"Do you suppose if we were to sit on mountain peaks like eagles for long periods we would improve the function of our eyes?"

If sitting on mountain peaks was the means by which we discovered our next meal then those amongst us with the best eye site would be better equipped to feed themselves and hence more likely to survive. Being alive is a farely fundamental requirement to breed so those with better eyes would produce more offspring than those with poor eyesight. The "good eye" genes at each generation would be more likely to carry through to the next. So to answer your question, yes the species as a whole would develop improved vision as a result of sitting on mountain peaks.

That should have been obvious, do you really know what evolution is all about Philo?

‘Intelligent design’ has no scientific basis & clearly should not be taught as such. It is nothing more than a theoretical philosophy.
One could say that ‘Christians’ in positions of power are attempting to create a bridge between their faith & science through this philosophy, & in a big way (public education). Many recognise this, hence the ‘Time’ article.
ID’s introduction to the public school system as anything other than a religion or philosophy would be beyond controversial. I can only hope the Hurricane disaster has shaken a little more reality into the US administration.
Another gin & lime, please…….

A question I wish to ask BOAZ & any other contributing Christians-
I seem to recall that we are made ‘in the image of God’. If this is the case, may it not be that God himself is evolving, & should be considered as such? Why cannot evolution as a random process be God’s creation, his great experiment? Why cannot this be God’s way of telling us that we are responsible for our own destiny?
The point I wish to make is that religious belief of any kind should be accepted, but should not wholly determine our path of action as a species.

Hi Swilkie
good to have your interaction.

I guess we see creation as being for a purpose, to bring the world and its inhabitants into being, for God's own plan.
The idea of evolution as God's experiment, really does not fit the Biblical picture, though I freely concede aspects of evolution are undeniably true, natural selection being the most obvious. I think most conservative Christians would baulk at taking it any further.

The concept of a 6 day creation does seem far fetched to the scientific mind on the surface, and how this is interpreted gives rise to a number of different positions and emphases among even Christians.

Intelligent design, I feel is very much an attempt by 'my mob' to regain a lot of lost influence and educational ground, but let me stress, that those of our persuasion, feel it is important because
it gives a foundation for our being, life, destiny, or a God centered framework for life. (Which, does not have to mean closed mindedness or stifling of scientific enquiry.)

The idea that it is about 'control and power' is quite foreign to the biblical understanding of society, but I'll grant that the large hierachical churches (RC, Anglican) would be most prone to abusing such a situation.

If you look closely at Pericles response to my use of a Sartre Quote, he actually underlines this matter, by admitting that in the moral realm, 'it all depends on us' (if God is 'not') This seems fine to we who have been enculturated with positive values already, but take these away, (as in the Soviet Union where atheism was taught at every level) u end up with few people who have moral fibre and backbone which a bribe won't bend. (if anecdotal evidence is valid)

Intelligent Design should be taught in the science class room. It is about time that teachers who believe in evolution are brave enough to defend their faith in the classroom, rather than trying to putting themselves above question and beyond debate.

If we compare the way science is taught at universities with almost any other discipline we would have to conclude that scientists are an arrogant bunch. From almost the first lecture in law, philosophy, history, religion, etc. students are encouraged to argue their views in the classroom and lecturers are prepared to debate them. But in the science classroom students are expected to shut up and learn from the experts. It is only after someone graduates and proceeds to a higher degree will the lecturers condescend to discuss issues with them.

Yet the idea that this universe made itself, and that no god was involved, is a religious position. It is about time that those who teach such views were required to defend them against alternatives.

An excellent and judicious piece by Dr Caton. I am deeply suspicious of "Intelligent Design" as some sort of alternative to natural selection and evolution, but Caton's suggestion that it be taught at tertiary (not secondary) level, is full of merit. Students at this level need to understand all the issues surrounding the troubled interface between science and faith, and not have them swept under the carpet.

The insistence of ID's proponents that it be taught in schools, however, gives away their agenda. By exposing young people not yet fully equipped with the tools of reason and scientific method to ID, they hope to gain converts from the most vulnerable. Let us be clear about this: ID is not science; it makes no testable predictions. It is rather an interpretation or argument along the lines - complex organic machines are so well suited to their tasks that they have been designed for the task. Hence there was a designer. This is a proposition one can argue about, but science it isn't. Nevertheless at the tertiary level anyone studying life sciences, as well as those interested in philosophy, the history of science or theology, should be exposed to the argument.

I do disagree with what I saw as Caton's willingness to blur the separation between church and state. In our democracy we have freedom of religion, or non-religion. The state's sole function is to maintain and protect that freedom. It is not to endorse, or be seen to endorse, religious propositions on scientific issues. These are matters for free debate, as we have here.

Church-state separation is vital in democracies. Once the state begins to intervene in religious issues, the way is open for successive extensions of such intervention. The far end of that road is either religious oppression (the state suppresses certain, or even all, religious views) or theocracy (a religion comes to dominate the state and uses it an instrument).