Evolution

[opebo]

I have looked it over a bit more.  The problem is that holes in Darwin's early theories are in fact evident, now.  But the authors don't try to replace it with scientific evidence of their own.  They do, in fact, offer a literal interpretation of the first five chapters of the book of Genesis as an alternative.  They point to the presentation of the Archaeopteryx, and the subsequent erratum, as proof of some huge error in Natural Selection Theory, but fail to point out that NGM itself offered the statement of retraction, and explained their mistake very well.  I have collected this magazine for many many years, and when I get home I'll go back and look at it, but I'm sure they didn't defeat ideas of Evolution in that one.

Here's the thing.  I have no problem with religion.  In fact, I have consistently defended the religious against the bigotry of the Left.  But you cannot simply state that somehow some new evidence bugs you, in the sense that it inhibits a literal interpretation of mythology, and then not subject competitive theories to scientific rigor. 

For example, take the Parting of the Red Sea.  Very likely, if plate techtonics is to be believed -- and there's *tremendous* evidence that it's a pretty good theory of continental drift -- the horn of africa, at somalia was part of the same land as the Arabian peninisula (Al Jazirah, in arabic).  But eventually they probably pulled apart, sending in a rush of water, creating the Red Sea.  Initially, the sea was shallow, simply a depression not too deeply filled, and periodically there were likely land bridges between the african and asian continents.  One can imagine that in simpler times, men running from potential adversaries may very well have prayed to whatever gods they held powerful, and thus,if some tidal action allowed men to pass quickly, and others to drown, then this may have been held as a sign that a god had helped them.  A brilliant interpretation.  And an artful one, worthy of the number-one all-time best-seller in the history of books.  But still, a mythology.

Take for example, the Great Flood:  We know for certain that the Black Sea was separated from the Mediterranean by a land bridge that is now the Straits of Bosporus.  There is plenty of scientific evidence, in the form of decomposed freshwater organisms up to a certain depth, then above that, all brakish or saltwater organisms.  You can imagine how a rushing in of water, when the strait finally broke could lead educated men to believe that god was causing a flood. 

Many modern religious thinkers don't have qualms with any of this.  They take the First Five Chapters, for example, as a metaphor.  Hindu people do too.  Jews too.  Many people, of religious persuasion, understand the mythological parts of their religion to be metaphorical, while they still hold to the decent, noble, and graceful values of peace, mercy, and submission taught by their religions.

I will continue to defend the religious (muslims and christians alike) on this forum against the bigotries of the left.  But I must also, defend the teachings of modern science against those who would create an Ayatollah's Iran in the USA.  I can't tell you what your god wants of you, and I won't try, but I know for certain Christianity doesn't require abdication of scientific knowledge.  Frankly, I do not believe Islam, Judaism, Hindu, or the rest, do either.  Science and religion do not attempt to explain the same phenomenon.  Religion deals with the Unknowable, whereas science offers tentative, testable explanations for observed facts.  You don't have to buy into anyone's scientific theory, but whether or not you buy into a scientific theory should have *nothing* to do with religious notions.  They are not incompatible.

The problem with that view is that the proper Bible says all scripture is God-Breathed. Now, can we hold God to be a deciever, telling us He did something one way, when He actually did it in a totally different way?

No, because 'god' doesn't exsist.  Your figments can behave however *you* want them to - decieving, not decieving.  Its all quite up to you, unlike reality.

[opebo]

I can't believe we're still discussing 'creationism' in 2004.  America is such a benighted land.