New Findings on Evolution

[Bando]

Ok, maybe I'm not understading you. How does natural selection, though, say anything about God?

[hifigator]

bando said:

Look, I don't know what these new discoveries imply, but you could use part of the same argument you use to say there is a Higher Power guiding it. I'm not saying it proves a Higher Power is guiding it only that the discovery does not imply natural selection.

No, you can't. You have no evidence that a higher power exists, nor do you have any previous evidence of a higher power existing, nor is this evidence of a higher power existing. Stig explained exactly why this fits with natural selection, and even helpfully summarizing said concept. Saying "no it doesn't" is not a rebuttal.



This is a monumental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, nay, the entire scientific method itself. First off, the cartoons you talk of are not the evidence, you silly person, they're simply the means by which said evidence is simplified for consumption by a lay audience. Are you seriously basing your objections to the diagrams in your seventh grade science book? Really? Second, the fossil record is not the sole evidence for evolution, this is just a straw man. You apparently have never heard of gene studies, nature observation, and you know, the rest of the science on evolution!!!! Third, science is about making conclusion about the world around us based on evidence we obtain through experiment and observation. If the evidence changes or become s more complete, the conclusions change too. We don't know everything, and science doesn't claim to, either. Contradictory or more complete evidence changes our conclusions. The creationists are the ones who stick to their story despite all evidence to the contrary.



Sweet Lord, this is very, very wrong. You do realize that there's not a fossil of everything that ever lived in all of history, right? This is because certain conditions must exist to make a fossil, everything that dies simply doesn't fossilize. In addition, fossils aren't made of adamantium; they can be destroyed just like anything else in this world.



You're saying that you don't understand evolutionary theory, therefore it's a weak theory. That's poppycock. Try educating yourself. Talkorigins.org is a good place to start.



What?!? Please provide evidence of God's existence, and then provide any evidence of His nature or manner of observing time. I'm not denying God's existence here, I'm just saying that it's impossible to say anything at all about His nature or perception, and I think it's presumptuous to do so. Nevertheless, posting some platitude about the way God sees time does nothing to contradict over a hundred years of scientific inquiry into evolutionary theory.



So how can you possibly know any of this, if it's beyond all human observation? Wouldn't then learning by our observations be the best way to go, as all other ways of knowing are unavailable to us? I would think we should base our conclusions off of solid evidence, rather than things we can't know.

To wrap up:

Anything is possible.

But everything is not probable or plausible. And all things aren't equally plausible or probable.

I don't have the patience to break this down one by one, but I will try to address a few major points.


1. ed never said he could prove the existence of the higher power. Nor does he need to. What he did say was that the existence of one, doesn't have to be incompatible with evolutionary theory.

2. Your little baseless barb of "silly person" aside, the point with regards to the cartoon is that the theory is presented as fact and specifically one which works in an identified and definable progression. The evidence isn't in the cartoons themselves, you silly person. The evidence (presumably) came first and the conclusions were in theory based on that evidence. Secondly, I am not ignoring other evidence for (or against for that matter) evolution. I am merely not addressing it in this particular point. What I am saying is that the fossil record is often used to "support" the evolutionary theory. It is very reasonable to question that. If the standardly accepted theory of millions upon millions of slight mutations happened and over time the natural selection process left us with the enormous speciation which we now have, then the lack of evidence of just ONE of these intermediary species is astonishing. This doesn't prove either view, but to deny the that the lack of such evidence at least places the theory on somewhat precarious grounds is just plain silly.

3. I understand that by definition, only some fossils will remain intact. I am not denying the existence of some and the destruction of others. Nor am I denying the timeline associated with such fossils. Again, I am questioning the, at the very least, suspicious lack of evidence of just one of these intermediary species, since such dramatic variation occurred via so many millions upon millions of mutations and evolution.

4. I never said, nor implied that I didn't understand evolutionary theory. In fact I have probably done more research, and read more books on the subject, than 99% of the people here. As something that interested me as a kid, I did several papers on the subject and then ultimately selected the topic for my science project as a junior in high school. In the 20 plus years since then, I still go out of my way to read new information on the subject. That's not to say that I am therefore the expert, just that I am not flying off half cocked, not knowing what I am talking about. Again, I have said all along that I do not have a problem with evolution and am of the opinion that much of the common evolutionary theory is accurate. That still doesn't mean that you don't ask questions as to other parts.


5. Lastly, you totally misunderstood the issue of "appearance of age." That is a very sound argument which you may or may not agree with, but it is totally sound. If someone is of the opinion that a creator did in fact create everything we see, then the appearance of age doesn't refute that belief. If a designer had designed our world as we see it, he could easily have done so over periods of "time" as we know it. That would be one valid possibility. Secondly, even if someone is a strict fundamentalist and insists on a literal interpretation of the creation story as given in Genesis, then the appearance of age issue still rectifies seemingly contradictory elements.
a. A being capable of designing the universe would presumably be capable of doing so with an appearance of age.
b. If a being created everything we see, how would it be done without an appearance of age as we know it? Forget about stars that are billions of light years away. Simplify it down. If a creator made a garden for example. In our minds, the trees for instance would have the appearance of 50 years of age for example.

I don't want to get further off on a tangent here, but just wanted to clarify a couple of points, because obviously you misunderstood some of them.

[EasyEd]

bando said:

Ok, maybe I'm not understading you. How does natural selection, though, say anything about God?

It doesn't of itself. But natural selection which has been pre-ordained and directed by God does say something about God. And what I am unsuccessfully trying to say is that there is nothing in evolution theory, including natural selection, that is alien to my religion because it COULD include devine guidance. In fact, however, most evolutionists do not acknowledge that possibility; instead they accuse people of degrading science with religious considerations. Evolution and belief in God can go hand-in-hand.

[SoCalHoya]

Haven't read this entire thread, but I agree with easyed's most recent post.

(see ed, we do agree on stuff!)

[hifigator]

socalhoya said:

Haven't read this entire thread, but I agree with easyed's most recent post.

(see ed, we do agree on stuff!)

Cool, then you agree with me too. That was what I was saying as well.

[EasyEd]

socalhoya said:

Haven't read this entire thread, but I agree with easyed's most recent post.

(see ed, we do agree on stuff!)

Then I'll go back and see if I "misspoke".

[Bando]

ed said:

bando said:

Ok, maybe I'm not understading you. How does natural selection, though, say anything about God?

It doesn't of itself. But natural selection which has been pre-ordained and directed by God does say something about God. And what I am unsuccessfully trying to say is that there is nothing in evolution theory, including natural selection, that is alien to my religion because it COULD include devine guidance. In fact, however, most evolutionists do not acknowledge that possibility; instead they accuse people of degrading science with religious considerations. Evolution and belief in God can go hand-in-hand.

Fair enough. I guess the ID movement gets me to go into science defense mode too quickly sometimes.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

At last ed, we have total agreement

ed said:

bando said:

Ok, maybe I'm not understading you. How does natural selection, though, say anything about God?

It doesn't of itself. But natural selection which has been pre-ordained and directed by God does say something about God. And what I am unsuccessfully trying to say is that there is nothing in evolution theory, including natural selection, that is alien to my religion because it COULD include devine guidance. In fact, however, most evolutionists do not acknowledge that possibility; instead they accuse people of degrading science with religious considerations. Evolution and belief in God can go hand-in-hand.

[The Stig]

bando said:

Fair enough. I guess the ID movement gets me to go into science defense mode too quickly sometimes.

Which proves my point earlier about the hostility surrounding the evolution debate hampering the debate itself. Whenever somebody says the word 'God' in a debate about evolution, those of us who believe in evolution immediately break out our intellectual weapons and prepare to defend the theory against ignorant rhetoric from people who want to discredit it for their own personal agendas. More intelligent and reasoned views like easyed's tend to catch us by surprise.

I agree with easyed - evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible that evolution happened either under divine guidence or divine observation. My point earlier was just that trying to prove or disprove the existence of God in a science lab is as silly as trying to prove or disprove evolution using the Bible. They're seperate realms - but that doesn't mean that they can't exist together.

As for whether I exist or not, well, draw your own conclusions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stig

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I really don't get your point Hifi? There are plenty of evidence of intermediate species between one species and another. the fact that you haven't found an intermediate for every step along the way doesn't mean they didn't exist. You've already acknowledged that fossil get destroyed and need special conditions to form. Plus there are plenty of places that we haven't looked, like all the land that is now under water.

Evolution is the just the our best explanation for the data we've observed. Science uses theories to best represent an aproximation of reality .

(example)
Like in Chemistry we represnt molecules with atoms and bonds. But in reality there's no physical stick holding two atoms together it's just a representation of different electron densities and the different forces .

anyway the point is there is no way for any theroy to truly capture reality perfectly, it's just our best aproximation. Evolution has proven to be a solid theroy thus far and that's all that matters. Our knowledge is always expanding this is not just true of science, it's true in every field. Take history, we often find new artifacts or documents that often totally rewrite history. Until A new theory describes reality better than evolution is the theory we go by. We constantly keep working to adjust the theory to refelect new data.

I do feel that Evolution and Religion are not contiridctory. like someone else said earlier science and religion are focusing on different things and don't talk with the same language. There's nothing in evolution that prohibits a creator. But there's nothing that requires it, it doesn't talk about it. It doesn't matter for science. Evolution is the means, not the end. It could simply be how god created the world.

[hifigator]

thestig said:

bando said:

Fair enough. I guess the ID movement gets me to go into science defense mode too quickly sometimes.

Which proves my point earlier about the hostility surrounding the evolution debate hampering the debate itself. Whenever somebody says the word 'God' in a debate about evolution, those of us who believe in evolution immediately break out our intellectual weapons and prepare to defend the theory against ignorant rhetoric from people who want to discredit it for their own personal agendas. More intelligent and reasoned views like easyed's tend to catch us by surprise.

I agree with easyed - evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible that evolution happened either under divine guidence or divine observation. My point earlier was just that trying to prove or disprove the existence of God in a science lab is as silly as trying to prove or disprove evolution using the Bible. They're seperate realms - but that doesn't mean that they can't exist together.

As for whether I exist or not, well, draw your own conclusions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stig

I see your point to a degree, but I honestly think it happens far more severely in the reverse, and in all honesty it makes very little sense to me.

If a person is a "creationist" in the traditional sense of the word, then at least in our culture, it is fairly likely that he or she is also of the judaeo-Christian faith. Therefore he or she is likely to have a very real understanding of heaven and hell. Therefore said individual has a very serious reason to try to convince others to his own views. Furthermore, practicing active Christians are likely to be aware of the "Great Commission" which is where a resurected Jesus told his disciples to spread the word to everyone. The point isn't whether this person is right instead of that person. The point is that although there is are obvious and valid reasons why someone would be of the mindset to "recruit" -- for lack of a better word -- others to his way of thinking. Yet in reverse, that incentive isn't there. And yet many atheistic evolutionists get red in the face mad when they hear mention of "God." Even more surprising is their interest and motivation to convince others of their line of thinking. I mean, what is the point? If someone doesn't believe in any super natural being, that is very understandable. Many people are conusmed solely with what is in front of them at that moment and pay no concern towards anything that isn't -- let alone any thing they have never "seen" to begin with. But why do so many have the obsession of convincing "believers" that their faith is false? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

The same is true of evolution in particular. Why do so many evolutionists almost take it upon themselves to argue with those who believe in a divine being?

[hifigator]

hoyasincebirth said:

I really don't get your point Hifi? There are plenty of evidence of intermediate species between one species and another. the fact that you haven't found an intermediate for every step along the way doesn't mean they didn't exist. You've already acknowledged that fossil get destroyed and need special conditions to form. Plus there are plenty of places that we haven't looked, like all the land that is now under water.

Evolution is the just the our best explanation for the data we've observed. Science uses theories to best represent an aproximation of reality .

(example)
Like in Chemistry we represnt molecules with atoms and bonds. But in reality there's no physical stick holding two atoms together it's just a representation of different electron densities and the different forces .

anyway the point is there is no way for any theroy to truly capture reality perfectly, it's just our best aproximation. Evolution has proven to be a solid theroy thus far and that's all that matters. Our knowledge is always expanding this is not just true of science, it's true in every field. Take history, we often find new artifacts or documents that often totally rewrite history. Until A new theory describes reality better than evolution is the theory we go by. We constantly keep working to adjust the theory to refelect new data.

I do feel that Evolution and Religion are not contiridctory. like someone else said earlier science and religion are focusing on different things and don't talk with the same language. There's nothing in evolution that prohibits a creator. But there's nothing that requires it, it doesn't talk about it. It doesn't matter for science. Evolution is the means, not the end. It could simply be how god created the world.

You are still missing the main point. One of the mandatory principles in the macro-evolutionary theory is that through mutations and natural selection, one specific specie evolved into another, and that be the repetition of this process, literally millions upon millions of times over time, we now have the speciation which we see.

If that were the case, then the birds, fish, bugs, cats, dogs, etc ... naturally developed from simpler organisms. What we don't have is a singel record of something that was "almost" a bird. We don't have something that was half cat and half dog. Obviously, these are simplistic examples, but the point is that if the macro theory is correct, then the lack of just one such intermediary specie is suspicious at the very least.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

And my point is that's just not true as far as my understanding goes. I know you even admit that it's a simplistic example but of course we don't have something that's half cat and half dog, because they split much further back than that. Like Aercoptrix(sp?) is pretty much half bird half Reptile wouldn't you say? I haven't done a lot of research, but I've definetly seen pictures in books of lizard like cretures that were beginging to grow a covering of hair or fur, the predecessors of mammals. I can't provide examples of everything, cause i haven't researched this, but i'm fairly certain you could find things that are almost this and almost that.

[Bando]

hifigator said:

thestig said:

Which proves my point earlier about the hostility surrounding the evolution debate hampering the debate itself. Whenever somebody says the word 'God' in a debate about evolution, those of us who believe in evolution immediately break out our intellectual weapons and prepare to defend the theory against ignorant rhetoric from people who want to discredit it for their own personal agendas. More intelligent and reasoned views like easyed's tend to catch us by surprise.

I agree with easyed - evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible that evolution happened either under divine guidence or divine observation. My point earlier was just that trying to prove or disprove the existence of God in a science lab is as silly as trying to prove or disprove evolution using the Bible. They're seperate realms - but that doesn't mean that they can't exist together.

As for whether I exist or not, well, draw your own conclusions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stig

I see your point to a degree, but I honestly think it happens far more severely in the reverse, and in all honesty it makes very little sense to me.

If a person is a "creationist" in the traditional sense of the word, then at least in our culture, it is fairly likely that he or she is also of the judaeo-Christian faith. Therefore he or she is likely to have a very real understanding of heaven and hell. Therefore said individual has a very serious reason to try to convince others to his own views. Furthermore, practicing active Christians are likely to be aware of the "Great Commission" which is where a resurected Jesus told his disciples to spread the word to everyone. The point isn't whether this person is right instead of that person. The point is that although there is are obvious and valid reasons why someone would be of the mindset to "recruit" -- for lack of a better word -- others to his way of thinking. Yet in reverse, that incentive isn't there. And yet many atheistic evolutionists get red in the face mad when they hear mention of "God." Even more surprising is their interest and motivation to convince others of their line of thinking. I mean, what is the point? If someone doesn't believe in any super natural being, that is very understandable. Many people are conusmed solely with what is in front of them at that moment and pay no concern towards anything that isn't -- let alone any thing they have never "seen" to begin with. But why do so many have the obsession of convincing "believers" that their faith is false? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

The same is true of evolution in particular. Why do so many evolutionists almost take it upon themselves to argue with those who believe in a divine being?

As an agnostic myself, let me see if I can give you a clear response. It's not at all about spreading my belief, it's about defending science and reality from what I view as intellectual threats to ourselves and to society. Personally, I don't care what you believe, whether you're a young earth creationist, an alternative medicine advocate, a climate change denialist, or an ID proponent. Sure, irrationality and a belief in supernatural perplexes and irritates me, but not enough for me to really care. However, these views don't exist in a vacuum; people are trying to make their beliefs into policy, and that can greatly affect my life in many ways.

If I go to the emergency room, I don't want to be treated by a reflexologist or a homeopath. I don't want any of my children to learn that the earth is only 6,000 years old in biology class because some evangelical protestants can't abide by the reality of the planet's age. I don't want the myriad problems of a warming climate to go unaddressed because people don't want to look at the data and see what's happening. And I don't want society's understanding of the world around us to dissipate because those findings might contradict what was written in some book or another millennia ago.

My point is is that supernatural beliefs have real-world implications. Sure, some people have their beliefs and don't proselytize or try to force society to share those beliefs, and I'm absolutely fine with that. But others try to push those beliefs in a way that will affect my life or what I view as the well-being of society. That's what I'm reacting to.

[The Stig]

hifigator said:

thestig said:

Which proves my point earlier about the hostility surrounding the evolution debate hampering the debate itself. Whenever somebody says the word 'God' in a debate about evolution, those of us who believe in evolution immediately break out our intellectual weapons and prepare to defend the theory against ignorant rhetoric from people who want to discredit it for their own personal agendas. More intelligent and reasoned views like easyed's tend to catch us by surprise.

I agree with easyed - evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible that evolution happened either under divine guidence or divine observation. My point earlier was just that trying to prove or disprove the existence of God in a science lab is as silly as trying to prove or disprove evolution using the Bible. They're seperate realms - but that doesn't mean that they can't exist together.

As for whether I exist or not, well, draw your own conclusions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stig

I see your point to a degree, but I honestly think it happens far more severely in the reverse, and in all honesty it makes very little sense to me.

If a person is a "creationist" in the traditional sense of the word, then at least in our culture, it is fairly likely that he or she is also of the judaeo-Christian faith. Therefore he or she is likely to have a very real understanding of heaven and hell. Therefore said individual has a very serious reason to try to convince others to his own views. Furthermore, practicing active Christians are likely to be aware of the "Great Commission" which is where a resurected Jesus told his disciples to spread the word to everyone. The point isn't whether this person is right instead of that person. The point is that although there is are obvious and valid reasons why someone would be of the mindset to "recruit" -- for lack of a better word -- others to his way of thinking. Yet in reverse, that incentive isn't there. And yet many atheistic evolutionists get red in the face mad when they hear mention of "God." Even more surprising is their interest and motivation to convince others of their line of thinking. I mean, what is the point? If someone doesn't believe in any super natural being, that is very understandable. Many people are conusmed solely with what is in front of them at that moment and pay no concern towards anything that isn't -- let alone any thing they have never "seen" to begin with. But why do so many have the obsession of convincing "believers" that their faith is false? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

The same is true of evolution in particular. Why do so many evolutionists almost take it upon themselves to argue with those who believe in a divine being?

I think you're confusing defense of evolution with defense of atheism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're asking "Why do evolutionists try so hard to make others believe in evolution?" My view is that you might as well ask the question "Why do astronomers try so hard to make others believe that the earth goes around the sun?" It's becuase evolution and a heliocentric solar system are the scientific answers to some big questions.

Scientists and believers in science try to "recruit" (using your term) others because they think science can make the world a better place. They believe that through scientific inquiry people can improve their understanding of the world we live in, and that by putting those findings into practice we can make people's lives better.

I don't think that most scientists have a problem with people believing in God. They just have a problem with people using their religion to attack science. If you believe in God and also believe in evolution I don't think many evolutionists will take issue with your religious beliefs. The only time scientists have a problem with religion is when people declare religion and science to be mutually exclusive.

Here's an example: A person is sick, and will die unless they take a certain medicine. The person is religious, as is their family. I don't think a doctor will have a problem with the family and the patient praying to God in an attempt cure the sickness, just as long as patient also takes the medicine. Indeed, it's quite possible that the doctor will also pray for the patient to live. The only reason the doctor would have a problem with the family's use of religion is if they tried to use prayer instead of the medicine to cure the patient. Even in that case the doctor wouldn't have a problem with the religion itself, just the fact that the family is using it to prevent science from saving a person's life.

Another example of the stance of science believers towards religion is this very topic. To star the topic, a religious person (easyed) brought up the issue of evolution. Given the vagueness of his opening post and the fact that it seemed to be questioning the theory, several evolutionists (including me) instinctively went on the defensive and became rather prickly. However, as soon easyed clarified his beliefs and said that he didn't see God and evolution as mutually exclusive, the evolutionist crowd immediately backed off and made it clear that we had no quarrel with his beliefs.

[TBird41]

hoyasincebirth said:

And my point is that's just not asfarasmy understanding goes. I know you even admit that it's a simplistic example but of course we don't have something that's half cat and half dog, because they split much further back than that. Like Aercoptrix(sp?) is pretty much half bird half Reptile wouldn't you say? I haven't done a lot of research, but I've definetly seen pictures in books of lizard like cretures that were beginging to grow a covering of hair or fur, the predecessors of mammals. I can't provide examples of everything, cause i haven't researched this, but i'm fairly certain you could find things that are almost this and almost that.

Also, Roy Hibbert is part man, part ravenous beast

[hifigator]

To Stig and Bando:

What I am saying is that I constantly hear how people are trying to force religion down people's throats. I then hear how they are trying to deny science. Now I don't deny that isolated instances of this occur, but the way the position is typically presented is that such behavior is the rule rather than the exception. I absolutely do not see it that way. Sure, I have heard of people who claim to have been "bothered" by Jehovah's Witnesses dozens of times, invariably when they were taking a nap or in the tub or whatever. But this is not the "norm." The norm is for the most part groups of individuals who are mostly good people. The norm is for the most part, groups of people you could leave your house and car unlocked around. The norm is for the most part groups of individuals who would diligently watched your kids if they were your babysitter. Let me make two quick points: I am certainly not suggesting that religious church-goers are anywhere near perfect, nor am I suggesting that those who don't practice religion are "likely" to be bad people. All I am saying is that religious people in general are often villified for no reason.

Getting back to the particular issue at hand, for believers, there is a reason to tell others about their beliefs. It isn't done (at least typically) for their own benefit. Yes, I know that Swaggert, Bakker and Falwell are housefold names, but once again, such people are the exception rather than the rule.

Lastly, what I was saying before was that although it is very easy to see why believers would be attempting to spread the gospel, it isn't very obvious why others would be motivated to do the opposite. I see a very similar distinction with regards to evolution and creation. It is easy to see why some creationists are so "anti-evolution," because for that select group it seemingly flies in the faces of what they believe. Like I mentioned before, I have no problem cohesively piecing religion and evolution together. But I would be somewhat remiss if I were to blindly accept macro evolution as entirely factual at this point in time. Similarly, I would be remiss were I to deny any evolution and instead blindly believe the Bible in a strictly literal sense.

Personally whether you believed that natural selection along with mutations caused all of the creatures of the earth, air and sea or whether a divine being had at least an overseeing hand in the process is up to you. The key, however, is that it requires faith either way. We are all putting our faith in something by believing that which we don't know for sure. It really is that simple.

[The Stig]

hifigator said:

To Stig and Bando:

What I am saying is that I constantly hear how people are trying to force religion down people's throats. I then hear how they are trying to deny science. Now I don't deny that isolated instances of this occur, but the way the position is typically presented is that such behavior is the rule rather than the exception. I absolutely do not see it that way. Sure, I have heard of people who claim to have been "bothered" by Jehovah's Witnesses dozens of times, invariably when they were taking a nap or in the tub or whatever. But this is not the "norm." The norm is for the most part groups of individuals who are mostly good people. The norm is for the most part, groups of people you could leave your house and car unlocked around. The norm is for the most part groups of individuals who would diligently watched your kids if they were your babysitter. Let me make two quick points: I am certainly not suggesting that religious church-goers are anywhere near perfect, nor am I suggesting that those who don't practice religion are "likely" to be bad people. All I am saying is that religious people in general are often villified for no reason.

Getting back to the particular issue at hand, for believers, there is a reason to tell others about their beliefs. It isn't done (at least typically) for their own benefit. Yes, I know that Swaggert, Bakker and Falwell are housefold names, but once again, such people are the exception rather than the rule.

Lastly, what I was saying before was that although it is very easy to see why believers would be attempting to spread the gospel, it isn't very obvious why others would be motivated to do the opposite. I see a very similar distinction with regards to evolution and creation. It is easy to see why some creationists are so "anti-evolution," because for that select group it seemingly flies in the faces of what they believe. Like I mentioned before, I have no problem cohesively piecing religion and evolution together. But I would be somewhat remiss if I were to blindly accept macro evolution as entirely factual at this point in time. Similarly, I would be remiss were I to deny any evolution and instead blindly believe the Bible in a strictly literal sense.

Personally whether you believed that natural selection along with mutations caused all of the creatures of the earth, air and sea or whether a divine being had at least an overseeing hand in the process is up to you. The key, however, is that it requires faith either way. We are all putting our faith in something by believing that which we don't know for sure. It really is that simple.

I think you're overplaying people's 'villification' of religion. I see very little of that. What I do see are people villifying some of the people you mentioned - Jehovah's Witnesses, Falwell, Robertson, the lot. People dislike them and the way they use religion, but they don't dislike religion itself.

I think the misconception that people dislike religion itself may arise due to the rather vague language people use in these sorts of discussions. As this message board topic has shown, you have to use very specific language when discussing the topic of religion's place in society, and often people get careless and fail to do that. For example, somebody watches one of Pat Robertson's tirades and shouts "I hate the Christian Right!". A listener could assume that the person hates Christianity. But in reality, that person probably just hates Robertson and people like him who try to use religion to further their own personal agendas.

Back on the topic of evolution, you would indeed be wrong if you accepted every aspect of the theory of evolution as perfect fact at this point in time. Even scientists wouldn't want you to see it that way. What they would want is for you to accept the basic beliefs of the theory of evolution - that creatures evolve from other creatures by natural selection. Just like with religion, the broad concepts are more important than the minute details.

As for the issue of faith, I agree that believing in evolution does take some faith. Indeed, you need to have at least a little faith to accept anything science says. When I buy some Tylenol from the store, I have to have faith that it will work as it says it will, and that it won't cause my right arm to spontaneously combust when I sneeze. But I would argue that believing in science and evolution takes less faith than believing in creation due to the fact that science is based on reason, logic, and evidence. Yes, there is still some faith involved, but it's less than you need to believe in religious teachings.

[hifigator]

Two quick points:

With regard to the "villification" of religion, my point isn't that a significant number of people are out there actively attacking religion, but rather that there are a significant number of people blaming religion and specifically blaming religious individuals as a whole for "forcing" religion down their throats. My point is that such a criticism is largely unwarranted.

Secondly, my point about faith is that just as we scan the nightime sky and see an archer with bow and arrow rather than a bunch of stars, so too when we look at the fossil "record" and see a systematic chain, we are exerting quite a bit of interpolation.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I don't think we're exerting as much interpolation. It's much more like those Connect the dots where part of the picture is dawn in with solid lines and only part of the picture has to be drawn. I think that's a better analogy. Your constelation example makes it seems like there's actually no basis for it and we're just drawing random patterns where there are none.