Really? Then check out this quote from an article in “The American Atheist”:

“…evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’

(G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.)

I would say that the “…Christianity is nothing”? part is indicative of and equivalent to “booting” religion.

“Science, again, is interested in natural explanations for natural phenomena, and the reason it doesn’t try to include or deny the role of a supernatural being, such as God, is that it goes beyond the scope of what science is able to study, natural phenomena.”

I and every other creationist I know am ALL FOR the study of nature and natural processes…WITH the proper perspective. One would not look at a beautiful painting and think, “Wow–look what an explosion of paint cans produced!” Rather, he says, “Who painted this?” In a similar way, we look at nature and say, “Who made this?” The Bible tells us how it all got here: God spoke. How “scientific” is that as compared to the “Big Bang”? Either we say, “In the beginning God…” or “In the beginning dirt…” NEITHER are “scientific” but are based on faith in what we see today. A critical subject to both belief systems is the age of the universe…whether it is thousands of years or millions. But this is for another time….

–j

By “macro-evolution” I do NOT mean “speciation.” Great Danes, poodles, Labrodoodles…are all “species” of DOG. But one will NEVER be able to develop a giraffe, bear, whale, or horse from “dog information.” MACRO-evolution is change between kinds of creatures, or taxonomic groups if you will, such as I listed. Speciation has been called MICRO-evolution, or small changes within a given kind. I do not prefer to use that term, but the “evolution” of this nature IS observeable, testable, and repeatable. We have illustration of which people took foxes and bred the more tame to produce domesticated “foxy face” dogs that barked. This is speciation, or micro-evolution.

MACRO-evolution is NOT a “fact of science.” Stephen Gould postulated (hoped, guessed, prayed), basically, that one day an alligator laid an egg and a chicken popped out (he called it “punctuated equilibrium”) but such an idea is NOT science. Since we don’t see evidence of one kind of creature evolving into another kind (dog to bear, or bear to whale as Darwin believed) they must have come up with this idea that “evolution” happened in “spurts.” In other words, we don’t see evolution happening slowly today because it happened quickly in the past??? (!) Ahhh…who can win if a belief is so dogmatically accepted without evidence such as as this one (evolution) is? This blind acceptance shows that it isn’t an “evidence” issue but a “heart” issue.

Will get back to you later. Happy Thanksgiving! Thanks for commenting!

–j

I also highly recommend you watch the documentary from PBS titled “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” You might learn something about evolution from it; unfortunately, the makers of “Expelled” and organizations like The Discovery Institute specialize in quote mining and misleading people about just what evolution is.

As a supporter of evolution it truly saddens me that people think I, along with hundreds of millions of people all across this continent, am a misanthropic, immoral devil worshipper who supports Nazis, all because I accept a scientific theory (no, I do not mean some random idea that someone gets after having a few too many drinks, I mean a SCIENTIFIC theory, yes there is a significant distinction).

If you stop relying on creationist or ID literature for your knowledge of evolution and actually put yourself in the shoes of the scientific community and take the time to learn about our side as I have about your side, you’ll understand where we’re coming from.

Scientists don’t claim to have every answer to all of life’s perplexing questions. All scientists seek to do is to determine, through systematic and deductive methods, explanations for the natural phenomena we observe. They’re not trying to boot out religion. A significant portion (more than 50%, I assure you) of biologists believe in God while still accepting evolution. Science takes a methodologically naturalistic approach; that is, it approaches the subject matter while neither affirming nor denying the role of a supernatural entity/being in the phenomenon being studied. Science, again, is interested in natural explanations for natural phenomena, and the reason it doesn’t try to include or deny the role of a supernatural being, such as God, is that it goes beyond the scope of what science is able to study, natural phenomena.

–j

I would add that creationists and intelligent design creationists are the most stupid people in human history. They prefer their fairy’s magic instead of modern scientific discoveries. They belong in the Dark Ages, not the 21st century.

Alright.  So I thought I’d share with you some of my research over the past couple of weeks.  This isn’t comprehensive, but it is close.  Let me say thanks to those of you who have assisted me in either resources or general information.  If the…