Finding Darwin's God OR Evolution and Christianity are Compatible

Brown Alumni Magazine ^ | November, 1999 | Kenneth Miller

[js1138]

A god that would use 'nature, red in tooth and claw' for millions of years to get to Man...is not the christian God.

But nature is red in tooth and claw, so what is the purpose?

[metacognative]

None of those incidences are false. Merely different ways of looking at the evidence. Would your computer work if there was a mutation in the software?

[metacognative]

If you really believe molecules one day decided to organize and reproduced, I don't share your faith.

[metacognative]

If you really believe molecules one day decided to organize and reproduced, I don't share your faith.

[metacognative]

Science has been around as long as the human race.
Trial and error...and don't repeat the errors.
Academic accreditation doesn't impress me.
What degrees did Darwin have?

[metacognative]

I know what thew Pope said. He's old and behind the times. I follow new scientific discoveries, like no fossil support for continuing transitional speicies

[metacognative]

Thanks for providing me with a menatl challenge. Much better than the name calling level we often find here,
Tides are not a real pump because they go in and out.
But is a volcano a pump. No real work is accomplished, but the soil is raised in fertilility,
A bellows is a pump but aan ocean current is not.

[Thatcherite]

So is the Pope pretending to be catholic or not? You still haven't answered that question. BTW comparing your writings and those of the catholic church the Pope seems to be considerably better informed than you are about what constitutes science.

You are misinformed when you assert that the fossil record shows no transitional forms. That is an oft-repeated mantra of creationist websites. Numerous have been found.

[metacognative]

He pretends to be a catholic, but Darwin;s God does nothing at all. Everything is a mindless accident.

[metacognative]

I have only recently given up the idea that there was death before The Fall. I tend to use Occam's razor and look for the least complicated explanation.

[Thatcherite]

How does the fact that the tide is cyclical change its pump-like nature? Natural forces pump water uphill twice daily (in clear contravention of 2LoT 8<)) ). You can even exploit the gain in potential energy by building a power station.

[curiosity]

You haven't read him very carefully, then. His God is the Christian God.

[curiosity]

I tend to use Occam's razor and look for the least complicated explanation.

So how do you explain the fossil evidence for billions of years of animal death before the appearance of man on earth?

Do you believe the Fall happened billions of years ago on some other planet?

[metacognative]

I think it's a great way to use the energy...with an intelligently designed power station. But we're a long way from the claim that dumb nature can build such things blindly.

[Thatcherite]

But you haven't said in what way the power source for that power station differs from a pump.

[metacognative]

I have read "Darwin's God" and there is no way.shape or form, that Miller believes in a Christian god.

[metacognative]

I now believe Noah's Mud buried simple animals first and large complicated animals las. A few years ago, I would have laughed...now I view it as the most elegant theory.

[metacognative]

I didn't say the power station was a pump...but come to think of it...a generator is a pump...of electrons.
Again all intelligently designed. There are no 'dumb luck' pumps.

[Thatcherite]

You still haven't said in what way the power source for the power station (the tide) fails to be a pump. Are you being obtuse deliberately? I think so.

[Thatcherite]

I now believe Noah's Mud buried simple animals first and large complicated animals las. A few years ago, I would have laughed...now I view it as the most elegant theory.

That would be a terrific hypothesis, if only it were what the fossil record looked like, and if it for example explained angular unconformities (amongst numerous falsifications of your hypothesis). But as a hypothesis it completely fails to explain the physical evidence, and makes no succesful predictions, so back to the drawing board.