Re: Creationism/Evolution - think of them as the yin and yang (almost wrong wang. lol...) of origins. They oppose one another, but somehow work together. Evolution can't explain where everything actually began in the physical but Creationism in the raw can't deal with an amount of scientific evidence. If, though, with the knowledge of modern science, one reads the creation account, it leaves a lot of room for things to happen -- things which evolution talks about.

I'm careful not to buy evolution or creation simply because it lets me in the right social circle. That's political and intellectually dishonest. I can, however, talk about both.

Intelligent Design is flawed- no doubt there- and so are all of our other origin explanations, even the fairly scientific theory of evolution. A lot is misunderstood or not fully understood about many things in biology, partly because there is so much to look into that there just aren't enough people and enough time to do them all.

Having taken evolution in college (through my Biology course) there are a few interesting scientific addendums recently added. Firstly, evolution does NOT any longer claim to describe the process by which simple organisms become complex. In fact, it has been shown that some organisms become less complex because their environs favors it. Secondly, while it is for the most part understood how genes transmit information and how genetic evolution happens (which is mostly the content of micro-evolution, which I believe I-D'ers hold to be true) it is not entirely understood how new structures are formed. If the only changes that happen are between generations, it leaves one to wonder at which point certain structures become vestigal-- and in large enough numbers to persist- and at which point new structures emerge and stick around with enough vigor to alter a species in the future. Oh, and third, there is the issue of traits being selected for-- evolution does not occur unless traits are being selected for. (Read- unfavorable traits dying out of the gene pool or being disfavored by the evironment or mates.)

Which really leaves the arrival of mankind even more thoroughly in the hands of chance. Though, it might explain why mankind could stop evolving. If anything, soc'ism would stop evolution permenantly-- if there existed no negative genetic trait that prevented production of reproding offspring.

So, if you're gonna hold one of them to be true in exclusion, you've got the God of the Gaps, or the God of Chances. The way I see it, you lose either way...

That's why we keep seeking the truth-- I think that's a Classical Value?

Many good points there.

I think the debate is aggravated by the fact that there is a very angry group of activists who hate the idea of God, and actually seek to use science to defeat religion. That is not Darwinism, any more than a belief in the existence of God is Creationism.

I would agree with that. There are also a certain number of angry religionists (I call them religionists for various reasons) that are actually anti-science. Things being as they are, we can always hope that those two parties will destroy each other in a manner not unlike the contact of matter to anti-matter (hopefully without the tremendous release of energy.)

But, eh. Depending on how things go it might not matter.

Thanks for the nice plug for our "diablog" on gay marriage - or as Joe terms it marriage equality or my preferred nomenclature, same gender relationships. This is evidence in itself that we disagree on the topic, but at least aren't stuck from the get go. lol. Friday we'll post more! lgp

Lyn thanks for coming! I wish there could be more civility around this issue, and it especially bothers me that people are being called bigots simply for disagreeing.