Actually Ambo, Sir Isaac Newton is generally regarded as the father of modern science and he was most definitely a creationist. If he had devoted as much time and effort to pursuing science as he did writing gibberish about religion, who knows what more he would have discovered. By the way I think the fact he was a creationist hindered, more than helped his science.

The main pursuit of modern physics, the search for the “Theory of Everything” seems to me to be the birth of science as religion. Whereas traditionally we have looked to a God to explain everything, we now look to science to explain everything. Maybe the “Theory of Everything” and God are one and the same.

My goldfish are getting darker.8yrs ago I started out with 9 goldfish in an out door pond of which a couple had hints of black and they bred profusely, while kookaburras and herons fed well.The gold fish with black and less striking colours survived because they blended into the environment better.Is this evolution or is the hand of god telling the birds of prey that colourful fish taste better.
Note the fuzzy thinking of the creationists.No amount of logic will change their minds because the awful truth lurking around the corner is too much to bear.
People who don't believe are no less human than those who do.It all depends on your awareness,education,and the genetic quality passed on from your parents.Having children is like throwing a dice with a million sides.It is this diversity that allows to adapt to our changing environment and in this way nature can be very cruel, because you can end up with some pretty screwed up genes.
Nature experiments with billions of possibilities,and thus through chance and elimination of defective genes we evolve.The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

While it is clearly possible within science's worldview to account for the advent and existence of religion, the reverse proposition does not hold. This is particularly evident when Christians seek to appropriate the language and methods of science in order to attempt to rationalise the persistence of a belief system based on the tribal myths of Semitic pastoralists, in a far more cosmopolitan and complex world than the writers of their sacred texts could have imagined. While the philosophical and intellectual gymnastics of the godbotherers can be entertaining, one becomes a bit embarassed vicariously as they struggle through the tortuous logic of, for example, the creationist/ID paradigm. No matter how hard they try, the square peg of superstition just won't fit the round hole of reason.

I agree that it's ironic that the practice of Christianity in Western Europe ultimately contributed to the sociocultural conditions that spawned the Enlightenment (and, indeed, capitalism), this doesn't mean that belief in supernatural beings hasn't passed its use-by date - at least in terms of having privileged influence over policies and laws that apply to all people. By all means let the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc practise their religions as long as that provides meaning and comfort for them and doesn't impinge upon the rights of those who don't share their beliefs - but I don't think that religious tolerance should extend to forcibly incorporating perspectives derived from beliefs in the supernatural (of whatever description), into secular society.

In my opinion, John is quite correct to assert that the sociocultural phenomenon of religion has been an adaptive mechanism in human sociocultural evolution. However, ever since the Enlightenment, it has been supplanted (at least in Western societies) by the demonstrated superiority - in both epistemological and ontological terms - of a worldview based on science and reason. Religion will undoubtedly be with us forever, but in evolutionary terms its persistence will be analogous to B.O. or body hair - essentially human, but of little to no utility in terms of adaptive value.

Morgan

Hippo,

Nobody created God. God is the first cause. That's what makes him God!

Kenny,

if evidence for evolution is so compelling then please indulge me. Give me your top 5 arguments.

Also, the driving forces of evolution are supposed to be mutation and natural selection. This means that organisms must reproduce in order for mutations to occur and natural selection to weed out the bad mutations.

But, self reproduction can only be achieved by a highly COMPLEX organism. So, how did this first self-reproducing organism evolve?

Aslan
U must've missed the link Ringtail made for U. Its all about sexual evolution - why don't U read it.
Morgan
Excellent commentary - I find it interesting how religous people unable to prove creationism have lobbed onto ID. I like to consider our tiny little planet in its orbit around an insignificant sun on a far flung arm of the milky way - just another galaxy in a universe of infinite size and wonder why any supreme being would bother with a bunch of intelligent apes. Religion is indeed the opiate of the masses. A sure sign of maturity is to take responsibility for ourselves, its scary not to have a god to lean on but it is a sign of emotional progress.

Author claims that the existence of religious belief can be explained by science.
Aslan states that the author is ignorant about the history of science and then gives examples of Xians and creationists involved in science.
Aslan considers that a prominent atheist's conversion to deism is "most damaging" to the author's view. David likewise considers it a "highly significant" fact.

I've being trying to work out why the author's history of science or one guy's conversion could possibly have any relevance to the article's claim. I haven't been able to find any reason, so I can't help but think that Aslan and David are trying to refute the claims using an appeal to popularity/authority by proxy. Ie. many great scientists and thinkers are religious, therefore religion is true, therefore religious beliefs are not a consequence of evolution. The attacks on evolution have some connection, but that argument does not. Of course, the claim's truthfulness wouldn't prove the absence of gods either.

Aslan, this is a link to a talkorigins article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Reference to the "first self-reproducing organism" is a red herring, it has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. That said, the first "life" wouldn't have been an organism at all, not a single cell. Think replicating polymers, formed by chemical reactions, very simple.