He takes the bicameral brain to extremes. The problem with both evolution and creation is that they come from different sources. Creation comes from the inspired revelation of God. Evolution from the observations of people. The Bible was written to people with a completely different world view. The Bible was refuting the idea that there were many gods. The Bible doesn't use the words for sun, moon and stars, because all of those names are also names for gods, instead it uses the word for light. So the debate wasn't between "science" and faith but between idolatry and monotheism.

Evolution assumes that there is no God because he cannot be observed, yet all we have now is the results of something that happened long ago. So how it got here and the way it got here is to some degree speculation as well as investigation. The six day creation assumes that there were literally twenty four hour days, but we don't know that there were. Everything written in the first eleven chapters of the Bible is very difficult to interpret.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth. As far as I'm concerned. God created the heavens and the earth. How he did it is up to scientists to figure out, he only said, "Let there be light."

I like what you say. It's nice to read other people's (thoughtful) thoughts.

The biggest problem when believing something is sticking to it unconditionally. Sure everyone that doesn't believe in God I am sure at one point or another have thought about an "afterlife" and vise versa with religious people. I think anyone that believes in both scientific facts and God has to keep them separate I mean they pretty much contradict themselves atleast thats what I do or else I would pull out my hair.

I'm not sure science and God are as mutually exclusive as that, psychx. In a faith & learning seminar I took, we had all kinds of people--including the ones that just constantly looked for ways to justify science together with religion, or vice versa. That's not my method of dealing with it, but it's out there.

My fiance believes God created evolution (or something like that), which is arguably the best way to mesh the two fields. It really skews your picture of God, though--why would God create carnivores? But creationists deal with that, too, and anyway it's in the mindset that believes God is inately good.

It's all very curious.

-T.

For me, science proves God. Sounds crazy I know but as we discover the complexity, beauty, order and chaos that exists in the universe it seems obvious it is not all happenstance. Years ago I struggled with things like evolution, until I realized I was focusing on one item and not even the most important issue.

Many people struggle with creation/evolution who otherwise believe in God. Because it is assumed that you must choose one or the other those people are left in the middle, afraid to be Christian and yet more afraid to deny God. As Sherye pointed out all God said was "Let there be light....". For me, I think it is God's opinion that is all we need to know. How and when are not important. Did God say it and from my point of reference it would seem to instantly appear? Or did other events transpire that were unimportant for God to reveal? Although it is fun to investigate and wonder about but in the end it is not important as I believe God exists and created it all.

Several good books exist that deal with these issues. One is "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross, PH.D. He actually has several along with a website www.reasons.org Some of it is interesting, some is far fetched but no more so than a evolution without God.

As for why God would create carnivores many theologians point out that we are in a fallen world. In the pre-fallen world there were no carnivores as all needs were met. Again, the theologians have reasoning and biblical texts to bolster their case but I think if one has true faith then that is leading towards "majoring in the minors".

As you say, it is all curious.

Thanks

Evolution assumes that there is no God

Wrong. Evolution assumes that evolution happened. Just because God did not wave a wand and generate species out of nothing doesn't mean that there is no God.

why would God create carnivores?

Why not? What's the alternative? Plants are living things, too, if you're going to suggest eating them.

For me, science proves God.

Science, by its nature, proves nothing that is not directly observable. It only gathers evidence for theories.

some is far fetched but no more so than a evolution without God.

Evolution without a God is scientifically plausible; God without evolution is not.

Wrong. Evolution assumes that evolution happened. Just because God did not wave a wand and generate species out of nothing doesn't mean that there is no God.

Good point, I stand corrected.

Why not? What's the alternative? Plants are living things, too, if you're going to suggest eating them

Not my question to answer.

Science, by its nature, proves nothing that is not directly observable. It only gathers evidence for theories.

Again, you are correct. I should maybe say science discoveries only adds to the theory that God exists.

Evolution without a God is scientifically plausible; God without evolution is not.

However, evolution is not proven and whether it is plausible or not depends on who you ask. Skip the whole "well if you ask a fanatic....." as that is old. As for God without evolution not being plausible I would simply say you are limiting yourself and being closed minded. A attribute usually attributed to theists.

But we are all allowed to have our opinions of course.

A new film, "What the #$*! Do We Know?" says that science and spirituality are not different modes of thought, but are in fact describing the same thing. And it brings the power back to the individual man and woman as it demonstrates creation as the god-like capacity of every individual.

The Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Passion of Gibson

As for God without evolution not being plausible I would simply say you are limiting yourself and being closed minded. A attribute usually attributed to theists.

There is scientific evidence for evolution, far more so than there is for God.

We've got to be careful with scientific evidence, particularly since there is so little actual evidence for evolution. Even Darwin's famous finches are a weak example. Yes, their beaks change with the conditions on the islands, but did you know that they also change right back when the conditions change again? There are a lot of example of micro-evolution, but no really compelling evidence for macro-evolution that I can think of off the top of my head. Spontaneous generation (that's the evolutionist's source of life when you get right down to it) was disproven quite some time ago (remember the whole flies, maggots, meat, and sealed flasks experiments you read about in elementary school?). Generally accepted scientific understanding has been turned upside down time after time for hundreds of years. Science isn't authoritative, it's just a reflection of our current understanding of the world. Stick around fifty years, then look back, and I'm sure you'd laugh at our pathetic understanding of the world around us.

My son has a snake. He's a cute little fellow (the snake that is), about 18 inches long and as big around as my finger. He lives in a 10 gallon tank when he's not being held. In that 10 gallon tank are a bunch of wood shavings, a hollow "log", a stick, and a little "stone" bowl that we fill with water. There's also a bright heatlight in one corner and a warming pad under the glass in the other corner.

If I were Spike (that's the snake) and were trying to reason things out, it might look something like this...
* The wood shavings are the remains of sticks that have fallen apart, just like the hollow log
and the stick will eventually fall apart some day. I've never seen this happen, but it must be so, there
doesn't seem to be any other rational explanation.
* The water replenishes itself from the air. I've never seen it refill, but there's nothing under the water
dish, so it must come from the air.
* The sun (my heat lamp) must revolve around my cage, which is why there's a warm spot under my
butt at night. I've never seen it move, but that must be so, it is the only logical explanation for the
warm spot and the light to be mutually exclusive.

In reality, of course, I just stuck all that stuff in Spike's cage so that he'd have an interesting environment. I think that there are some parts of our world that are just like that. God wants us to have an interesting environment, and one that makes sense to our feeble minds. He created the world, but did so midway through its life. He didn't speak seeds into existance, he spoke trees. He didn't speak eggs into existance, he spoke chickens. Canyons, not little ditches with water running through them, etc. We can make all sorts of rationalizations that allow or prevent us from believing the biblical account of creation. . . that's mine in a nutshell.

We've got to be careful with scientific evidence, particularly since there is so little actual evidence for evolution.

As opposed to the volumes of evidence for the existence of a being transcending our existence who created the universe and the human race from scratch...?

I think that there are some parts of our world that are just like that.

Do you have any reason for this? What would motivate a God to give us brains with enormous capacity for scientific and logical reasoning only to screw with us by tinkering with Nature? That seems almost malicious. Besides, we are talking about science, and science depends on observable evidence. The God-makes-the-universe-fun-to-look-at principle is fanciful and fun, but is there any evidence for it? Of course not. Spike is following the principles of science: making conclusions based on the best possible observations. Making the leap to God-as-pet-owner is a huge one.

I believe in evolution, I do believe as Darwin did, that we evolved from apes. Now as for the story of adam and eve, well I believe that its a story with ideals behind it. Not everything in the bible is to be taken literally, in my opinion.

There is scientific evidence for evolution, far more so than there is for God.

No,sorry, evidence is not proof and the evidence is in question. Hence It is a theory. Question for you, Does evolution mean there is no God?

I agree 100% with J D.

No,sorry, evidence is not proof and the evidence is in question. Hence It is a theory.

I didn't say "proof," I intentionally said "evidence." Science admits NO proofs, only accumulation of evidence for theories. There is no "only a theory" in science. Theory is the HIGHEST kind of statement a scientist can make, and the evidence is always in question, for everything.

Question for you, Does evolution mean there is no God?

I addressed this in Reply #6.