Evolution is a theoritical history developed by deduction from ancient physical data. It’s the assumed sequence of surviving species from environmental change and isn’t the powerhouse that has caused chromosomal change, it’s theory is suitable for a history class not research science.

The purpose of science is research into why and how things happen and be applied – i.e. what’s the actual powerhouse of change in the DNA. It’s the study of the features of intelligent design inherent and latent in the DNA that creates the change and allows the species to survive changes in the environment. Pure science studies the features and cause of chromosomal changes to the DNA i.e. how its chromosomal design can change. In other words pure science searches the physical features of design to conclude intelligent principles of design that are latent in the DNA that cause chromosomal change.

Since atheists don't now identify environment as a factor in change to the DNA, as it is external of the DNA but governs what survives there must be intelligent design features within the DNA that cause or allows it to change independent of external factors. If there had been no environmental changes then all previous species expressed from the DNA could possibly be in existence today. The fact is we live in a changing planet that is affected by many external and internal tectonic forces.

However chromosomal changes that allow survival have intelligent design features that need to be understood so we can copy the intelligence even as humans have done in creative copying history. However the intelligence in design is not developed by desire in the mind of the species but under-girds surviving designed species. The discovery of the camera was a historical event now taught in history class, the principles of its physics [intelligent design] the how and why of its function, is science.

I’m a supporter of scientific research into the features of intelligent design - the why and how in the micro; so that we better understand and use the building blocks that create the features and design of our living universe

You don’t seem to have a grasp of either side of the argument by that last post Philo.
The evolution of animals had been observed and commented about by many people prior to Darwin. What Darwin did was provide the “Powerhouse” for the changes observed. Natural Selection theory has been developed and modified over the years to fit the observed facts. When did Atheists say environment is not a factor in DNA evolution ? that what natural selection is all about. It seems you don’t understand what your talking about. The fact that you have mentioned Atheists indicates what your motivation here is. Fifty years ago we did not know how heredity worked why do you believe that our understanding in areas we currently don’t know every well will not increase? Give us some biology feature that we will never understand?

It is interesting, at least to me, that Pericles (Wednesday 14 Sept) writes “… fascinating and educational debates about ... grammatical structures as it is this very concept of ‘grammatical structures” that makes nonsense of the argument between the varying camps that promote Creationism, Evolution or Intelligent design.
Unfortunately for those who don’t find debates about grammatical structures fascinating or educational nonetheless it is a necessary ingredient when translating from one language into another as well as using the correct equivalent word used in one language as distinct from another and other such matters as syntax etc. As we know some languages put the adjective after the subject whereas in English we usually place the adjective before the subject.
The first verse in the Bible, Gen 1:1, from which most of the current debate originates, grammatically is in the “construct state” which means in simple language that when translating from the Hebrew into English the word “of” must appear in the English translation.
Therefore Gen 1:1 should read “In the beginning “of” Elohim’s creation the earth was without form and void, (therefore the earth was already existent) and darkness was upon the face of the deep, (therefore the deep was already existent), and the spirit of Elohim was moving over the face of the waters. (Therefore the waters were already existent)
The author of Genesis didn’t argue how the earth came into existence; neither did he argue how Elohim came into existence, they just existed – without comment - which is more than we can say about our present interlocutors on this particular forum.
Maybe, just maybe, some unspecified Creator set all this creation in motion, Elohim was the Intelligent Designer that brought order out of chaos, and that Evolution gradually developed the more complex from the simple.
In this scenario it’s a WIN, WIN, WIN, situation for everybody and we can all then go home to debate such fascinating and educational subjects as to actually how many angels can dance on the heads of pins, for example

What fascinates me is that we pass on better physical traits genetically,yet every generation has to relearn what their parents took years find out.In evolutionery terms,it is not very efficient.

We will never know for sure if our consciousness will exceed this life until we die.If we knew anything for sure beyond this life,there would be no point in living.Just having the courage to wake each morning and do the best we can for our families ,is enough.

Those who are pre-occupied with the after life have missed the point entirely.

The thing is Ajay the ovum from which you were formed was created inside your mother before she was born. So what you mother learned happened post your identifiable determination. If your father could pass on in his contribution to your fertilisation his thoughts, that would be another concept. Perhaps if it were so then would your mind ever change or you only have the experiences of your father. Interesting!

However living forms were created / designed to be continually renewed.

The afterlife is a spiritual state and not a physical state. There are no 40 virgins waiting on the otherside to welcome you. Not good if they were 40 male virgins.

David,
It is a pity that there is not more theological discussion in these pages. This means that my central points are rarely engaged with any intelligence.

I certainly would not disagree with your quotes from Paul, but a note of warning. The radical Enlightenment was fueled by what was perceived as the irrationality of theology. This has cascaded down to our day so that these pages are filled with vehement scientific but almost no theological debate. While I do not propose we conform to the rationality of modernity for which individual experience is the only criteria of truth, we do have to propose a rational theology. That does not mean that it has to be judged in terms of the rationality of modernity but it must be internally consistent and be possible within the world we see around us. Otherwise we just give ammunition to our critics. So we have to explain the bodily resurrection of Jesus in terms that do not contravene how we understand how the world works but does not empty the narrative of its import. The problem with liberal Protestantism is that it did the former but not the latter. The resurrection is a more powerful event if it is not treated as a medical miracle. That the risen Jesus is the crucified Jesus and not some fixed up Jesus whose wounds have healed in crucial to theology. We are not dealing here with a ghost but with the wounded one who was dead and is now alive, that is, present in each Eucharist and each gathering of two or three gathered in his name. The resurrection is God’s act in vindicating the one we murdered and it is also the promise of a new future formed from judgment and forgiveness. When we insist on the resurrection being a resuscitation we are modern in that we interpret the narrative in terms of a physical event but are anti modern because we invoke a mixing of the spiritual and the physical.