believers eternally separated from Him,  could the latter group escape said separation by fleeing earth?"  

Posing the question accurately answers it precisely, i.e. "No".

Does it upset me that this Christian view is so dominate in America, where it was native American Indians that ruled these lands since the beginning?

Does it upset me that it isn't the Great Spirit that actually created all things, including the Christian God, the Hindu God and all others for the benefit of those people isn't the prominant religion in America? (and there isn't any proof that didn't happen).

No.

It's just as absurd the other way, but the other way has votes and this one doesn't, and many times that seems to be the only difference for those seeking power and discussing this issue.

... though I have one question. In you interpretation, what precisely does separation mean? Does it mean being tortured for the rest of eternity, or is it more along the lines of life will go on, just without the Christians?

Apologies to all for all of my end times questions. I find different people's interpretations of Revelations to be fascinating.

perhaps the only person of earth to make this statement with such certitude.

I see in another post that you are upset about being lumped in with defenders of creationism, and that was the intended target of my remark. Naturally one can debate the precise details but the timeline for the formation of the Earth is quite well established from a variety of evidence.

If you are looking for scientific theories to criticize, the mechanism of evolution seems to me to be poorly understood. Just stay away from knocking astronomy and we'll get along fine...

I do very earnestly believe that science must continuously seek to push the bounds of our understanding, especially into areas that may seem mystical to us at present. This is not to deny the existence of God; as in the Feynman quote I referenced, I think that many times understanding how something works makes it more, not less, miraculous.

The logic goes like this. Because it takes light so long to travel from distant objects to earth, therefore those objects must be at least that old.

The counter argument goes like this. Because God created those distant objects, he can also create all the photons in transit between here and there. It wouldn't do much good for Him to create those awesome sights in the sky if the people He created them for couldn't see them for another several million years...

The problem either way is that possibilities are arbitrarily excluded from consideration which could logically have fit within the context of each theory. To say the photons couldn't have been created is to presuppose that God couldn't or wouldn't create them, i.e. only natural forces could be responsible. To say that the photons were created is to presuppose that natural forces weren't at play. Either way, some form of faith is exercised.

In a scientific context the goal is to seek to eliminate all other explanations. Only then can it be considered beyond doubt. Even then science has a track record of revision. For example, new evidence shows that the universe is actually expanding at an accelerated rate, meaning the previous theory that it would eventually slow and collapse is false. That obviously means the previously "established" timelines are actually wrong. There is an article in Discover magazine about this. (Yes, I know that may come as a shock that I actually read such a magazine.)

At any rate, lets take the constant revisions of science off the table for a moment. The larger point is that the timeline of astronomy can only be considered established if you rule out any supernatural creative events. To do so it to put God in a box. You are essentially saying He could create a star, but not the photons between here and there. That He could create an expanding Universe, but He couldn't have created them across vast reaches of space with an existing motion. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

On the issue of dinosaurs, the Bible is pretty silent. However, there are explanations of earth history in a Biblical context that include living dinosaurs. In fact, there are many evangelicals that believe dinosaurs were on the ark. The Bible mentions categories of creatures, yet not every specific creature. That doesn't mean that the Bible says that trilobytes never existed. In fact, if anything dinosaurs would have likely existed during the rather boring parts of Genesis where only lineages are described (but not during the detailed recounting of Jewish history) along with a few stories about the first murder and first city, etc.

To give an example of an explanation, the Bible makes it very clear that the climate of Earth was radically different after the flood. Rainbows didn't exist before, nor did rain occur. Not only did water fall from the sky, but it spewed from reservoirs buried deep beneath the earth. After the flood, we had regular rain and water vapor in the air.

Combine this with the theory that a dramatic climate change resulted in the extinction of dinosaurs. It is very possible that both coincide and fit. If so, then it would also be reasonable to speculate about them being on the ark. And to deal with the argument of space, I should point out that scripture never said specifically whether the species were young or old. Simple common sense would say that baby animals (and thus small) would be those preserved on the ark. Another note is that scholars are also somewhat divided over the theory of a global flood vs a local flood. So there are many areas of difference, and the above is a presentation of just one of those theories that deals with the issue of dinosaurs.

The larger point is that the timeline of astronomy can only be considered established if you rule out any supernatural creative events. Agreed. The job of science is to explain what we observe. But I think it's important to note that even when science succeeds spectacularly well and removes the necessity for a God, it doesn't mean there's no place for religion. You don't need to postulate that God created the photons in between the stars in midflight to realize the awesome majesty of creation could be reflective of a higher power.    

While we like to speculate about the possibility of hyperspatial travel and warp technology, there is no solid evidence that I am aware of that such things exist and would make interstellar travel possible. Two thoughts come to mind:

1. That interstellar travel may in fact be impossible given our limited lifespans (even including ideas of hibernation). If that is so, then Revelation need not allow for the possibility of an escape from earth.
   
2. Revelation may occur before such technology is developed. If so, there is no need to deal with a possible escape from earthly destruction.

I look at how little we have done in terms of space travel over the decades since we first put a man into space, and I am not overly hopeful about the possibilities of travel to other hospitable planets outside our solar system, much less to nearby planets in our solar system.

You should be hesitant to lump all creationists into one simple category. For more detail on the variations within the "creationist" camp, see this post. Someone like Hugh Ross would postulate exactly what you said above, except he would say that there were non-human precursors to man that no longer exist. Those precursors had no soul or anything else that separates man from the rest of the animals. Young earth creationists generally challenge many aspects of the fossil record.

It is one thing to put scientific efforts to work in collecting data. It is another to postulate about historical cause. The problem with applying scientific experimentation to a historic question, is significant. For example, suppose we create life in a laboratory. The problem then becomes one of proving that such a process occurred naturally on our young planet. In other words, I could document all the prerequisites for a natural occurance of the beginning of life, but the trouble becomes proving that such conditions actually did exist on earth in the past. It is not enough to emphatically state that they MUST have existed that way simply because we are here today asking the question.

Looking at origins of the universe, both rely on supernatural explanations. Whether God exists or not, both explanations rely on a "matter out of nothing" hypothesis. The problem with that is that whether you believe in God or not, it is belief in a supernatural beginning. The question becomes what was responsible for the supernatural event? It is no less silly to postulate that it was God than to postulate that nature produced a supernatural event. It is the question of cause, not of whether the event happened.

The same is true of the question of evolution. Even if the biological timeline is accepted as offered by paleontologists, the question of cause is still outstanding and unprovable. One could say that random chances produced evolution. Or one could say that God supernaturally crafted each step in the progression of the fossil record--just that He did it over a long time.

I find little inconsistency in the old earth vs. the young earth positions. I know that many in each camp tend to look with disdain at those in the other camp, citing ignorance of evidence or weakness of faith, but I find such bickering to be counterproductive and of little benefit. On one hand, confining God in the box of time suggests that He is more like us in temporal perspective than He really is. If God created the universe and authored the laws of physics, including time, then He is more different in perspective from us than we are from ants. IOW, he must exist outside of time and space. On the other hand to put God in the vastness of creation and universe box, we assume limits on His power. IOW, He was limited in creation by the laws of physics and time. I'm not ready to put God in either box and rule it an open and shut case of either faith or geological evidence.

See my last post at the bottom. I honestly believe there is a spiritual case for both old and young creation theories. I have my opinions on the subject. Yet I also recognize that each camp imposes some silent limitations on the nature, purpose, and character of God. That is why I am not very dogmatic about my opinion. I think creationism is a very big tent, and the latest movement, intelligent design, promotes this very perspective.

If that is where our modern Bible comes from, you'd have a good point here. The simple fact is that there are texts traceable back to within a century or two of the writing of each book. And such texts translated today are not dependent on what the Spanish did or did not do in the 1100's. Nor are the problems of the Spanish an invalidation of the text they were translating. If scripture is invalid, you have to find a different argument to present.

I also don't understand how translations are an insurmountable problem when many can read scripture in the language it was originally written in.

... I'd suggest reading Stephen Baxter's "Manifold Space". It's a big-idea hard sci-fi book that deals with some of these issues.

I've heard of this before, but I've always wondered whether there are any paleontologists who support the idea of humans coexisting with dinosaurs. Given the relative richness of the fossil record, wouldn't we find human bones and fossils that are comparable in age using modern carbon and other dating technologies. Have such fossils been recovered?

Also, if there was no rain prior to the flood, how did shallow-rooted vegetation receive moisture to grow? I can't imagine grass being able to grow in an environment with no rain. Given that the potential for evolution is discounted in these circles, the odd situation would arise where we have modern fragile plants growing in arid areas.

Pardon my skepticism, but is there anyone in the scientific community that takes these ideas seriously?

According to mainstream science, a non-supernatural process where swirling disks of dust and stellar mass coalesced and created the solar planetary system. (Astronomically-inclined folk, please step in and correct any misstatements.) In the view of mainstream science, once you get past the initial big-bang, the creation of the galaxies, stars, and planets can be explained using well understood theories such as gravitation and atomic theories. It is not also inconceivable that this can be an observed process (if it's not already) by looking to the stars and observing similar planetary systems forming.

According to the creation story, the creation of the earth and the universe were one and the same. (God taking the void and separating the earth and the sky. Biblical folk, please correct me if I'm wrong.) The origin of the earth is just as supernatural as the creation of the universe, given the involvement of a higher intelligence.

Taking these two theories and evaluating them from a scientific perspective, is it fair to say that the origin story that is not supernatural is superior in a scientific sense to the one that is supernatural. That is, should the pursuit of knowledge using scientific methods place more weight on theories that use ordinary non-supernatural processes than those that rely upon the involvement of supernatural forces for justification? Ockham's razor certainly suggests so.

Thoughts?

Generally, what people refer to as the scientific community (in this context) is the group of people firmly committed to the philosophy of naturalism. Among those people, of course none would affirm anything related to God, much less the Bible. There are Christian scientists and scholars that have invested lots of research into these areas. It is up to you whether you would call them scientists. I see nothing about the scientific method that says you can't believe in God, or that the Bible is accurate while testing your theories and hypothesis.

Yet this reveals the inadequacy of science. Science can test theories today. They can't test historical events. You can't run a series of experiments to prove that Abraham Lincoln existed.

I admit I am unfamiliar with the bulk of research around the topic of the flood and dinosaurs, so I am not a good person to ask to substantiate such theories. I meant merely to point out that such theories exists and have been explored in light of evidence. IIRC, there have been some cave drawings discovered that include pictures of dinosaurs, but I just don't recall for sure. If you are interested, I'd suggest googling, because I don't have any specific book references for you and if I were to provide some it would be from googling myself without knowing the quality of the book(s).

There is a difference between what can be explained and what happened. I could say that my car rolled down my driveway into the alley because I forgot to set my parking brake. Or I could say that someone took it out of my garage and left it in the alley. Both are plausible, but just because one is plausible doesn't make it the factual recounting of what happened to the exclusion of the other possibility.

the creation of the earth and the universe were one and the same.

Not exactly. The creation of other celestial bodies came after that.

is it fair to say that the origin story that is not supernatural is superior in a scientific sense to the one that is supernatural.

No, I don't think that is fair to say. In light of Gould saying that "gradualism has always been in trouble" though remaining the official position of evolutionists (full quote in this post) I don't find it to be necessarily superior. I studied chemistry for a few years. In light of the laws that govern chemical reactions, I see no reason to believe that the process of going from simple low energy molecules and disorder to complex high energy molecules and order is sustainable. Having a degree in mathematics, I see no reason that the science of statistics would support such a theory based on random chance. I also don't believe the science that creates things like Pro-avis out of thin air to explain the transition from reptile to bird is any more reputable as a result of that theory. Nor do I find the science that takes a skullcap, three teeth, and femur and turns it into a very detailed description of Pithecanthropus erectus (accompanied by drawings) to be something of superiority.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying scientists shouldn't pursue knowledge and shouldn't seek to find practical explanations to events. What I am saying is that evolution is elevated to the level of fact in education circles and it need not be. What I see happening is evolutionists postulating things like physics being different in the past to explain away the laws of thermodynamics. Well, why not just say God defied thermodynamics? Why is one greater and the other lesser when one simply avoids the term "supernatural" through symantic gymnastics. I don't even mind evolution taught in biology...as long as its problems are clearly explained. All too often, you only get the pretty side of the evidence without hearing that Gould has abandoned the theory of gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibrium (which sounds a whole lot more like special creation spaced out over a long period of time than it does evolution as taught in high school).

No matter what your belief system, man never coexisted with the big reptiles.

If there is a paleontologist who believes otherwise, he is very, very lonely.

The folks in the scientific community are probably more diverse in their personal beliefs than you might think.  Glumping them all into a naturalism box is no more fair than saying all Christians are fundamentalists who believe in the literal reading of the Bible.

as well as I do the origins, and more than most I have meet to date. A descriptive allegory shouldn't be taken so literally. I cannot go into the particulars about what happened with the Spanish unless you really feel compelled to do so in which case I will try to humor you. But, I think you know as well as me what happened without it having to be spread out over endless entries and personal passages so I will forego that effort and offer this final sentiment if I may.

Many elements of the New testiment can be disputed, and they can be disputed over time, over translation, over interpretation and so on. Any good debate over the issue is fundamentally healthy. I attempt to use instances to reflect and lend to points of arguement only for the end purpose to make a theological point [which by definition is nearly impossible to do]. I truly am not interested in going into every single point that you find contentious or is subject to scrutiny of every level, unless you absolutely must have it that way, in which case again I will try to humor you.

but it sure sounds like "I can't argue with what you just said so I'll just accuse you of being argumentative as a smoke screen"

If you must go into particulars about the Spanish, feel free. However, I'm telling you that it is completely irrelevant to the subject of translations. If we were simply translating today translations of translations from the Spanish, it would be relevant. However, the Spanish are bypassed when we translate the Dead Sea scrolls or other second century NT manuscripts. I fail to see how human failures in translation long after the writing of scripture has any bearing on the validity of early manuscripts. But I'd love to see where my reasoning is deficient.

I clearly wasn't talking about all scientists. The physicist and chemist do not have to invoke philosophy to practice their science. However an evolutionist has to invoke naturalism (which presupposes that no supernatural events have ever had a part in our origins). I know of no evolutionist that is not a naturalist. Do you have any counter examples? [And don't list any old earth creationists, because they are not evolutionists.]

For the sake of friendly discussion I'll find the info. I'll need some time, [trying work, but interested as well. it's remote to find, but compelling nonetheless when found. And, how these instances reflect what was divorced from the bible altogether as so many books were, (it gets better), from the very same sources you've mentioned.

What I am asking is how such issues reflect upon the actual text itself. There is no doubt that translations differ and that humans are fallible. However, noting such things does not by proxy prove that scripture is itself wrong. That is where I have a problem with what you said above.

As an example, the Inquisition simply shows what happens when man twists scripture to support his own cruel ends. It doesn't mean that scripture itself supported the actions and interpretations. So while history is rife with such abuses, they don't present a compelling argument that scripture is the source of the abuse.

The entire issue began with my intonation and "Personal Views" from a question entitled.

"Off-Topic Question"

These personal views are "My" interpretation as, and in the content of, the original question, seems you missed that.

The Inquisition is not my focus whatsoever, and that assuption was incorrect. How I see things because I mentioned that "fire" is something both evolution and theology agree upon as the instrument of final destruction and how that may affect my "personal" views has nothing remotely to do with your necessity to reason that all things must meet your own personal inflections and standards of accuracy that have nothing to do with the point whatsoever.

His book and it's theories are horrendous(excerpt)

First of all, it is not for the faint of heart (1433 pages), or for anyone with anything else to do with his or her life. And second, the writing is so inflated, both polysyllabically and by median sentence length that the dutiful reader cannot help feeling that he or she has been sentenced indeed. Here is a sample outpouring, masquerading as a single sentence:

"On the second branch of full efficacy for natural selection as an externalist and functionalist process, the stunning discoveries of extensive deep homologies across phyla separated by more than 500 million years (particularly the vertebrate homologs of arthropod Hox genes) - against explicit statements by architects of the Modern Synthesis (see p. 539) that such homologies could not exist in principle, in a world dominated by their conception of natural selection - forced a rebalancing or leavening of Darwinian functionalism with previously neglected, or even vilified, formalist perspectives based on the role of historical and structural constraints in channeling directions of evolutionary change, and causing the great clumpings and inhomogeneities of morphospace - phenomena that had previously been attributed almost exclusively to functionalist forces of natural selection. [pg. 26]"

Such billowing clouds of verbal flatulence herald a new phenomenon - the literate bio-terrorist - or maybe a biologically literate deconstructionist, more interested in generating complex clauses than in communicating anything.

Gould is so eager to beat his own drums that objectivity is lost altogether. The interested reader will find essentially no Haeckel or Spencer, a smattering of Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Owen, lots of Paley and Weismann, snatches of Goethe (Gould is fond of archetypes, leading to his soft spot for Goethe's claim that all plant parts are modified leaves), and then: on Theodor Eimer's theory of orthogenesis, and on Alpheus Hyatt's ideas of phyletic life cycles and ontogeny, on C. O. Whitman's orthogenetic analysis of pigeons (from which Gould quotes approvingly that "natural selection waits for opportunities to be supplied, not by multifarious variation or orderless mutation, but by continuous evolutional processes advancing in definite directions"), on William Bateson's search for the causes of discontinuous variation, on Hugo De Vries's "mutation theory," as well as on Goldschmidt's now discredited "systemic mutations" and "hopeful monsters." Of such stuff are 1400-page tomes created, not evolved.

Science can be used to test theories of evolution vs theories of creation.  But first we must agree on our definition of, and scope for, science.  Using your Wikipedia (which seems to be a very good source of information, by the way), I prefer to use the older definition for science (which comes from the Latin word, scientia, and means knowledge).  As I've said before in other posts, even secular historians agree that were it not for Christianity in Western Civilization during the Middle Ages, we would not have science as we know it today.  Up until that time, science had started in older civilizations, but always died an aborted death.  There are many reasons for this, but to give a few reasons:  the God of the Bible seems to want to reveal Himself both through the Bible (His Special Revelation) and through nature (His General Revelation).  Theology became the study of God's Word, Science became the study of nature.  Early scientists EXPECTED to learn more about God and what God has done through a systematic, detailed, verifyable study of nature.  But as Wikipedia nicely points out, "more recently, 'science' has come to be restricted to what used to be called 'natural science' or 'natural philosophy' ".  In other words, science has been REDEFINED to restrict itself to just a naturalistic/ materialistic point of view (probably occurred during the rise of Darwinism).

Nevertheless, models can be developed for both Creationism (permits supernatural events to occur RARELY) and Evolutionism (rejects any possible supernatural events in the past).  One of the great failures for the Creationists are that, although they like to "punch holes" in various Evolutionary models, they rarely are willing to present any coherent/ testable Creation model for Evolutionists to falsify.  But now, thankfully, this situation is beginning to be rectified and the contest can return to a more rational base.

One of the leaders in the Old Earth Creationism points of view is Dr. Hugh Ross.  He and his team of Creationists at Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) are working on a testable Biblical Creation model which can make testable predictions.  If these predictions fail, it casts doubt on the model...but if future scientific findings are in agreement with the model, it gives the model greater credibility. Of course, science will never be able to "prove" absolutely any theory/ model...but it can give a guide to the probability that any particular model may be true or false.

For example, if the universe as a whole was designed for a purpose (such as for the appearance of intelligent life...the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE), as time goes by, scientists will find more and more evidence of "fine-tuning"...ie "design") in the laws of nature, the intitial parameters of the "big bang", the uniqueness of a life supporting solar system and Earth-like planet.  On the other hand, if there is no Designer and everthing is by "chance" via naturalistic/ materialistic means, then scientists will be able to come up with reasonable ways to explain away the apparant "fine-tuning" in nature, scientists will find our solar system is NOT too unique and our planet is NOT too unlike other planets that might also have a chance to support life.  However, over the last 50 years, the evidence for design keeps rolling in.

Similarly, if life originated "by chance" and not by "Special Creation", chemists should be able to come up with a reasonable scenario for how a "simple cell" could have originated (either here on earth, or elsewhere and was then transported here).  However, instead of coming up with a better and better idea as to how this may have happenned, evidence keeps rolling in just how complicated a "simple cell" really is and how impossible all those chemicals could have come together by some strictly naturalistic way.

As for the origin of the species, the fossil record reveals species seem to "pop" into existence in the fossil record, remain relatively unchanged, then go suddenly extinct...only to be replaced by another new species that "pops" into existence with no transitional forms.  This seems to go against traditional "gradualism", or "Neo-Darwinism".  Neo-Darwinism has a reasonable sounding mechanism (small mutations that build up over time and which finally result in a new species).  But the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record seems to falsify this model.  A substitute Evolutionist model called "Punctuated Equillibrium" tries to face this lack of transitional forms in the fossil record by saying that what happens is that as 1 species begins to decline and becomes isolated, the species is stressed and change occurs rapidly until a new species emerges, then undergoes a popultion explosion as more fit to face the competition and the environment.  When the population is small and changing "rapidly", it is unlikely to leave behind any transitional fossil evidence.  This may seem to fit the fossil record, but there is no reasonable naturalistic mechanism for this to occur!  If large numbers of organisms spread over large areas cannot "build up" enough mutations over a long period of time to produce a new species, what do you think is likely to occur to a few organisms under stress in a small area??? (Hint: extinction!...common sense seems to tell us that just from real time experience nowadays).  On the other hand, from an Old Earth Creation point of view with God creating over 6 long periods of time, the fossil record agrees with this...especially with God "resting" after 6 days and no more new species being created after the appearance of mankind in the fossil record.  Evolutionists need to either find more new species in the fossil record after the appearance on man, or come up with a good explanation for the lack of new species since the appearance of mankind.

Then there is the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens.  If we evolved from other "hominids", we should have increasing evidence of this in the fossil record and there should be some DNA evidence for this.  But if mankind is the result of a "special creation" event by God, we would expect a discontinuity in the fossil record and DNA evidence between mankind & other hominids.  The more hominids found in the fossil record, the more cloudy the "evolutionary tree" becomes for mankind.  With every new find, there seems to be a re-shuffling of the evolutionary tree.  It was thought the Neanderthals were related to humans (there is evidence they even co-existed for a while between 50,000-30,000 years ago (more or less).  But this idea was shot down by mitochondrial DNA analysis recovered from some Neanderthal specimens and both old/ recent human specimens...there seems to be NO evidence that we descended from Neanderthals or came from a common close ancestor.  Again, fossil & DNA analysis seems to be running AGAINST Evolution and in favor of Old Earth Creationism.

Whole new fields are openning up (such as information theory) that point out the unlikelyhood of a naturalistic means for the accumulation of complex & specific information needed for the ever increasing complexity of oganisms.

But almost none of these problems with "Evolution" are known by the general public because of the manner in which "Science" has been re-defined to exclude ANY possible supernatural event in the past and in which any contradictory evidence against "Evolution" is not mentioned to students.

It is incumbent upon Creationists to develope more testable Creation models, make conclusions that are testable & falsifiable...and then go test them out.  I believe Young Earth Creation is failing basic tests already...but that is a whole other story.  Nevertheless, it is not impossible to devlope testable/ falsifiable models, but the Creationists have, on the whole, failed to do so.  

That was indeed both thoughtful and agreeable. I believe DNA evidence is much more compelling however, than you present, which is not to say you are incorrect, you are not. It only remains compelling. Since it has been found that every single creature tested so far on earth has giant swaths of interchangeable DNA, (e.g. Banana and man share more than 50% or thier respective genetic information), and (chimps possess approximately 98.4% identitically interchangable genetic encoding) and so on it appears there be lending information toward evolution (NOT CONCLUSIVE). You did not however, neglect to mention this.

On the other hand, although (now) several dozen examples exist to trace some sort of perceived mutation patterning through indeed the fossil record itself, no such record exist for homo genus study.

I also agree with you that the origin of life most likely was inspired in some fashion or another by intellect. In what manner that exist or it's origin may never be know, yet seeking it's foundation is nevertheless an honorable endeavor. By using a model fashioned question "why" does life exist you find answers only in the spiritual, a concept that very well may not be known to the laws of nature or at least restricted by our current knowledge (which you mentioned).

In closing no conclusions can be drawn whatsoever from the current fossil record that supports the idea that humans changed over time or will do so. (Medical studies do however, provide some evidence, but that is off in a different direction, so sorry).

I am not sure whether or not scientific explanations could ever be afforded to explain creationism in it's current form. An adjusted form (as to the timescale and other important variables) on the other hand, could indeed  provide proof positive and evidence of devine creation.

But that is my next post, so I'll end it there.

for even learned theologians to understand.  

To your question, I believe separation from God is itself torture.  Have you ever strongly regretted something and agonized over it for days and days?  It's like that, only a magnitude worse.

  For instance, "If I had only listened instead of trying to convince everyone of my own theory.  Who am I, anyway?  I only lived 70 odd years in what I even then would have acknowledged is a reality - the existence of eternity.  Even if time and space do stop, it's all the same to me without God.  All I had to do was acknowledge His existance and that He sent His only Son to die for me so that I might have eternal life with Him.  It didn't have anything to do with politics, or science, or theories.  Now here I am, alone, cold, and lonely..."

Forgive the melodramatics, I'm not trying to channel the "Left Behind" series, honestly.  But this is my conception of the issue we're discussing.  And all one need do to avoid this is have a little faith and believe that possibly, some way, some how, they are not the center of the universe and that Christ is.  As mentioned in an earlier post, it takes a measure of faith to believe in any of these theories, since none can be proven.  

It is an historical fact, however, that Jesus did live and had many followers.  We use a calendar which revolves around His life and death, we live in great country founded largely by devoutly Christian men, we are despised the world over because we are largely Christian and are hated widely because we dare defend God's chosen people, the Israelis.  Can evolution claim such a pedigree?

If you have not read "The Srewtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis, I strongly urge you to do so.  It is a tour de force of how people's equivocations, justifications, and rationalizations can be used against them by a spiritual adversary.  It is quite illustrative of how easiy folks can fool themselves.  I can guarantee that you will see yourself in those pages.  I did.    

I believe the evolution of Homo Sapiens, for example, from earlier primates has been well established.

Ligers and mules are not mutations. They are the product of cross breeding and have no relation to the primary processes the theory of evolution explores. Modern biology has an explanation for their sterility, by the way, as I'm sure the Bible does as well.

Thought you all might find this thread over at DailyKos interesting in light of our conversation here.

Creationism should be taught to our children is the title.

I don't see that DNA evidence lends itself toward evolution. It is completely inconclusive. I'll give you an example. All cars share huge swaths of core technology in common from doors, to engines, to wheels, etc. One doesn't conclude that they then must have evolved by natural forces or that the commonality was a product of random processes. Quite the contrary. One would conclude that they share a school of thought and technology concerning automobiles, i.e. it is essentially proof of intelligent design, not happenstance. I don't see where the thought of a God-creator necessitates the belief that any life must be very very different from each other. If I were God (and I know that is a dangerous thought to pursue), I would reuse common elements that work too.

It encapsulates the reason I am very apprehensive to break the line between church and state.

Theological discussion aside, that could dilute the meaningful lessons within theology to the point it be indecipherable from anything else lobbed in with it. And, in the end I forsee that it may be Evolution that emerges as the only viable scientific endeavor, leaving it virtually unchallenge by minds that might have been able to form some synapse in other areas of study.

Indeed, I feel it likely that taking a knife to the issues of seperation of church and state and fileting it to conform to one theological ideal, will only install a mandate that will crush the effort through sheer volumn of entries, and again diluting it to the point of it being completely insignificant in the future.

I want to warn with all my heart and good intentions, that I do have reason to think this a viable outcome so please understand it is only a personal view not intended to offend or challenge anyone elses information or beliefs.

I as a man, would too would use one design for all if I could even think in those terms of actually creating a universe. (which I do not pretend to).

Having a single solitary piece of DNA potentially creating everything or what everything was created from is purely, "Inspirational", and beyond my ability to rationally understand in it's full scale.

What do creationists really care about?

1. Science is a monolithic system that tells us how to think.
   
   
2. The Bible is the literal truth. God made all the creatures.
   
   
3. I refuse to believe I'm descended from monkeys and fish and bacteria.
   
   
4. Science is inherently atheistic.
   
   
5. Evolution denies the immortality of the human soul.

Some comments:

Regarding item 1: if you believe that science is a monolithic system then we might as well stop teaching science altogether for all the good it is doing us. Pick up a copy of any of Richard Dawkins books and you will quickly see how contentious the evolutionary biology community is. Science by its very nature is non-monolithic. Scientific truth does not admit of the kind of certainty, reliability and timelessness that religious truth gives us. It is a different animal (pun intended).

Why evolution? The geologists are busy explaining the form of the earth with plate tectonics and glaciation. Thus they are offering counter explanations to Genesis and their accounts require that the earth be much older than 6K years. Why is geology not being challenged as strenuously as evolution?

I think it must be that it all comes down to some combination of the last three items. Creationists do not wish to believe that mankind was not directly created by the deity as described in Genesis. It is about dignity, immortality and mankind's special relationship with God. Somehow we loose all of that with evolution in way we do not with geology or astronomy.

If the last paragraph is correct then the only consistent position would be to deny science a place in our communities. The scientific method which enables our modern technologies (transportation, entertainment, military, etc.) will always push to explain the origin of natural phenomena including human beings. Biblical literalism can co-exist with scientific accounts, I believe, but it will not have the field to itself unless we banish science from our communities--and that would be kind of weird.

I'm not sure why, but we seem to be talking past each other on a couple of things.

If the issue of scripture and translations was what you refer to as a personal view, then ok. But I would say that if you aren't willing to have your views challenged and if you are going to raise a stink about me rebutting them, then you shouldn't express them on a public forum. The problem here lies with you, not me. As you have noticed, I am willing to defend anything I present as a personal opinion on this board. I don't turn around and complain if people challenge them. In another thread, you even made the comment that we are better for the discussion. I agree. It seems you want to selectively apply this when it is convenient.

As for the Inquisition, I was not assuming that was your topic. I was presenting that as an example of something. That is why I lead that comment with "For example..." If I were assuming that to be your topic, such a prelude would not have made sense. In any case, I was pointing out that historical interpretations of earlier writings has no bearing on the actual writings. Many people try to make the case against Christianity based on events like the Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc. The argument is that because those things happened, 1) scripture is a mirror and 2) scripture caused it. This is then used to conclude that scripture must be incorrect since it is so contrary to common sense values. However, that logic is based on many false premises as I have shown. And the Inquisition was simply an example I provided. I still have no idea how Spanish translation problems of the 1100's have any bearing on the legitimacy of second century manuscripts. It seems that unless the Spanish had a time machine accessible, there is no way anything they did could have any bearing on the subject of accuracy of documents that existed long before their time. That was my point.

your necessity to reason that all things must meet your own personal inflections and standards of accuracy

That sounds like code for, "I don't want you to reply to anything I say." I didn't comment on the fire bit because I didn't have anything to say about that. I did have a problem with the other thing you said, so I replied. Of course I am not going to apply your inflections or standards of accuracy...I'm not you. If you want everyone to be like you and post like you, then participating in a public forum must surely be an aggravating experience. You certainly don't hear me complaining that you have no right to apply your own inflections or standards of accuracy to posts or replies. One wonders why you would lodge such a complaint at others? Surely you welcome the challenge of ideas. I know I do. I don't then complain about the challenge itself. Nor do I complain about standards of accuracy or insist that mine should be applied. So I don't really even see where you get the notion that I have insisted what you say I have insisted.

If you want to challenge a stated hypothesis then by all means feel free I encourage it, and indeed seek just that. If you want to harbor reation to personal ideals and views in the form of challenge as if it were fact, then I must say, I know of no one that reflects all their views or beliefs as purely facts, I certainly do not. The seperation of fact and belief I believe is indeed the topic of discussion. I never concluded Inquisition and translation in the same sentense as any related outcome. And, even if I did (according to you) nothing was ever presented as fact, only personal opinion.

My personal notations on the Spanish and their influence is literally thousands of pages with topics ranging to nearly all sides, and what the concept of "ZERO" did to those who were beleaguered to decipher it. But, again it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of response to the author of the topic whatsoever.

I don't disagree with everything you say, but not too far from it. I agree with your general conclusion, but not at all with many things you have said.

1. You treat evolution as synonymous with "science" and then go on to present some monolithic views and conclusions based on that mistake. If you are arguing that there exist some who think that way, fine, you are right. But to say that substantially all creationists think that way is to make the same mischaracterization that you claim they make. The fact is that science, is not inherently biased toward any belief system. Science, such as chemistry, biology, physics, etc. can be practiced with or without any particular religious beliefs. It is inherently not theistic or atheistic. It just requires the belief that supernatural occurances are the exception not the rule in the realm of modern experimentation. It doesn't require the belief that supernatural events never occur anywhere at any time. In fact, the scientific method neatly weeds out the noise that supernatural events might cause through repeated trials. Evolution however precludes the existence of any supernatural events that may have been involved in our origins. It is one thing to say that supernatural events are not involved in creating the results of modern experimentation, and quite another to say that supernatural events have never occured in the past.
   
2. You seem to imply that creationists are simply trying to justify their prejudices while evolutionists are simply presenting the result of rational thought. I am unclear if you really think that, but in any case, it is not necessarily true. Evolutionists are just as prejudiced against any supernatural explanations as creationists are against naturalistic explanations. Both are based on unprovable beliefs. A creationist can apply principles of intelligent design theory and come to a reason based conclusion about origins just like evolutionists do. A chemist can apply thermodynamics and come to conclusions about the viability of the theory of evolution. Mathematicians can apply statistics to the problems posed by evolution and come to conclusions about the viability of the theory of random processes producing the result of life. It isn't a closed system argument either way.
   
3. You also put creationists in a very tight box. Many don't challenge geologic records (to be fair to your point, many do) because they believe God created life and the universe over a long period of time. You seem to think that substantially all Christians have a wooden literal hermanuetic. However, you fail to note that such a hermanuetic is untenable for even the simple things like interpreting parables. Therefore, any thinking Christian must recognize that not all things are meant in a wooden literal sense. And hence some hold Genesis more loosely than others. In fact, the word translated as "day" is also used in other places in scripture to refer to very long periods of time. So no, Genesis is not completely conclusive with regard to the time scale. It is conclusive on the aspect of who did the creating.
   
4. The last paragraph, if correct, doesn't lead to the conclusion you present. The correct conclusion is simply at minimum that evolution shouldn't be taught as undisputed fact. It does not mean all science should be suspended. No Christian I have ever heard of disputes optics or gravity or electromagnetism. All Christians believe that God created the natural laws that govern our daily existence. The only question is whether God occasionally violates those laws, or whether he did once upon a time. So we can absolutely promote the discovery and definition of those natural laws in action. They simply don't promote the notion that natural laws and only natural laws have ever existed since the beginning of time. In fact, you will find that many evolutionists propose that natural laws were once different to get around the fact that we witness none of the processes today that evolution depends on (such as the laws of thermodynamics). In such cases is it so assinine to pose that God bent the laws back in the dawn of time, or is only nature responsible for the apparent violation of itsef? These are great philosophical questions. However, I think I have strayed too far from the point.

The last thing I will say on this subject is that a creationist need not promote the concept that six day creation be taught in schools. There is a very neat solution to this dilemma. One could teach intelligent design theory without teaching doctrine. In fact intelligent design can be taught without endorsing Christianity or any other religion. Intelligent design does not address the identity of the designer, and would be compatible with just about any religion that believes in some form of creationism. Thus it neatly avoids the delicate issues of church/state delineation.

I really don't know what you are talking about anymore. You said:

When the Spanish first began the translation in the 1100's they had no idea what "Zero" meant. I am not even going to say here what that ended up doing to the original message, but it was enough for me to dismiss many parts of the biblical text altogether.

I was responding to the last phrase in particular. If you are saying you dismiss 1100's Spanish translations of the text, fine, I do too. If you are saying you dismiss the source manuscript itself because the Spanish had trouble translating it, then I have a problem with that. I presented the Inquisition as an example of imperfect human reflections of a divine source. Of course there exist problematic translations. It doesn't mean one way or the other that the source is incorrect. It is inconclusive. I'm not sure how you can contest this simple point.

All this is fine and good for subspecies mutations. To date there has been no evidence of creation of a new species that can propagate itself. Hybrids such a mules, ligers, wallaroos are sterile.

This is indicative of a general misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.  As alluded to by other posters, "cross-breeding" has nothing to with the theory; rather, the theory largely rests on the different genetic expressions that occur within a species, and how those expressions may make each individual within a species more or less likely to survive.  Over time, nature "selects" the individuals with the genetic traits most suited to survival in their evironment (this is variously, and broadly, termed "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest").*

A lot of opposition to evolution is based upon a misimpression of what the theory teaches.  And, though I don't have much time to discuss it now, a lot of support for "intelligent design" is based on a misimpression of what science is.

von

*Incidentally, I have a degree in the humanities (economics) and a law degree; my knowledge of science is, literally, at the high school level.  If actual evolutionary biologists are reading this, I'll defer to your better understanding.

you to review the entire entry under the the heading,

"Personally".., above.  

Take the entire statement into account and try to stay with the final point made at the conclusion, this may help direct you to the point of the statement in "context".

Again, my personal views on what the Spanish did was mentioned to be too lengthy and not worth pursuing because of the enormity of the issue, and since it was not part of the point at all, postulate only a positble lending premise if you familiar with the thousands of things that occured and how that affects the text today. You want to know what those views of how I dismiss parts of the scripture because of this part of history and it's outcome came to be, you'll find I offered no explanation for just that reason

that it is personal.

When you throw the word "personally" in that you will get worked up if someone questions what you personally hold as a belief. Fair enough. But I still question why you would state something if you aren't willing to have someone question it, or why you would then turn the discussion to "why we are discussing your personal belief". If you aren't willing to defend it, then simply let it go. I am not willing to continue wasting time defending the fact that I questioned a statement of yours. If you find it a profitable exercise to discuss why we are discussing something, so be it. But I'd rather stick to the original point. If you aren't willing to do that, then we have reached the end of any progress we might make together.

Sorry to but it, but I'm a bit confused by your use of the term "naturalism."  You seem to posit that a naturalism and religious faith cannot coexist with one another.  You're wrong (as the Roman Catholic Church, among others, have observed).  Indeed, it's fair to say that every person who practices science is a naturalist when they are practicing science (contrary to your suggestion, this includes physicists, chemists, astromers, etc.)

Let's be absolutely clear:  Science is the study of natural phenomena.  It is based wholly upon sensory evidence.  By definition, then science cannot assess claims that are non-sensory or extra- or supernatural.  An evolutionary biologist can believe in God (and, contra to your suggestion, many do), but they cannot resort to God in assessing an evolutionary theory.  They can only resort to the natural evidence before them.  (Obviously, if God ceases to be supernatural -- that is, appears and starts building mountains, creating new species of daisy, and making deserts bloom-- science can take him into account as part of the natural world.)

There's a heck of a lot of confusion regarding the nature of science in this thread.  Really, folks, you gotta return to first principles and dictionary definitions:  They are there for a reason.

von

p.s.  My apologies if I've misread you, and the immediately foregoing comment does not apply.

I don't know of any creationist that would disagree with the application of natural selection to the subject of microevolution. That is, the change in frequency of genes that already exist within the gene pool due to environmental factors. What is contended is the subject of macroevolution, i.e. when genes mutate enough such that species actually change into another, diverge into to separate and distinguishable species, life out of primordial soup, etc. We know that genes mutate, but they almost always mutate in a negative and destructive way.

I'd also like to know where intelligent design proponents, particularly those scientists advancing and developing the theory, are misinformed about science.

Ok my man, fair enough, I guess I should be prepaired to defend it, I look at that as so exhausting I did not want to get into it, but, perhaps you are correct, I should let you know what I am talking about.

I have compiled several thousands pages on this particular subject and am more than willing to to share and send them to you or provide a link where you can read it. I'll need some time of course. This will be between me and you and I offer my most endearing invitation for you to comment on it as I appreciate your views and enjoy these topical antidotes.

Please understand the firestorm some of these views I know will cause, is of course is my reasoning of why I did not include such desciptives, but in your case I would be happy to provide these views, no matter how opposed you may be, the discussion nonetheless is indeed healthy.

All in all I do hope you saw the overall message of the post in the context in which it was intended.

new species of daisies would be appearing all the time, would they not?  If not, according to evolution, why not?  

However, and I know you must roll your eyes at these constructs, several hundred new species have been discovered in just the last few years in the oceans (info provided by search engine querry) We do not know if these are new or old do we?

Warrior --

new species of daisies would be appearing all the time, would they not?

No, that's not true.  If I recall HS biology correctly, the theory of evolution predicts that plants/animals/etc. require thousands of years (or more) to diverge on the species level as well as an environmental pressure that causes the divergence.  There are examples of micro-evolution, of course, but nothing on the level of species.

The original point was about cross-species hybrids, which have nothing to do with evolution -- as I point out and your response tacitly concedes.  

We know that genes mutate, but they almost always mutate in a negative and destructive way.

What?  Again, my understanding of biology is at the high school level, but this strikes me as a strikingly false statement.  Genes mutate all the time, and virtually all mutations are neither positive nor negative.  Remember, too, the time frames involved (thousands of years) and the relatively small genetic differences involved (fractions of a percentage).  

Obviously, I'll considering revising my argument if you point me to data showing otherwise, but you haven't pointed to data.  Only assumptions that seem out-of-whack to both my distant memory of my education and common sense.  

I'd also like to know where intelligent design proponents, particularly those scientists advancing and developing the theory, are misinformed about science.

Everything I've read about intelligent design indicates that it is a critique of evolutionary theory, not a theory itself.  The distinction is important.  A theory must produce testable predictions that distinguish it from other, competing theories.  Far as I know, intelligent design has never done so.  

It is very clear that naturalism and a belief in the existence of supernatural events are diametrically opposed. The definition is such:

2 : a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

Now tell me how you can hold that view and also hold the view that supernatural events (whether from God or something else) were responsible for the creation of life. Remember this is a study of what happened a long time ago. We can't directly test what happened through the scientific method, any more than the scientific method can prove that Abraham Lincoln was a real person.

A scientist (excluding the field of evolution) doesn't have to be a naturalist to study nature. It is very clear that supernatural events are the exception, not the norm. Therefore you can study nature, you can study physics, chemistry, statistics, etc without believing in naturalism (that science is sufficient at explaining everything. Recall that a scientist can study physics and still believe that death results in supernatural spiritual events such as going to heaven etc. Such a person while studying nature doesn't believe that all phenomenon can be explained by scientific laws. He is merely studying the things that can be explained by scientific laws.

Hence the scientist doesn't necessarily have to believe in naturalism (which is all inclusive), though the evolutionist, by definition believes that natural laws alone are adequate for explaining all questions of origin.

The evolutionary biologist that believes in God has some difficulties to overcome. "What made God?" comes to mind. "Who is this God character and what gives Him the authority to tell me what to do?" is another that comes to mind. It is certainly incompatible with any view of God that has him creating anything. And if you cite pantheistic beliefs to make the point that they can coexist in a bizarre way, fine. But most religions reject pantheism. I'm not suggesting you can't find an evolutionary biologist with a tortured belief system somewhere. But I challenge you to find one prominent evolutionary biologist who maintains a faith (any faith) in God.

Really, folks, you gotta return to first principles and dictionary definitions:  They are there for a reason.

Yes, I encourage you to do so. You'll find that I have broken down the situation quite accurately.

Genetic mutation has been established many times as a postive outcome when found, and is indeed considered advantageous.

The genetic marker CCR5-delta 32 is the culpret and is certainly a mutation.

Strangley, I have been tested for just such a marker from my Irish/English background, so have family members. My mother has (2) two markers, she