Are we there yet?

If the “multiple universe” theory is true, then we may never know who (or what) created our particular or current universe, as our universe may have been created from an infinite series of universes, that have been created over an infinity of time.

But our knowledge of biology must tell us that life wants to extend and fill any available niche, given the time and opportunity, (whether on this planet or some other). Maybe that is God.

Well said Peter as my wife said the other day she wants a God of the whole not of the gaps.

As I understand it, the main shaker and mover for Intelligent design, The Discovery Institute in Seattle has also said that it don't believe intelligent design was ready to be taught in school science classes.

Having said that, the Theory of Evolution is labouring under various difficulties and it does no harm and indeed is an honest thing to make children aware of the theory's difficulties, a fair proportion of which are related to the finite age of the universe, the sheer complexity of even the most simple life forms and gaps in the fossil record. From what I read and hear the theory of evolution makes not a scrap of difference one way or the other in work and new discoveries in the biological sciences.

In the meantime Christians will no doubt continue with confidence to teach in their Churches and Schools, their own versions of the origins of life whether young earth creationism, old earth creationism or some theistic version of evolution.

It's a shame some people choose to not accept evolution because it contradicts their religion. We're all here to learn, and what greater pursuit is there than the pursuit of knowledge? Yet so many go to great lengths to NOT know about the world and how it works.

Why do they do this? Well, I would speculate fear would be a pretty large factor. If evolution is correct, and our existence is nothing but an accident, just a product of the right conditions...then what is the point of it all? I can see why someone would rather remain ignorant.

For me personally, I quite like the idea that we're an accident. It makes me feel like we're even MORE special (so incredibly lucky to be alive, when all probability was working against us).

Science shouldn't be feared. In fact, I view it as my path to personal elightenment. For instance, at a quantum level, the particles that make up who we are- are constantly changing places. At any given time you will have many particles in you that were once in Elvis and Adolf Hilter.

To me, this says that we are all connected, quite literally. Not in a wanky spiritual 'we are all one' way, but in a verifiable, literal, scientific sense we are all connected.

I think that's quite cool.

Peter has created a poor work of scholarship.
This article is so full of straw men, non sequitors, self refutation and ad hominem attacks that it is suprising it did not simply implode.

A couple of clues Peter. When you discuss an idea, try and actually deal with the idea you are discussing (in this case ID) rather than your own straw man.

When you try and discount any natural means of knowing anything about God and instead appeal to the idea that you can only know about God from scripture, then you are shooting yourself in the foot as scripture tells us we can know about God from nature.

Finally, you talk about God not having creating a 'thing' but instead a 'setting'. This is pure rubbish. You cannot have the setting without the thing. It is absurd to pretend otherwise

Fascinating.

Such a cogent and intelligible set of arguments against creationism and intelligent design cried out for some form of resolution. What does a certified religionist then believe in, if not in the words of the Bible, or the work of modern born-again evangelists?

It must be imprinted in my DNA or something, but I am intellectually incapable of parsing the sentence "[t]he generality and ambivalence of nature may be contrasted to the particularity of the witness of scripture."

Please, what is the particularity here? The bible is a man-made item, put together as a selection of writings by a series of ancient scribes with an agenda. Yet it is being presented (yet again) by Mr Selleck as some form of "constant", despite the fact that - and here we agree - the writing is frequently metaphorical or allegorical rather than literal, and therefore of litle use as a prescriptive device. These are mere words we are discussing here, little gobs of pigments, vehicles, solvents and driers on a piece of processed wood-pulp wrapped in animal hide. If at some point I come around to the idea of a deity responsible for our being here, it is far more likely to arise from "the generality and ambivalence of nature" than a bunch of short stories put together from 850AUC onwards.

Or if someone were to find evidence for intelligent design. Now that would convert me.