Originally posted by Viss1:

Astrophysicists have made progress explaining how the universe began since telescopes were invented. The big bang happens to be the current accepted theory given the current body of evidence. The fact that it's not yet an iron-clad hypothesis is not proof that some unknown entity "did it for us." It benefits no one except Creationists themselves to explain away whatever we don't currently know as "the work of God."

I know many people of faith that do not take the default position that if they don't know something then "divine intervention" was involved. I do not discount the work that has been done or the insights that astronomy, astrophysics, mathematics or pure science has given mankind, but all that work has utterly failed to bring forth concrete answers on the origins of existance in this particular dimension we inhabit. Some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics this day and days gone by do reluctantly admit that most research murkily points to some "external" power having a hand in the design of things...



Originally posted by Viss1:

Combining Creationism with science is "practical" only if you define "practical" as "taking the path of least resistance." Creationism is the opposite of science. Why bother with science at all if you're just going to chalk up every unkown to God?

You're kidding me, right? The most intellectually and spiritually difficult thing I do in my life is try to bridge my personal beliefs about God and my intellect as someone who thirsts for knowledge in all forms. Scripture, common sense and scientific method do tend to butt heads and rub certain areas completely raw, but because they do so I see no reason to abandon one completely for the other.

I would say I have probably chosen one of the more difficult and convoluted paths to take as again, it is one that's rife with second-guessing, doubt and at times wild uncertainty...

Originally posted by Viss1:

If individual evolutionary steps are taken on their own without examining the story behind why each step represents a milestone, sure, it looks like a leap of logic. But if you consider that we're talking about a period of a billion years, in which time countless organisms tried and failed to evolve, you realize evolution theory is more trial and error than dumb luck. It's not like the individual steps of the evoutionary chain just happened to turn out that way in direct succession.

I don't buy it; there are too few precursors to homo sapiens that play out your side of the statistical story and mammals in terms of a species or even looking a step further at a genus. The "leaps" that evolution has taken at times in certain kindoms I can grasp, but chalking up homo sapiens' climb to the top in such short order strains the theory of evolution to the breaking point when it's been the ONLY abberation of this magnatude in the system.

Originally posted by Viss1:
FWIW I don't pretend to know if the big bang or evolution will turn out to be 100% correct. In fact IMO every scientist should take a critical eye to whatever hypothesis he's working on. But I do know that trying to combine science with Creationism won't get us any closer to an answer.

You misunderstand me; I don't wish that scientists to dust their hands off and claim that the search is over and slap up a label that says "God" on top of the evolution charts. What I do wish is that what is seemingly the collective intellectual ego of the scientific community would remember that some of the most extreme experiences and events in human history have been driven by things they have NO ability to measure (i.e., love, hate, faith, doubt) and to at least acknowledge the possibility of the Divine in certain aspects of life. I wish for the search to continue and I would like the scientific community to give the religious community at least a modicum of respect for the beliefs they hold. To reciprocate, the religious community needs to become much more accepting and tolerant of scientific study, even studies that are uncomfortable to those that choose doctrine and canon over scientific method.

I do not respect arrogance from avowed atheists on this topic, nor do I respect the arrogance from holy-rollers on it, either. The problem is that I see more arrogance than understanding from both sides on this topic than anything else.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe