God and Evolution
 

God created evolution.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
God created evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter?

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
God created evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img59.exs.cx/img59/1992/brilliant7lb.jpg


pwned. Do you see why?

Re: God and Evolution
 

So what? Your statement has nothing to do with the current "debates" about evolution vs intelligent design.

Re: God and Evolution
 

which god?

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
God created evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's marshmellows you're thinking of. God created marshmellows. I mean, you know, if you believe the Bible.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
which god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question, and it gives me excuse to post one of my favorite essays by H.L. Mencken.


Where is the graveyard of dead gods?
- H.L. Mencken

Where is the graveyard of dead gods? What lingering mourner waters their mounds? There was a time when Jupiter was the king of the gods, and any man who doubted his puissance was ipso facto a barbarian and an ignoramus. But where in all the world is there a man who worships Jupiter today? And who of Huitzilopochtli? In one year - and it is no more than five hundred years ago - 50,000 youths and maidens were slain in sacrifice to him. Today, if he is remembered at all, it is only by some vagrant savage in the depths of the Mexican forest. Huitzilopochtli, like many other gods, had no human father; his mother was a virtuous widow; he was born of an apparently innocent flirtation that she carried out with the sun. When he frowned, his father, the sun, stood still. When he roared with rage, earthquakes engulfed whole cities. When he thirsted he was watered with 10,000 gallons of human blood. But today Huitzilopochtli is as magnificently forgotten as Allen G. Thurman. Once the peer of Allah, Buddha and Wotan, he is now the peer of Richmond P. Hobson, Alton B. Parker, Adelina Patti, General Weyler and Tom Sharkey.

Speaking of Huitzilopochtli recalls his brother Tezcatilpoca. Tezcatilpoca was almost as powerful; he consumed 25,000 virgins a year. Lead me to his tomb: I would weep, and hang a couronne des perles. But who knows where it is? Or where the grave of Quitzalcoatl is? Or Xiehtecuthli? Or Centeotl, that sweet one? Or Tlazolteotl, the goddess of love? Of Mictlan? Or Xipe? Or all the host of Tzitzimitles? Where are their bones? Where is the willow on which they hung their harps? In what forlorn and unheard-of Hell do they await their resurrection morn? Who enjoys their residuary estates? Or that of Dis, whom Caesar found to be the chief god of the Celts? Or that of Tarves, the bull? Or that of Moccos, the pig? Or that of Epona, the mare? Or that of Mullo, the celestial jackass? There was a time when the Irish revered all these gods, but today even the drunkest Irishman laughs at them.

But they have company in oblivion: the Hell of dead gods is as crowded as the Presbyterian Hell for babies. Damona is there, and Esus, and Drunemeton, and Silvana, and Dervones, and Adsalluta, and Deva, and Belisima, and Uxellimus, and Borvo, and Grannos, and Mogons. All mighty gods in their day, worshipped by millions, full of demands and impositions, able to bind and loose - all gods of the first class. Men labored for generations to build vast temples to them - temples with stones as large as hay-wagons. The business of interpreting their whims occupied thousands of priests, bishops, archbishops. To doubt them was to die, usually at the stake. Armies took to the field to defend them against infidels; villages were burned, women and children butchered, cattle were driven off. Yet in the end they all withered and died, and today there is none so poor to do them reverence.

What has become of Sutekh, once the high god of the whole Nile Valley?

What has become of: Resheph, Baal, Anath, Astarte, Hadad, Nebo, Dagon, Melek, Yau, Ahijah, Amon-Re, Isis, Osiris, Ptah, Molech?

All were gods of the highest eminence. Many of them are mentioned with fear and trembling in the Old Testament. They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Yahweh Himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute, and with them the following: Arianrod, Nuada, Argetlam, Mara, Morrigu, Tagd, Govannon, Goibniu, Gunfled, Odin, Dagda, Ogma, Ogryvan, Marzin, Dea, Diana of Ephesus, Dia, Robigus, Iuno Lucina, Cronos, Saturn, Vesta, Furrina, Zer-panitu, Pluto, Merodach, Engurra, Elum, Belus, Marduk, Ubilulu, Nin, U-dimmer-an-kia, Persephone, U-sab-sib, Istar, U-Mersi, Lagas, Tammuz, Venus, Beltis, Nirig, Nusku, En-Mersi, Aa, Assur, Sin, Beltu, Apsu, Kuski-banda, Elali, Nin-azu, Mami, Qarradu, Zaraqu, Ueras, Zagaga

Ask the rector to lend you any good book on comparative religion; you will find them all listed. They were gods of the highest dignity - gods of civilized peoples - worshipped and believed in by millions. All were omnipotent, omniscient and immortal.

And all are dead

Re: God and Evolution
 

Marshmallows.

The Bible does not contradict science.

Re: God and Evolution
 

That's a good essay. Thanks

Re: God and Evolution
 

"God" and "evolution" are very imprecise terms, as they mean different things to different people.

Generally, "evolution" for most people means:

1. A theory of how life originally came to be on earth

2. A process by which existing life progresses on earth


Pro-evolution arguments are utterly dependent on mutation as the key process through which existing life evolves.

Depending on mutation to argue evolution is a pretty weak strategy, yet all arguments for evolution depend on the weak-at-best mutation premise.

Origin-of-life evolutionary arguments have no legs whatsoever. (pun intended)

The origin of life of earth is not nearly explained by 'evolution'.

A more rational theory is found here, as are the sound logical premises that support it. Life's origin on earth appears to be from elsewhere, and what we currently call "evolution" appears to be pre-existing DNA programming that is on a "time-release" schedule and/or is very sensitive to environmental factors.

http://www.panspermia.org

"Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory pertaining to evolution and the origin of life on Earth. It holds that life on Earth was seeded from space, and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on genetic programs that come from space. (It accepts the Darwinian account of evolution that does not require new genetic programs.) It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating."

"The case for Cosmic Ancestry is not yet proven, of course. At this point the best reason to notice it is that sustained evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth are not satisfactorily accounted for by Darwinism. We will mention some of the flaws in that theory, but our primary purpose is to present Cosmic Ancestry as a viable, new scientific account of evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth."

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pro-evolution arguments are utterly dependent on mutation as the key process through which existing life evolves.

Depending on mutation to argue evolution is a pretty weak strategy, yet all arguments for evolution depend on the weak-at-best mutation premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that mutations don't happen?

Because, you know, we've directly observed them.

Re: God and Evolution
 

Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time. It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones. Think about it.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

sustained evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth are not satisfactorily accounted for by Darwinism


[/ QUOTE ]

Stunning.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither does gravity.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations aren't an argument in favor of biological evolution. They're part of what we observe about how evolution works.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither does gravity.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations aren't an argument in favor of biological evolution. They're part of what we observe about how evolution works.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe that our current Theoretical Model for Evolution won't be modified in the future and possibly replaced by a much better one which may be as radically different conceptualy as Quantum Physics was from Newtonian Mechanics. Yes we have fossil evidence that species change over the millinea. We have observed mutations in viruses. But Evolution theory is very difficult to apply the scientific method to compared to other scientific theories. The experiments would just require too much time.

The most nagging problem for the Theory is whether the Mechanics it Theorizes are really powerful enough for evolution to have happened as fast as it did. I find it puzzling how the human species could have evolved from its precursors in just a couple of million years or so. This objection to the Theory is met by Argument rather than experimental results. Defenders of the Theory ARGUE that Mutation combined with Genetic Diversity combined with Dormant Genes Combined with Cross Reproduction combined with Changing Environment combined with Natural Selection provides the Evolutionary power to explain Quick evolutionary changes that fossil records show sometimes take place. Their arguments are very pursuasive by the way. But Arguments are not Proof by the Experimental Method.

I think there's some truth to the observation that the Theory of Evolution is sometimes defended like Religious Dogma. EVERY Scientific Theory today has shortcomings. If this were not the case we would have a fully functional Unified Theory. Scientists are the first to admit this about Newtonian Mechanics, Dual Theories of Light, Quantum Physics, General Relativity, etc. But when someone suggests that the Theory of Evolution may be flawed he is often met by statements like, Evolution is not a Theory, it's a fact.

PairTheBoard

Re: God and Evolution
 

I've heard a lot of good arguments against evolution. However, the thing about intelligent design is you can't directly argue against it. It seems people think you can prove intelligent design by disproving evolution. Science simply doesn't work like that.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe that our current Theoretical Model for Evolution won't be modified in the future and possibly replaced by a much better one which may be as radically different conceptualy as Quantum Physics was from Newtonian Mechanics. Yes we have fossil evidence that species change over the millinea. We have observed mutations in viruses. But Evolution theory is very difficult to apply the scientific method to compared to other scientific theories. The experiments would just require too much time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking really annoys me. The theory of evolution is not a quaint little corner of biology, it is the cornerstone and constant companion of every discipline therein.

The evidence for evolution goes beyond fossils - extending to morphology (shared skeletal structures), embryology (e.g. you once had a tail), molecular biology (the sequence level)...

Quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics. Similarly, if you think an alternative thoery will arise that significantly supplants the theory that (at least the vast majority of) all life on earth shares a common ancestry, then you are mistaken.

Everybody who thinks otherwise needs a good dose of Richard Dawkins.

Re: God and Evolution
 

Intelligent design is a nice way of saying "I believe in the God of the Gaps". Adherents to intelligent design are saying that because currently no explanation has been postulated or shown through experimentation or current knowledge then that must be where God is. This has the effect of banishing God to an ever decreasing domain as the knowledge base grows. (I should say I am an avowed agnositic - don't even think the question of God is answerable and therefore meaningless)

Re: God and Evolution
 

What you don't seem to realize is that the problems you have with evolution theory are insignificant if you use those problems to argue for intelligent design. They would only be significant if the problems were obviously insurmountable.

The analogy is Uri Geller. He does stuff. Amazing Randi duplicates it. That convinces even you that he is a fraud. Keep in mind however that it is no proof of that fact. Geller could still be for real. But virtually everybody understands that Geller's claims are so farfetched that if a magician can duplicate them it becomes a giant favorite that Geller is a liar. Because there is no evidence that it is possible that anyone could ever have the powers Geller claims. Once Randi does it without those powers its pretty clearcut that Geller used the same or similar means.

But what about if Randi cannot duplicate all of Geller's tricks? Im pretty sure that most people would still not believe in him as long as those tricks were at all similar to the ones Randi figured out. As long as Randi showed that in general Geller's stuff could be explained without resorting to mysticism, it would be reasonable to assume that the tricks that Randi couldn't duplicate would someday be figured out by him or other magicians.

Same with evolution.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

As long as Randi showed that in general Geller's stuff could be explained without resorting to mysticism


[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what evolution hasn't begun to do. This is why Gould needed "punctuated equilibrium" and why we now see what I call "punctuated alienism".

[ QUOTE ]

would be reasonable to assume that the tricks that Randi couldn't duplicate would someday be figured out by him or other magicians.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution of the Gaps. Someday man will discover how the universe popped up out of nothing for no reason.

Re: God and Evolution
 

"This is precisely what evolution hasn't begun to do. This is why Gould needed "punctuated equilibrium" and why we now see what I call "punctuated alienism"."

I don't know much about evolution's particulars. Are you saying you don't believe some fish turned into amphibians? Or even that bears who migrated to the polar regosn didn't turn whiter? Do you deny that a great majority of above 140 IQ people who have studied the issue believe the above to be true? (including, I think, the Pope!)

"would be reasonable to assume that the tricks that Randi couldn't duplicate would someday be figured out by him or other magicians



Evolution of the Gaps. Someday man will discover how the universe popped up out of nothing for no reason."

Subatomic particle supposedly do that. But that is off the subject. You say evolution of the gaps as if that is supposed to prove something. Are you disagreeing with my statement that if Randi could explain most of Geller's tricks, you could bet that eventually the others would be discovered to be magician's tricks as well?

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As long as Randi showed that in general Geller's stuff could be explained without resorting to mysticism


[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what evolution hasn't begun to do. This is why Gould needed "punctuated equilibrium" and why we now see what I call "punctuated alienism".


[/ QUOTE ]

Look, punctuated equilibrium is a not-very-popular theory put forward by a articulate paleontologist and popularizer of science.

If you need a decent explanation of how complex lifeforms can arise without divine intervention, read "the blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

By the way, I can't understand (from anything but a PR point of view) the current trend of science reaching out to moderate religious types. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone can reconcile the fact that we are the result of selection and drift acting on 3 billion years of random mutation, with a belief in a all-powerful being that has some kind of stake and interest in our actions.

Maybe I'm just lacking in imagination.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about evolution's particulars. Are you saying you don't believe some fish turned into amphibians? Or even that bears who migrated to the polar regosn didn't turn whiter? Do you deny that a great majority of above 140 IQ people who have studied the issue believe the above to be true? (including, I think, the Pope!)


[/ QUOTE ]

Any real discussion of evolution should include a definition, I suppose. Do biological changes occur in nature? I don't think anyone with an I.Q. above 40 would deny this.

What I mean by objectionable evolution is mostly the origin of life from non-life. I am also highly sceptical of the idea that all of today's life developed from a single primitive life form. One notch further down is the concept of speciation. But I can go for the bear thing, or for that matter the beaks of finches and dark/white moths. But the central issue with evolution is the question of chance versus design. Whatever is proven in biology, no scientist can ever show anything concerning this fundamental issue.

[ QUOTE ]

Subatomic particle supposedly do that


[/ QUOTE ]

But whence the particles?

[ QUOTE ]

You say evolution of the gaps as if that is supposed to prove something. Are you disagreeing with my statement that if Randi could explain most of Geller's tricks, you could bet that eventually the others would be discovered to be magician's tricks as well?


[/ QUOTE ]

If proves as much as the statement God of the Gaps. And sure, Randi gets my vote. But there is a major way that the Randi analogy doesn't compare with creation. We know a lot about the physical universe, what it takes to bend a spoon, how unlikely telekenesis is, and how clever magicians can be. We know absolutely nothing about the creation of universes, or the creation of anything out of nothing. We've seen frauds in the realm of magic exposed, we've had magic tricks explained to us. No one has yet shown how the "trick" of life or existence itself occurred.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

...But the central issue with evolution is the question of chance versus design. Whatever is proven in biology, no scientist can ever show anything concerning this fundamental issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

We seem to be getting to the heart of the argument. If I can paraphrase, what you are saying is that the absence of design cannot be proven.
....Just like the absence of god cannot be proven.

On the other side of the coin, evolution provides an alternative explanation to design that doesn't not rely on any intervention from supernatural powers. Application of Occam's razor makes this explanation infinitely preferrable.

By the way, I completely understand why religious people fear evolution - it removes the need for God.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

Look, punctuated equilibrium is a not-very-popular theory put forward by a articulate paleontologist and popularizer of science.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting statement. After my post mentioning PE I did a Google on it. From a very brief survey it looks like PE (aka the hopeful monster theory) is no longer controversial, but there still remains a fundamental divide between gradualists and PE types. I even found one quote that tried to make us believe Darwin anticipated PE. I'm still laughing over that one.

The very existence of PE is a major embarassment to evolutionists. Darwin was adamant that the fossil record had to show gradual change over a long period of time, and he was concerned that the evidence wasn't there. By the 1970's some paleontologists began to have the same concern. PE was invented to cling to evolution in spite of the evidence. It reveals the total fraud of so-called "objectivity" and "neutrality" in science. A theory must be invented to maintain our worldview. Now that it seems there wasn't enough time on earth for Darwinian evolution to have occured they have to bring in the Magical Mystery Meteorite, or puntuated alienism. Maybe a better name would be "hopeful E.T.".

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, I can't understand (from anything but a PR point of view) the current trend of science reaching out to moderate religious types.


[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of proves the point. Why would science ever compromise "real" science for PR? And if they ever do so, how are normal people ever supposed to know the difference?

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

I completely understand why religious people fear evolution - it removes the need for God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I completely understand why atheists fear creation - it requires the existence of God.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
The very existence of PE is a major embarassment to evolutionists.

[/ QUOTE ]
NotReady, you honestly don't understand what you're talking about, and you lose credibility with people like meow_meow who do understand PE and evolution.

PE does not contradict Darwin's theory -- it is consistent with "gradualism." (Gould and Eldredge admit this themselves. See Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115-151.)

And to characterize punctuated equilibrium as "aka the hopeful monster theory" is wrong. Goldschmidt's hopeful monster conjecture is entirely different.

(BTW, Gould is generally recognized as an excellent writer but a poor biologist. We was particularly good at self-promotion, and hyped PE as if it were something revolutionary -- but it really wasn't.)

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean by objectionable evolution is mostly the origin of life from non-life.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not what's objectionable about it to you. All theist models of how life came about include "life from non-life" as well -- e.g., making Adam out of non-living clay.

There's no question that life originally came from non-life. The only question is how it happened.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]


The very existence of PE is a major embarassment to evolutionists. Darwin was adamant that the fossil record had to show gradual change over a long period of time, and he was concerned that the evidence wasn't there. By the 1970's some paleontologists began to have the same concern. PE was invented to cling to evolution in spite of the evidence. It reveals the total fraud of so-called "objectivity" and "neutrality" in science. A theory must be invented to maintain our worldview. Now that it seems there wasn't enough time on earth for Darwinian evolution to have occured they have to bring in the Magical Mystery Meteorite, or puntuated alienism. Maybe a better name would be "hopeful E.T.".


[/ QUOTE ]

Pure distortion. As if debate as to the mechanics of evolution constitute evidence against it. So, gaps in the fossil record are the best evidence against evolution? I'm happy with that.

So, on the one side, we have an enormous mountain of evidence (incomplete mind you) that supports evolution.

On the other side, we have...(fill in the blank)... that directly contradicts evolution.

I can't wrap my mind around why there is still an argument. Oh wait, it's because God and Evolution are inconsistant. And there isn't any evidence for God, but that's ok, because faith is all that's required.

So, while God can't be disproved, the case for a creator God who has a stake in human endevours is seriously weakened by evidence of evolution. This is what it's all about.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is not what's objectionable about it to you


[/ QUOTE ]

If context it should be obvious it is. In the same paragraph I said:

[ QUOTE ]

But the central issue with evolution is the question of chance versus design.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to quibble over form, feel free.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

you lose credibility with people like meow_meow who do understand PE and evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to imagine losing something I don't have.

I suppose it's possible I'm misunderstanding PE. Any normal reading of what it says seems opposite of Darwinian gradualism. Are you saying evolution occurs in two different ways? If so, how do you reconcile PE with natural selection occurring over millions of years? In other words, what's the mechanism for PE?

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, while God can't be disproved, the case for a creator God who has a stake in human endevours is seriously weakened by evidence of evolution. This is what it's all about.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. Reality seriously weakens the case for the fundamentalists' God who created the world 6,000 years ago.

But it does not weaken the case for a God who created the universe 14 billion (or whatever) years ago and let it run its course from there.

I personally don't believe in such a God, but belief in such a God is not at all inconsistent with evolutionary theory. (Good book on this: Finding Darwin's God, by Ken Miller. In fact, I would highly recommend this book to NotReady. Miller is a devout Christian and a knowledgeable biologist, and does a great job of describing what evolution says and what it does not say.)

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

As if debate as to the mechanics of evolution constitute evidence against it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read this before you wrote it? Mechanics is everthing. After all, evolution has been a theory at least since the ancient Greeks.

[ QUOTE ]

So, gaps in the fossil record are the best evidence against evolution? I'm happy with that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read this? In other words, your position is:

1. No gaps = evolution.
2. Gaps = evolution.

The deck seems stacked here.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it's possible I'm misunderstanding PE.
I wouldn't worry about it. PE really isn't an important concept. Any normal reading of what it says seems opposite of Darwinian gradualism. Are you saying evolution occurs in two different ways? If so, how do you reconcile PE with natural selection occurring over millions of years?

[/ QUOTE ]
They are easy to reconcile since PE says that natural selection occurs over millions of years.

I wouldn't worry too much about misunderstanding PE. It's not important. It's far more important to get the basics of evolution right. The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins are both very good on this score (although the latter book will irritate you with some questionable philosophical inferences toward the end). But if you don't want to read a book by an atheist, I do highly recommend the Ken Miller book. It is a knowledgeable theist's take on evolution, and he gets everything right.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

I personally don't believe in such a God, but belief in such a God is not at all inconsistent with evolutionary theory. (Good book on this: Finding Darwin's God, by Ken Miller.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my reply to Sklansky, we need to define evolution before discussing it. And as I reiterated in my post to you, the central issue is the cause of biology, not the details. But I can't read any evolutionist without encountering dogmatic assertions about "random" mutations and the suffocating anthropomorphizing of evolution and natural selection.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

They are easy to reconcile since PE says that natural selection occurs over millions of years.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the difference from gradualism?

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

I completely understand why atheists fear creation - it requires the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

A complete misunderstanding. The reason creationism is not relegated to science is because it is a complete dead end. No further experimentation necessary and it is an "untestable" hypothesis. A valid scientific hypothesis must have the key trait of being able to be proven wrong. If you introduce an omiscient being to the equation all bets are off.
Also, the foundation of all the biological sciences is evolution. As an example, the drosophila experiments were an attempt to find the mechanism that would allow traits to be passed on to following generations and a mechanism that would allow the traits to change. The results of these studies led to discovery of chromosomes, which in turn led to the discovery of DNA. This of course led to the advent of genomics and bioengineering. You can thank Darwin for the pathway to all of this.
As for intelligent design, it is precisely the inexactness and messiness of the natural world that refutes this. There are so many clunky and gerry rigged solutions to the problems that organisms face, that it points to things being stumbled upon and leaves much room for further advantage to be gained by succeeding generations.
A minority of the world's Christian population still clings to the Adam and Eve story as a factual historical treatise. The majority have moved on and many of them still have a strong faith. They just don't need fairy tales to back it up.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I said in my reply to Sklansky, we need to define evolution before discussing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you're primarily interested in abiogenesis rather than evolution proper, and I don't remember the Miller book devoting much (any?) attention to abiogenesis.

But you do make statements about plain old evolution from time to time on these boards, and it is evident from those statements that you don't have a good grasp of the theory. (I don't mean that to be offensive. I'm just stating it as an observation, not as an insult.) Reading the Miller book would correct that.

I don't know of any good sources on abiogenesis. Both of the Dawkins book I mentioned earlier touch on it, but only briefly and in rather speculative fashion.

As for the issue of empirically distinguishing between chance and design, you may want to read some of Berlinski's writings, and then some criticisms of those writings. (Berlinski proposes an empirical method of recognizing design. The criticisms of his method are devastating. I don't have any links off the top of my head, but there's a lot available on the web.)

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

No further experimentation necessary and it is an "untestable" hypothesis


[/ QUOTE ]

So is evolution by chance and the origin of life from non-life by chance and something from nothing by chance.

[ QUOTE ]

A valid scientific hypothesis must have the key trait of being able to be proven wrong


[/ QUOTE ]

Unfalsifiability as a test of "true science" is dead.

[ QUOTE ]

They just don't need fairy tales to back it up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently atheists still need their fairy tales.

Re: God and Evolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

But you do make statements about plain old evolution from time to time on these boards


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what "plain old evolution" is. Darwin? Gould? The universe produced by chance? I don't have a good grasp of the theory because there isn't "a" theory, but a multitude of theories which change daily to fit the facts or lack thereof.