[MidGe]

Heya NotReady,


I think your bove post makes your position eminently clear and whilst I diagree strongly with many of your conclusions (about evolution from primates and the single cell ancestor), I think you are missing the very point of much of the dabate between theists and those not so inclned here. Altough you allude to in a couple of ways.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no possible way any scientist can know whether or not God is ultimately responsible for any evolution that does occur. People like Dawkins say that evolution makes God unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two sentences above are quite different, I would say nearly apposite in meaning. Allow me to paraphrase them to put my interpretation of the meaning.
1. Science does not concern itself with the existence or not of such a thing as a god. Science concerns itself with natural laws (ie repeatable results).
2. The fact that evolution does make god unnecesary, does not say anything about its existence or absence. What will settle that question is faith.

The problem I see is when, for whatever reason, but I think mostly an insecurity vis-a-vis their "faith" or beliefs, theists start to argue that science does indicate a neccesity for a god. This is wrong. This is where they also loose the argument. There is a boundary between science and beliefs that ought to be kept intact for the survival of, both or either, imo.

As far as concerns for conflict between genuine science and genuine Bible interpretation, altough not a believer in any sense, as you probably know, it sorts of make sense that the interpretaion of the bible should be in accordance with what is observed even for a believer. Indeed to do anything else, would make for some very slippery and dangerous grounds.

Ok, that was my 2 cents worth. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I wished all theist brothers would post in as an itelligent manner as you do.