It may be that we assess the risks differently; e.g., you may think that there is only a .01% risk of being offended and I may think that there is a 10% risk of my being sufficiently offensive. There are some who would put the risk for me much higher. :-)

Therefore, I'll just take the liberty to summarize our main disagreements. Please let me know if you think I've misrepresented your view.

== Regarding Past mistakes by Christians vs. Science

<YOUR VIEW>: Admittedly, Christians have made mistakes in the past while opposing scientists -- at times to the point of severe persecution. Those Christians were wrong.

Those mistakes were made because they interpreted certain passages of the Bible too literally, and they were too sure of themselves. As a result, they unjustly accused scientists of lying to oppose the Word of God.

Or perhaps you think they weren't Christians at all, as evidenced by their harshness, lack of humility, and disregard for the danger of being false witnesses themselves.

However, those past mistakes are irrelevant to the creationist vs. science battles of today.

<MY VIEW>: I would agree with all of the above, except for the last sentence. Today the same type of mistakes are being made for the *exact* same reasons. The names and terms have changed, but it's just a continuation of the same sad story.

== Regarding Truth & the Bible

<YOUR VIEW>: The Bible is Truth, and thus any honest search for truth will lead one to the Bible. Therefore, any idea that contradicts the Bible must be false. I assume that you agree that the Bible, as perfect as it is, must still be interpreted by imperfect man, and sometimes those interpretations can be wrong.

<MY VIEW>: An honest search for truth should be independent of the Bible, and this is what science endeavors to do. If indeed the Bible is truth, it will not be threatened by this honest search for truth -- in fact, at some level they must agree.

If the honest search for truth produces an ideas that appears to contradict the Bible, then there are 3 possible explanations: (1) The Bible is wrong, (2) the interpretation of the Bible was faulty, or (3) the honest search for truth was faulty.

It is the job of science to deal only with case (3), but they can't decide that the idea is faulty simply because it contradicts the Bible, nor should they attempt to deliberately seek an idea that does agree with the Bible.

== Regarding Natural Science & Scientists

<YOUR VIEW>: The majority of scientists are partners in some vast conspiracy to deliberately oppose the Bible, even if it must be done at the expense of obtaining a better understanding of nature.

You see yourself and creation-scientists as fighting the "good fight" against these scientists to defend the Bible.

<MY VIEW>: The majority of scientists want more than anything to understand the truths of nature better. They each may have personal opinions regarding the Bible; against it, in favor of it, or indifferent. But those opinions are not obtained using scientific methods -- they arrive at their opinions the same way anyone else does.

The success of science gives evidence that they are doing a good job of uncovering the truths of nature. I'll add that creationists, who accuse scientists of lying, don't mind enjoying the countless benefits of science.

Creation-scientists ignore the fact that natural science requires theories to be testable within nature. If a creation-scientist were asked to explain the observable facts of the universe and of life on earth -- AND they were NOT allowed to consider any holy book (e.g. Bible) or allow for miracles, they would never be able to come up with any theories better than the current theories of cosmology and evolution. Yet these are the conditions under which real science must operate.

Creation-scientists are not really defending the Bible. They are only defending their simplistic literal *interpretation* of the Bible. This is the most critical distinction. It's a "bad fight", which produces the general impression that Christianity is hostile and backward. It has a repelling effect, which is most unfortunate.

If, as you say, natural science requires theories to be testable in nature, how can that statement--with which I don't take issue--possibly apply to Darwinian evolution? And so far, all attempts to test theories on the origin of life have failed.

I don't want to overlabel, but that's pretty close to my view of many of the religious proponents of the past. I think they also didn't test all things as they are commanded to, and didn't understand what they were talking about.

<However, those past mistakes are irrelevant to the creationist vs. science battles of today. >

Those past mistakes were an issue of not having truth. That's as much an issue today for either side as it ever was.

<Regarding Truth & the Bible >

Your take on my view is pretty much dead on. I mostly agree with your take, though I can't get away from the fact they are rejecting a record of history yet pursuing historical truths in the name of science which supposedly is outside their realm.

<Regarding Natural Science & Scientists >

Of course. But you seem to have the idea that "truth" is something that we simply start with by reading and interpreting the Bible. Then, we judge science based on how well it agrees with the Biblical "truth". This is exactly what those "wrong" religious proponents of the past did, and it's what religious proponents are still doing today.

Fair enough. First of all, let me admit that I don't consider myself well-qualified to act as a representative of evolution. Perhaps others who have been following this discussion might do a better job.

But before going further, let me stress one point again: Scientists cannot take into consideration anyone's "holy book" as authority, nor can they admit the possibility of miracles. They must seek a natural explanation.

You might argue that this approach is biased; that it immediately rules out God's miraculous power, and God's miraculous power might very well be the true explanation!

And you would be right -- at least in a sense. :-)

You could likewise argue that the game of football (American) is biased against a play where the quarterback throws the ball to an out-of-bounds 12th player who catches the ball on a bounce and runs it into the endzone for a touchdown. A play like that isn't allowed because it outside of the rules. In the same sense, the ban on miracles in science is better called "working within the rules of science" than to call it a "bias against religion".

Think about it: Do you really want science to allow for miracles? If so, then there is no limit to what they would need to consider. For example, the "YouRangism" religion I invented a while back (see: OhioChessFan chessforum) would be perfectly viable hypothesis.

Now, if you can accept this "no miracles allowed" mindset, and for a moment forget the "Darwin is evil" mindset, then perhaps you can at least have some appreciation of the daunting task that science faces in its effort to explain life on earth. You might even develop a little appreciation for Darwin's efforts in that direction.

As to the <theories on the origin of life> -- and again I'm no expert -- it is my understanding that theories of evolution deal primarily with the development of life from simpler to more complex organisms. It acknowledges that there was a time when there was no life at all as we know it. That leaves a "hole" in the understanding of how we got from the "no life" state to the "most simple life" state from which evolution began. In fact, science doesn't even know what the "most simple life" state is.

Science *assumes* that there is a natural explanation for this "most simple life" to come into existence (what else can science assume if miracles are prohibited?).

If in fact life did emerge as a miraculous one-time act of God, and there is no way for it to emerge otherwise, then science will be forever frustrated. Scientists have nothing to gain by inventing lies about how it happened. It is simply the nature of science that some things are not understood. And remember -- science can't "cheat", and leap to the truth via some holy book :-)

Here's some poetry that you might like.

Well, if you understand my views in my previous post, then you will also understand why I disagree with your assertion.

~~~~~~

CREATION SCIENTISTS accuse natural scientists of developing non-miraculous theories out of a motivation to reject the miraculous explanations of creation given in the Bible.

This accusation is unfair because scientists develop non-miraculous theories because those are the only kinds of theories that science *can* develop.

NATURAL SCIENTISTS accuse creation-scientists of developing "theories" out of a motivation to agree with the miraculous explanations of creation given in the Bible -- which isn't science.

Jesus was not the only one who was resurrected. There have been many before and since Jesus who have been resurrected. Here is some more information on it.

http://www.africawithin.com/kwaku/v...

I'm of the school of thought that says the truth has to make sense. If it doesn't make sense then how can it be true?

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> I need to mention that there are aspects of the God revealed in the Bible that are very hard for me to accept. Eternal punishment in particular is soooo hard to accept. I think the underlying case for God made in the Bible is so compelling that I am able to accept on faith that what appears to me to be......unfair, unjust, something......is compatible with a loving God.>

But that's just it. Eternal damnation has nothing to do with love. Creating people that never have a chance to make it into Heaven has nothing to do with love. Would a loving parent burn his kids?

Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Romans 11:33-34O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?

You spend 99% of your life taking someone else's word for it.

<The church considers "blind faith" to be something sacred.>

I don't. I think that is terribly wrong headed.

<What it really amounts to is brainwashing. >

I think there's some truth in that.

<How do you think the church managed to stay in power for thousands of years? >

Threats of physical harm entered into the equation.

<Has God spoken to you directly?>

No, I'm not a person who hears voices. I am concerned about those who do.

<Have you heard the voice of God yet? If not than it amounts to hearsay.>

<TCE: I'm not sure what you mean by this, examples? >

I'm not sure what you mean by this, examples?

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> No, I'm not a person who hears voices. I am concerned about those who do.>

Moses heard God's voice.

Exodus 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

Are you concerned with Moses? How about the 10 commandments? Here's another one.

Deuteronomy 5:24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>>Testimony from an eyewitness isn't hearsay.>