[Talisker]

With indulgence science, man could control what had seemed to be uncontrollable -- and there seemed no way to disprove it.

Is this article about global warming and carbon credits?

[FateAmenableToChange]

Christianity broke with the idea of exchange

I kind of think Job did it first. It just took a few thousand years for the idea to catch on.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Deja vu!

[MeganC]

But if you worship the Clintons with a significant monetary sacrifice they really will do something for you.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump
To Read Later

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "As the late paleontologist Stephen Gould admitted, 'I believe that... any replay of the tape would lead evolution down a pathway radically different from the road actually taken.'
No wonder 'The Purpose Driven Life' has sold a gazillion copies.
The alternative is purposelessness not only for one life but all life."

That seems to be the money-quote and point of this otherwise pointless article.
The answer is that because natural-science, by definition, deals only with natural explanations for natural processes -- i.e., evolution -- it must necessarily posit "random" chance and "purposeless" events.
In order to see purpose and direction to such matters as evolution, you must first recognize something higher than natural and more directed than chance.
No, I'm not being coy here, just trying to spell out a point of departure between natural and supernatural, between worldly and God.

If you believe God created the Universe then no process like evolution is ever "random", "purposless" or "undirected", regardless of how it appears not natural science.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Look people, this is the 21st century! I can’t believe we’re even still having this discussion. How can any thinking person still believe in evolution?