[microgood]

The theory of evolution is irrelevant to the subject of God.

The way I understand it, some evolutionists believe that once life began, there was no non-materialistic influences on how life came to be on this planet, which basically means no supernatural influence (speciation occurred for these evolutionists).

Other evolutionists say no involvement since the earth started cooling down (speciation and abiogenesis occurred for these evolutionists).

But for people who believe that there are influences other than naturalistic ones in the formation of life on the planet, abiogenesis and speciation are counter intuitive and for me - not believable. I do admit, however, that if I had the view that only naturalistic processes have occurred since the earth was molten magma (which evolutionary scientists believe), then believing in abiogenesis and evolution becomes more compelling.

Evolution is being reject by scientists have been greatly exagerated.

Of this I do not know. But for the rest of us, I think the influence of evolution is waning. I used to believe it for the most part, but due to the Cambrian explosion, and lack of transitional species, I tend to believe all life was created about the same time. And since science is better at creating theories based on empirical and testable information, it is better suited to current issues than guessing what happenened a long time ago with limited fossil evidence.

[narby]

But for people who believe that there are influences other than naturalistic ones in the formation of life on the planet

If it rains today, did'nt God do it? But, isn't rain part of the scientific "naturalistic" world? What's the difference?

If a gene in a creature is modified by "chance", didn't God create chance itself?

Once, Christians explained that things fell to the earth because God willed it so. We now call that gravity.

God created gravity, just as He created evolution.

In the mean time, the fight over creationim is public schools saps the political capital we won last November. We need to spend such capital on the important things like supreme court judges and such. Fighting over creationism and ID will merely split the conservative base. Which is why the left is fanning the flames of ID, in the hope that we will end up fighting each other.

We need to keep our priorities straight. Teach anything you want in church. But leave science to decide what goes into science classrooms. Religion and philosophy (which is what "ID theory" is) doesn't belong there.

[shubi]

"but due to the Cambrian explosion, and lack of transitional species"

The notion that development of phyla was sudden in the Cambrian is ludicrous. It lasted millions of years. There is enough evidence from the precambrian to see evolution taking place.

There is no lack of transitional species. Creationists discount any found species as a transitional, because once its found it is no longer "missing". lol

[Ichneumon]

The way I understand it, some evolutionists believe that once life began, there was no non-materialistic influences on how life came to be on this planet, which basically means no supernatural influence (speciation occurred for these evolutionists). Other evolutionists say no involvement since the earth started cooling down (speciation and abiogenesis occurred for these evolutionists).

Huh??

But for people who believe that there are influences other than naturalistic ones in the formation of life on the planet, abiogenesis and speciation are counter intuitive and for me - not believable.

Then I submit that you don't know much about the vast amount of evidence indicating that they did nonetheless happen, and the understanding of the processes by which they have.

I do admit, however, that if I had the view that only naturalistic processes have occurred since the earth was molten magma (which evolutionary scientists believe), then believing in abiogenesis and evolution becomes more compelling.

I take it you're not aware of the fact that the majority of Americans who believe evolution are *Christians*?

I think the influence of evolution is waning.

..mostly because of the efforts of rabid anti-evolutionists (mostly creationists) who keep lying about it to the public -- like the ones who obviously told you the following lies:

I used to believe it for the most part, but due to the Cambrian explosion, and lack of transitional species,

First, the "Cambrian explosion" took place over about a hundred million years.

Second, there are *thousands* of transitional fossils which have already been found, and more are being found practically every day. I know that creationists are fond of repeatedly claiming that there are "no transitional fossils", but quite bluntly, they're lying like two-dollar whores.

I tend to believe all life was created about the same time.

You're welcome to believe anything you like, no matter how much it is contradicted by the evidence and real-world reality checks.

And since science is better at creating theories based on empirical and testable information, it is better suited to current issues than guessing what happenened a long time ago with limited fossil evidence.

Ah, yet another creationist misrepresentation. There is, in fact, a *vast* amount of "empirical and testable information" about the history of life on Earth, and the fossil evidence is hardly "limited". Nor is the nearly *unimaginable* amount of "empirical and testable information" contained within the combined DNA of all the life forms on Earth accurately described as "limited" -- there is more information on evolutionary history "archived" in the genomes of living organisms than there is information in all the books in all the libraries on the planet. "Limited", you say?

I regret to inform you that the creationists have lied to you again.