I hope the movie itself doesn't take the position that Darwin killed God. Darwin might have believed that, but I believe in Evolution, and am very religious. There really is no logical contradiction. The Sun is created after the process in the Biblical creation begins, therefore the "Days" in the Bible cannot be 24 hour Solar periods, but rather Periods of time going from a nano second to several billions of years.

Navel gazing tripe?

I agree. Just because the Bible is not literally true doesn't mean it's false. I look at these new scientific discoveries as just more aspects of God's creation, not evidence against Him.

First off, it's nice to see Bettany and Connelly in another movie together. I like movies where married actors work together, since Hollywood relationships are often strained by separate projects.

I don't think Darwin saw his own theories as being anti-God, though they did challenge the literal interpretation of the Creation in Genesis. I could be wrong, but the movie seems to have a more atheistic angle than a pure biography of Darwin would have.

As someone who leans more toward Darwinism than Creationism, I have to say that this film looks incredibly boring. On the one hand, you have the fantastic Paul Bettany in the lead as well as the always reliable Toby Jones in a supporting role. On the other hand, it just looks like a middle-of-the-road Oscar-bait period drama. Just because Darwin was a significant man in Western civilization, doesn't mean his life was interesting enough to warrant a feature film.

No way his wife was that good looking either…….

Man can run his mouth all day long about the universe and how it was started but at the end of the day it is still a "THEORY"

If we were to look at a Science book from 100 years ago…it would be full of "THEORIES" that now seem ridiculous and have been proven false……..

Lets place them next to the"Word of God" that still rings true after 2000 years !!!!

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 1:25)

I honestly think the religious/science conflict truly is a false conflict, especially when it comes to evolution which has been warped by certain scientists into a way of shaming people of faith. I've grasped as much wisdom from Darwin and Hawking as I have from Aquinas and Chesterton. Theology and science are just two things that fascinate me, and I really fail to see any major conflict between them (just the concept of Biblical literalism).

This looks like it may be a decent movie.

You don't have to put the two next to each other, because they are in two separate fields. The Bible is a work of philosophy and theology, and The Origin of Species is a work of natural science. The Bible should not be relied on for scientific fact, and The Origin of Species should not be relied on as a system of morality.

Who says Darwinism is incompatible with intelligent design? I think God, when he created the Universe, understood how all the natural laws fit together, and what the consequences of the initial big bang would be. He didn't have to direct matter to form the Universe, he simply had to cause the initial reaction and the laws of nature would take care of the rest. The same goes for evolution. He didn't have to create man from dust and woman from one of his ribs; he just needed the Universe to do so on its own.

God is like an omniscient chemist: he knows how all the reactions are going to work out, so he doesn't have to guide every little detail.

In other words, Deism.

As far as I know, the Hebrew word translated for "day" in the book of genesis can just as easily be translated as "A period of time". Hebrew was not a noun-saturated language like modern English, so theoretically, we could say we are living in the "7th day".

As for the Big Bang, it's really not that hard. God said "Let there be light!" and BANG, we get creation.

Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained physicist and applied theologian, explains in The Science of God how the six days of creation are reconciled with billions of years for the age of the universe. Each day is indeed 24 hours, but only from God's perspective. Taking into account the expansion of the universe, each day looking back from our current Earthly perspective encompasses an exponentially-increasing amount of time that adds up to ~15 billion years. He also comments on evolution from a biblical perspective, and it's quite intriguing.

In short, Schroeder takes science at face value and reconciles it with the Bible. As a scientist, I was so convinced by this argument that I was compelled to fully accept the biblical God.

This article gives the gist of Schroeder's "Age of the Universe" argument:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

"Creation" refers to the creation of his theory, not to the creation of everything.

I really wish there were some more free-thinking Christians. People that are willing to think and ponder about things as opposed to just saying "The Bible says so." Athesists and others would think more highly of you.

Yes, actually, though unlike a lot of Deists, I think there is the possibility of the occasional miracle. For example, Jesus Christ. I think, given our current understanding of physics, one is more likely to be correct is one says something is possible than if one says something is impossible.

LOL… which is it? Any time you mock Christianity you are certainly not lying about history!!!! And hey… Darwin wasn't liberal.. he was just a scientist… I know the two can seem like the same thing when you spend all your time looking for the books of the Bible written by Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Hint: They didn't write any of the books of the Bible… but then neither did that imaginary "God" character the men who did write it sketched out and developed!

Now THAT'S 40 years well spent. Not knowing… not wanting to know.. and not knowing any more than when you started except that which it is acceptable to know.

That's right.. it was the SCIENTISTS who attacked the religious folk. Now it's Hitchens/Dawkins trying to force Darwin down our throats and not several decades of intellectual luddites asking with no hint of an answer "Duh… how could you create an EYE out of evolution… it's impossible!!!" C'mon you all…. your religion is a rusting bridge… and with your past record on rusting bridges that's not a good thing!

Oops… you got the order of "ineffectual" and "intelligent" reversed… heh heh…

They could rewrite it all and create a scene where Jesus HIMSELF appears to Darwin and says "Charles.. why are you persecuting me!" … then Jon Voight appears as a raving nut who starts saying that Barack Obama is Satan.. oh wait… that's what Jon Voight does in REAL life!!!

Never mind all the other stuff.

Does Jennifer Connelly have a nude scene?

You might like (or have read already?) Polkinghorne's books. "From Quarks to Christianity" is the title of one, if I recall correctly.

No. Actually, Darwinism was debunked decades ago. Likened to "An Inconvenient Truth", facts have been manipulated or out right created from thin air to support a failed theory. There is absolutely zero evidence that any species has evolved into another species. The fundamental theory of Darwin is that everything evolved from a single organism. There isn't anything remotely factual to back that up.

There is evolution as in adaptation to one's environment and that is absolutely vital to the survival of life and only makes sense that our creator built that into our systems. Otherwise, life would be too fragile to survive.

It sounds like another Worthy addition to a centuries long concept

Truth is, those Balmy Medieval monks wern't so stupid after all. I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who first proposed that the earth was not created in the literal biblical sense.

"I wonder if they will mention that Darwin married his first cousin."

If my first cousin looked like Jennifer Connelly, I'd consider it myself.

I reinforce my beliefs by questioning them…

I thought Darwin only proposed the theory of natural selection. I don't think he actually came up with the theory of evolution, it predated him. Any help on this?

So… are we mostly kinda missing the fact that when Toby Jones' character says "you've killed God, sir" Darwin recoils in what looks to be measured disgust at the man's cavalier attitude toward this?

Considering how rotten hardline Christians have been toward Darwin and his theories over the last, um… how many hundreds of years has this been, again? …I'd say what looks to be a dramatization of Darwin being unsure and wracked with guilt about what his discoveries will potentially do to religious folk is A LOT better than what they might otherwise have gotten.

Well the Big Bang theory is actually a pretty strong case. It's the logical conclusion drawn from the fact that the universe is expanding. So if it's getting bigger, it must be have been smaller to begin with.

And yes there is proof – the microwave radiation – everywhere – is left over energies from the big bang.

Actually what's interesting is how our view of physics and nature almost start to point towards some sort of God. That is blasphemous in some scientific circles but hear me out.

In Darwin's time, science was very strict about the laws of nature. It was believed that if you knew the location of everything and it's inertia, you could know the outcome of the universe… a very God the clock maker idea.

But today with quantum strangeness, other universes, planes and branes – our "arrogance" in our trust of our laws of physics is some what diminished. It's not so clear cut.

And although I really can't definitively what and how I believe to be God – there's something there that is unknown.

As a young 1st grader, I used to stare with curiosity at the huge mural on the library wall that depicted man's "ascension" from the lowliest of little apes all the way to Homo Sapiens. As time went on, and with no particular religious training (I wasn't raised in church) I thought that it was the most ridiculous concept I'd ever seen. I'm now 47 and still think that, despite all the perpetual evolutionary indoctrination that comes with life. Yes, religious beliefs have since reinforced that skepticism towards Darwinianism (and all the new theories within evolutionary thought that have come and gone in the meantime).

Science has done much good in explaining many things, and still does, but I will happily go to my grave denying that one species can "evolve" into another, I don't care how many millions of years you give it.

Adaptation within a species towards their environment; yes, but not one species into another.

Yes. Judging from the trailer, another ahistorical, cooked up story that presents us with a false conflict. Darwin was never in danger of being burned at any stake.

I have no doubt that evolution is a real and wonderful phenomenon. Darwin is a great man. At the same time, I believe we are none the wiser. Evolution does not explain the breadth of human existence to the extent many expected. Real, but overrated.

You cannot blame him, but Darwinian ideas have been terribly misunderstood and gave rise to a host of bad, even murderous, ideas. In terms of human suffering, blind scientism has turned out to be more dangerous than religious fundamentalism.

I think natural selection and evolution can also happily coexist with the idea of God and of a divine creation. How exactly does it "kill God"? At best it kills one literal interpretation of the Bible that was never undisputed.

Apparently, religious folk aren't the only ones who can lash out when their faith is threatened.

Actually, Occam's razor works better in Intelligent Designs corner.

Which is simpler: That somehow, someway all the proteins necessary for life randomly aligned themselves perfectly in order to create lifeforms that, over billions of years, eventually end up with Perez Hilton OR that an intelligent "higher power" designed the universe and the lifeforms necessary to allow for evolutionary processes to end up with Me.

Which theory is simpler?

Also, since evolution would require an incredible number of "failed" evolutionary paths, how come we don't have thousands of fossils of Humans with 3 arms, or 4 eyes or 14 vertebrae or 2 toes, etc. Where are all the fossils, I ask?

Odds favor that 50 years from now Intelligent Design will have proven that Darwinism was unable to evolve.

That seems more like trying to shoehorn facts to fit a theory, or in this case scripture.

Not sure that's the best approach.

Now, now, don't let little things like facts get in the way of an evangelical atheist's attempts to fight blasphemous thoughts like the possibility that any sort of deity might exist.

You threaten his faith, after all.

When I was in high school, and for the most part, a liberal… I took so much stock in this whole creationist-evolutionist debate. Oh those nasty creationists are so wrong and so forth.

Now, admittedly only about a decade or so removed, I find the whole discussion rather tiring.

I'm still very much an evolutionist. I think the major flaw in most people's understanding of evolution is the concept of time and how many iterations it takes for species to evolve. LIke a game of telephone, the original message gets scrambed ("evolved" if you will) into something completely different. That I today would not look anything like my grandmother a thousand generations past seems to me to be a given. Add a million generations past and the difference ought to be staggering.

And unlike Global Warming (which I feel is flawed), the understanding of evolution of the natural world carries with it no political agenda. The conclusions drawn by evolutionists do not require massive new taxes or a "holier than thou" attitude.

To get back on point – I find really little of interest. Personally I believe that creationism/Intellegent Design really has no place in the schools (Ockham's Razor) but if there are people who want to study it, I have no problem with that. So long as Evolution is taught competently as well.

Truth, or exhortations of Faith?

Also, the "separation" Mister_Blank was referring to seems to be less a "wall" and more of different categories of understanding. Would you use a cookbook to learn how to put together a wooden table? Nope, and yet there is no "wall" that keeps one from accepting both. (Or maybe I need a better metaphor. Whatever.)

For the record, Darwin states in the same book that he believed his own theory could not hold up under irreducible complexity. He did not now complicated microscopic organisms were and wouldn't be able to explain it. His finches theory was disproven untrue. The fossil record does not support billions of years worth of fossils.

It takes more faith to believe in Darwin and the Big Bang:
1) You have to believe matter can create itself
2) You have to believe nature forces (e.g. gravity, light) can create themselves
3) You believe one can physically create a soul/spirit
3) You believe Eugenics, euthanasia and abortion are means to help evolution along since we have evolved enough to be begin to control it.

Not sure why someone would want to live in a world without God. You can either be accountable to a higher power or just another human. In the big scheme of things, is one nation's leader any better than you? If you believe don't believe in Creation you do.

Lebbowski,

The priest, Georges Lemaitre, was Belgian, not Latin American. He did say masses in Latin, which may be what you are thinking of. Here's an article. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science... There's also the obligatory wikipedia article but the link won't past correctly because Big Hollywood can't handle the circumflex accent above the "i" in his last name.

The fundamental theory of Darwin is that everything evolved from a single organism.

Odd, I don't recall that coming from Darwin.

There is a theory trying to figure out how life first started on Earth, but it didn't come from Darwin and I don't think it says everything evolved from a single organism.

How very true! I wasn't there- were you? Nobody knows except the Creator, and He left us a book. Scientists examine tons of data and then try their best to force it into their preconceived notions. It's very easy to do- just look at it happening today with Global Warming.

You know, it's usually the leftist trolls who get this reaction from me, but I think you just broke my irony meter.

You might want to know that speciation is a proven fact. Domestic sheep have been bred into different species. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

becouse i have called and ye refused: i have stretched out may hand, and no man regarded me . I also will laugh at your calamity; i will mock when your fear cometh: when your fear cometh as desolation and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you . then shall they call upon me but i will not answer: they shall seek me early , but they shall not find me: for that they hated kbowlekge and did not choose the fear of the Lord………………………….GOD

Yeah, but if atheists do that and prove themselves wrong (which is inevitable), then they have to come to terms with the fact that they have to be held accountable for every immoral action they've committed…and none of them want to do that.

That's what all this comes down to. They don't want to go through life thinking they'll get in trouble for anything after they die.

Sorry- I knew I'd catch some flack for this, because there a lot of scientifically adept commentators on this forum. It's just that no matter how much evidence (notice I didn't say proof) is thrown at me, I can't accept that we have monkeys for uncles. Although some of my relatives have given me pause.

Actually, it was Godless, but I knew what you were referencing.

"…but I will happily go to my grave denying that one species can "evolve" into another…"

And that my friends is the summation of someone who either a) did not pay attention in science class b) had a teacher who communicated scientific principles poorly or c) just plain did not do very well in science.

I have a degree in anthropology, but even before I signed up for that in college, I followed evolutionary theory (KEY WORD – THEORY – LOOK UP THE MEANING) and never ONCE was I taught that somewhere along the path a monkey miraculously changed into a human. IIRC the theory of evolution never claims THAT. It claims that somewhere in the biological history, a primate took the step up from being an animal to a 'thinking man.'

I have a bare minimum of respect for the Creationists who keep refusing to learn the Scientific Method – I think its largely because they want to twist the Scientific Method to their own agenda and they can't do it without looking like fools. I respect them for wanting to live a fuller life in God – I right there with you – but I find it ridiculous to support their literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis – if Im not careful, I could easily begin a theological argument by asking these Creationists that if they are so adamant that we take the literal translation of the Bible as exact history, then why do a lot of them refuse to accept Transubstantiation?

Oh and also – one of the reasons why Darwin was in the Galapagos to begin with was he was on a kind of 'sabbatical' – one that I think was required before he took Holy Vows of Ordination. Yes, thats right…he was studying to go into the priesthood.

The beginnings of science BEGAN when monks in their monasteries during the "dark ages" after the fall of the Roman Empire began asking "what does the Face of God look like? How can we get to know the Mind of God?" They answered that question by looking at the world around them: trees, plants, landscape, the seas. What God created is what they believed would hold messages from God. And as God *is* a creator, I have always believed that to ignore what he created is a tremendous insult to Him. He just wants us to appreciate what He made.

Having said that – I was clapping in delight to see this come up as a preview – Shades of Stephen Maturin! (and Paul Bettany was EXCELLENT as Stephen Maturin) Rumor has it that Russell Crowe is going to reprise his role as Jack Aubrey – YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have never heard an evolutionist explain where matter came from in the first place. If it always existed, then the Law of Entropy is false–the universe is always running down. If the Universe is eternal, then we would not see it winding down. We know that it is unraveling, counting down. So since it is not infinite and eternal, then one must explain "Where did the original matter come from?" You are left with only one option–A Creator. Now, the skeptic will scoff and say, "Where did God come from?" To answer that, we use the basic premise of the law of discovery: All things that exist "came to be"–they were created–made, formed. All things that come to be have a creator. But God is eternal, and never "came to be." He has always existed and therefore does not need a creator. He is the originator.

God had a plan: he created man in his image and for his glory. But a secret plot would unfold–God would allow an invader–Satan–to introduce sin into his perfect world. But the great mystery is that of course all along God knew this would happen and He would show His incredible love to sinful mankind by cloaking Himself in humanity and separating himself into a mortal man with a perfect nature. He would reach down to man and rescue those who were created and destined to recieve his amazing gift of love and redemption. Jesus became the perfect sacrifice by willingly offering himself on behalf of the sins of man. God, the Judge, accepted this on behalf of all who ask him for mercy, because Jesus was the just and perfect one. And, to prove that one is a "child of God" he gave a gift to them at the moment of redemption–God's Spirit.

In conclusion, the only way to know the Creator is to open your eyes and ask him to reveal himself. Romans 1:19 says, "Since what may be known about God is plain to them [those who reject him]. For since the creation of the world God's invisisgble qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Evolution is the fulfillment of God's promise to allow those who reject him to not understand him. Jesus taught in parables–stories with deeper meanings. His disciples questioned him on this occassional practice, and he replied, "Because though they have eyes, they can't see; ears, but can't hear. But to you, the mysteries of the kingdom have been revealed." Why? Because they came to the end of themselves and said, "Teach me." A Psalm says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament displays His handiwork. Day after day their voice utters this speech; there is no where that this voice is not heard." He is there, just look at Him!

I see that once again Jennifer Connelly stays true to form as a one trick pony. Somber and depressed. Maybe this movie is perfect for her.

Any real scientist knows that evolution is impossible!!!!

Right. Thanks.

Isn't it time for your nap?

We must also accept there is a certain level of interaction. If you do not follow the instructions properly to build your table (whether from a book on woodworking or on a sheet with a Wal-Mart special) then you will lack a good surface to work your dough on, as well as several other tasks, even one to simply lay the cookbook on while working. Moreover, the cookbook will imply that you have a clean level surface to work on, may even explicitly state to use a table for some purpose, thus the cookbook indicates the instructions on building a table without directly mentioning them. Yes there will be people who say the table is not needed, but you would certainly not want to work dough on the floor, the cookbook does mention ovens and burners but you cannot work dough on a stove top (go ahead and try), and not everyone can get nor afford to get enough countertop space, maybe even not keep it uncluttered enough, however tables are universal in our culture, simple to obtain even when you do not build one yourself. The table remains the best choice for properly implementing the cookbook.

(Somewhere there is a metaphor running away and screaming in agony. Perhaps it will find the others and they can swap tales of my cruelty.)

Cal, honey…youre strange. *pats head* Go back to reading the New Republic. Im sure somewhere in those pages theres an announcement that Obama is going to come rescue you…

Now talk about Global Warming, err, Climate Change, or whatever un-discredited name they will choose next time.

The piece on the eyes is a perfect example backing my thoughts of a creator not that there isn't. Without a plan, the evolutionary path could not succeed. DNA is like a complex software program that we still have not figured out but points to intelligent design. The fact that virtually everything can be modeled with mathematical equations, i.e. statics, dynamics, physics, even music shows that everything has a ubiquitous foundation. Where did this foundation come from? Out of thin air? There is a creator, that I am sure. How do you define the creator is where the interpretation comes in.

I was once a liberal and an Atheist. Because I was a "free thinker", I opened my mind and began extensive research on political idealogy and theological philosophies. I am now a conservative Christ follower because of "looking things up". I don't profess to know everything but as I gain wisdom and maturity, I find that I am on the right path.

As of now your rating on this one is back in neutral territory. It appears to be evolving upward!

You fail to understand Ockham's razor and Evolution.

The principle of Ockham's razor is NOT "given two scenarios – the simpler one is the right one". That's a falsehood because a more complex answer is sometimes correct. You have to go with the facts as best we can derive them.

Ockham's razor, from wikipedia, is "The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."

Basically saying that there is no need to include God in the discussion of evolution. If you want to believe God was the founder of the rules and perhaps had a hand in guiding the course of evolution – that's fine. But it's theology and not science and should not be confused.

To answer your second question about fossil evidence of essentially "Mutants"…

First of all not all dead animals are fossilized. Dig up poor Fluffy the Rottweiler which we buried 5 years ago… I doubt you'll find much of anything.

But secondly, evolution is not a random game of dice where a milllion different variations are just tried willy nilly. Assuming you have a child with another human being, there is a very minor chance that that child will have 3 arms, 4 eyes or 2 toes. Such things can happen, and without the benifit of civilization, that child would sure die almost immediately.

We have the benefit of understanding genetics as the mechanism for evolution (something Darwin did not have). Traits are passed from parent to child through genes. Through sexual reproduction, traits are mixed and blended. Mutations occur, most of the time they are benign. The really bad mutations will fail and die off (and not get fossilized). Over thousands of generations these changes add up to something significant.

ROFL!

I got better things to do than watch this crapola. I don't care how much so called proof they have out there far wiser people than these fools would state there are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your science. So, evolution? Hows about this one: God is infinite, a billion years means nothing, to reduce ourselves which is what this garbage is to the role of meaningless bug is to reduce our souls, our consience being. How come we are the only animals out there are that our conscience of ourselves? Think about that next time you have some silly head up his or her heiny atheist telling you what they think. There are people out there who so loathe their fellow man and want to ignore what we really are tehy'd do anything including ignore their Creator to get what they want. Rebels? No more like ingrates.

Exactly! Each kind of creature was made "after his kind," dogs can't become cats, lizards don't evolve into birds- you know the drill. But there are many variations within a species, depending on environmental factors.

"Coulter" and "brilliant" are two words that should never appear together in the same sentence.

JM, you don't know what the word "theory" means, but thanks for playing, anyway.

You are correct. I misspoke, I was actually referring to enthalpy from the first Law of Thermodynamics. The energy expended (usually heat) from the changing of states.

If I can throw in some redundant points to some very good comments. As already stated, Darwin himself said that there should be an abundant fossil record to corroborate his theory. There is no such fossil record. There should be millions of transitional species in the fossil record yet there’s not even one. Darwin’s theory should be observable today yet we see no species in mid mutation turning into another species. Did this evolutionary tree of plants and animals stop mutating at some point and just refrained to reproduce as the same species? The theory is absurd. Darwin also never claimed to address origins of life, he addressed origins of species. To the extent that microevolution takes place is indisputable, the idea of macroevolution- a palm tree turning into a fish or an ostrich into an alligator- is beyond absurd.

Cont………….

Let’s hypothesize for a moment. Let’s assume we have one single celled organism, let’s assume further that it randomly developed the ability to reproduce, what would the initial stages look like of this evolving one celled organism? Let’s say it grows to bacteria, what was the next stage? What would be its need to evolve beyond bacteria? During this fantastical evolution of species from a single celled organism what was the reason for any species that could take flight? It’s all fantasy. It makes absolutely no sense for a life form along the lines of bacteria to randomly evolve, among a hostile environment, into any species let alone branch off randomly into all life [animal and plant] on the globe.

cont…………

Have you read any of her books? Have you read "Godless?" She does rigorous and exhaustive research. If not, get a copy of "Godless" and please read Chapter 8, The Creation Myth: On the Sixth Day God Created Fruit Flies.

i can see we have another xtian who reads Kent Hovind and Behe and thinks he's been edumacated. probably reads jack chick comics on evolution too. But don't worry, baby jesus is coming in the clouds to rapture you! Don't hold your breath jackass, LMAO

That Junk DNA is needed so that we can evolve the proper adaptations when we need them. Single Celled Organisms are much more easily adaptable, and have simpler needs. They do not need to have the potential to grow Gills, whereas we, being incredibly complex need the capacity to Evolve Gills as needed to sustain ourselves. This is why we have all that junk DNA, it holds a myriad of evolutionary permutations in-potencia.

I cant wait for a sequel to Master and Commander.

And thank you for standing up for Scientific Christian belief everywhere.

Atheists and scientists need to realize that if you give people a choice between God and science, a large number of people are not only going to choose God but are going to consider all science suspect from that point forward. That's not a winning strategy for anyone.

I see we have someone that likes to make assumptions. I'm glad I could entertain you. I'm not sure why you need the name calling. I believe it would behoove you to remember that we sometimes get braver than normal when we're behind a keyboard. You should communicate with people as if you are talking face-to-face. You don't know it but my being saved is a blessing for you.

Kirk Cameron, is that you?

It cuts both ways. I know plenty of scientists and atheists who would vote Republican if it weren't for what they perceive as the undue influence of religious fundamentalists in the party.

As a Creationist, I TRY…to believe that there is a "GOD". As a person who enjoys Scientific "Facts"(PROVEN)… I continue to conflict upon myself about my belief. Who are we? Where did we come from? Who do we believe???. Both sides show somewhat factual evidence. AHHHHHH! Well, I came to the conclusion sometime ago. God does exist! He has too! Look around. What do you see? LIFE! LIFE! It's explainable up to a point. After that?????? GOD??? Right? Or better yet, the Green Aliens, or the Gray ones….Well, God ,in my opinion wins this battle. You can't explain everything. And those who try, are fools. You only end up looking and sounding foolish. Unless of course, you state your evidence in a very believable way. Then you leave a "doubt" or a "hmmmm." Oh well. It's also my opinion that it's better to believe in something, rather than nothing.

You know, you can disagree with someone without going out of your way to act incredibly rude.

Might want to consider that.

Haha, true!

Hey Ralphie, I think you meant "unpossible."

Yes, I did read "Godless." Most vacuous and vapid book she'd produced. Parroting Behe doesn't make her a scientist — and writing a book doesn't make her intelligent.

Has it been that way since Day One? The earth's been around for 4.5 Billion years, that is quite the statement when Man has been her for .00000001% of earth's time.

A palm tree turning into a fish? Maybe your first step toward disputing evolution would be to understand it and not repeat some talking points of someone who does not understand evolution.

And by the way there are thousands of transitional fossils for different species, including humans.

The Catholic Church is able to reconcile evolution/science and faith, why is it so hard for fundamentalists?

CORRECT! I'm a devout Catholic, but the christian fundamentalist wing of the repub party hurts the party in the long run. The Christian Fundamentalist in the repub party want to control your life and your choices just the same as all the hippie liberals on the left.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think science and God are mutually exclusive, don't think all scientists and doctors are atheists, I believe in God, and don't believe that humans play a significant role in climate change.

I do think that many militant atheists and some scientists who are concerned about fundamentalists believe that forcing people to choose science or God (in the broad sense that they may be attacking God or something more specific like Biblical inerrancy) will force them to pick science. That's the whole purpose of a false dilemma — to force a choice in the direction the person posing the dilemma supports. It doesn't work that way. Not only do many pick God but it also positions science as anti-God and thus the enemy and I think it turns at least some religious people anti-science. I don't think that's a good thing for either side.

I think you should talk to some Christian Fundamentalists rather than believing what the left-wing mainstream media tells you about them. The extremists who want a theocracy or to control your life are the exception, but the mainstream media portrays them as the norm, on purpose, to frighten people like you away from them. Congratulations. You've fallen for it. If right-wing Christian Fundamentalists were anywhere near as extreme as the media portrays, we'd be hearing about abortion doctors being murdered weekly. We have an example of what really extreme religious fundamentalists look like and how they behave and if you can't see the stark contrast between what's happening in the Middle East and what happens in the United States, you really need to take a closer look. That many Americans are still more frightened by Pat Robertson than Osama bin Laden should tell you something about the propaganda that the mainstream media has been engaged in.

That is just an illogical standpoint. If someone tells me science and religion are incompatible, then I will show them how they are wrong, I won't act like a petulant child and reject everything they say because of.

Odd, since neither piece on the development of eyes said anything about the existence of God, for or against. Just says it is possible for eyes to evolve.

Now talk about Global Warming, err, Climate Change, or whatever un-discredited name they will choose next time.

Um, they're frauds?

If the facts don't match the theory, then the theory has to change or you have to come up with something else to explain those pesky facts. Oh, and doublecheck the facts to make sure they didn't come from some sort of measurement error.

What I was pointing out, the relationship of real science, per your description, to "Climate Change science." There are too many who point to facts then say this is science therefore settled (as in permanent), not realizing nothing in science is settled, everything is subject to possible revision or replacement. That is what makes in science.

(continued from above…)

When it comes to man, what is the problem with believing that this process culminated in a particularly advanced line of hominids, a pair of whom God chose to, as He had planned to all along, "breathe" living souls into, a state (ensoulment) that God contracted Himself into providing for all of their descendants? Geneticists may counter that humanity as we know it could not come from only one set of parents; OK, who's to say the first descendants of this first couple did not reproduce with biologically identical – though unensouled – hominids, and these offspring (by virtue of at least one ensouled parent) were also granted ensoulment by God? After all, a) in this primitive state, I imagine it would have been nigh impossible to tell the difference, and b) God, in shepherding His people toward righteousness, permitted things in the Old Testament that He (as articulated by His Son) condemned in the New Testament; therefore, God would have allowed the mating with the nonensouled as necessary for the time being. Eventually, as humans came to grasp their difference from unensouled hominids, they would have only mated with each other. The hominids, having gone as far as they could go in the evolutionary process, would be separated from the human population, which was not only a result of evolution, but the revolution of becoming a living soul.

As far as God’s “designing” activity, I think of it in accord with his omnipotence in that he foresaw the outcomes of evolutionary events and said “OK. That’ll do. I can work with that.” If the outcome had been unacceptable to God, He would have “designed” the process and/or forces that drive it differently. As it is, the process He designed gave Him what He wanted: a diverse and fascinating array of creatures great and small, and a particularly advanced line of hominids, a pair of whom God chose to, as He had planned to all along, “breathe” living souls into. The robustness of this process allowed Him, instead of constantly having to interfere with it, to do what He loves most: loving and sheparding His creatures.

Therefore, life as it exists on earth in all its variety is the result of the design of God, as He a) designed the process of its creation, and b) foreseeing its evolutionary outcomes, including you, me, and everything around us, gave it the “thumbs up”, or at the very least "OK, I can work with that…".

The above account is useful to me, as it does not dispense with the evidence of evolution by natural selection, which has greatly aided man's understanding, but neither does it try to make evolution by natural selection account for absolutely everything, a corner atheistic champions of Darwin are ever-so-eager to paint themselves into. Though I'm sure those more theologically and/or scientifically advanced than I could challenge parts or all of it, it is by no means the end of my journey in understanding God and His creation.

Of course, I would happily trade a complete understanding of the Mind of God for an even partial understanding of the mind of a woman.

Who are you parroting?

It's not a parable. Genesis is literally true, but like much of the Bible one has to be careful in its interpretation, because it represents two levels of wisdom. You are right about the original audience of the Torah. These were backwards, illiterate, uneducated people who couldn't possibly conceive of a billions year-old universe, let alone particle physics and relativity. The wording of Genesis is therefore simple and direct. But since the Bible represents timeless wisdom, it also contains a much deeper wisdom intended for people who would eventually be able to comprehend it. In the scientific publishing trade, we continuously strive for that sort of balance — conveying ideas as simply and efficiently as possible while relating as much information as is necessary. I'm frankly in awe of the genius of Genesis.

http://www.godinsidehollywood.com