Goodthief,

<<I wouldn't have thought that evolution is the point.>>

Evolution Vs Creationism is what's being discussed on this particular thread at the moment.

<<There are many theists who are content with evolution, or indifferent to it. The truth or otherwise of evolution just doesn't answer the God question.>>

Yes, I know a Christian who believes that God created life on Earth through an evolutionary process. Evolution doesn't necessarily dis-prove God.

But you'd have to have read the posts between Dan and myself to see where this thread is at, at the moment.

A J Philips wrote: "You can test Marxism. In fact, it already has been tested and it failed." One can say the same thing about Christianity. It has continued to hold out the hope that the messianic era is at hand. That hope has proven to be unfounded. I know Marxists who still believe in the ideology. They admit the setbacks but do not admit it has failed. Like Christians who expect the second coming they still expect the eventual classless society. I know a Marxist in Sydney who even speaks in apocalyptic terms of the final battle which will result in the triumph of Marxism.

Dan, (and AL)
Perhaps this might interest you as well:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/is_it_kiss_and_make_up_for_science_and_religion/.

It is a comment on an 88 page book "Science, Evolution, and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies" that can be bought at

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876,

or its free summary brochure

http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf,

where one of the authors is the biologist Francisco J. Ayala that I referred to in my previous post.

The challenge issued by "Seek the truth - come whence it may, cost what it will" may certainly be heralded within many a Christian institution (or perhaps the founding ethos of a scientific community) but the ideologies of both Christian Fundamentalism and modern Relativism provide not reason but a rationalization for timidity.

It does appear, david f, that institutionalized Christianity has been tested and has failed - like every institution, its primary concern is its own survival and viability. This is the inevitable result of institutional religion. The fundamental hypocrisy of many 'truth' proclaimers and also the relativists is more in action than in word. A balance needs to be struck between the extremes of both close minded fundamentalism, that lives in prejudice and bias judgment based on the myths of others and a relativism, that lives in the melting pot of open equalitarian society of diluted values which whitewash all standards, reducing all values to hypothetical opinions.

The empiricism of science simply does not attempt to communicate any moral imperative or value. Communication destroys such meaning and when men attempt to write in symbolic, metaphorical, poetic direction, they can point and transfer only under a mask of indirect terms. The perversion of literalists define such words of conveyance in literal, historical terms, destroying all such meaning of the irrational, existential, essence of being - 'creationism' is one such aberration. George's link to 'The seeds of genesis and creation' in reference to evolution is quite succinct, "there is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been so extensively tested and corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms".

Davidf,

I agree with, and am aware of what you've written in your last post. You'll get your 'fundies' in all walks of life. That being said though, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to point out because it's missing my main point on this thread.

If you're using Marxists as an example of Atheists committing atrocities 'in the name of' Atheism, then it doesn't really work. Because, going back to what I said previously, Atheism is a part of Marxism/Communism, it's not what Marxism is based on.

Marxism is more based on the ideal of a classless society, and since there has been a certain 'elitism' attached to religion throughout history, doing away with religion was just one of the methods of achieving that.

But in no way were Stalin et al, carrying out there horrific deeds in the name of Atheism.

The only reason I raised the point about war and terror committed in the name of religion, was to give an extreme example of absolutist belief due to a rigid doctrine, and therefore, demonstrating how Creationists are the scientific fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.

But going back to my main point about scientific fundamentalism: If you're using Marxists as an example of Atheistic absolutist belief, then that still doesn't really compare with Theistic belief either. Because Marxists can change their opinion of Marxism without fearing an omnipotent, all-seeing God.

Marxism is also not as psychologically difficult to breakout of, because if a Marxist converts to Capitalism, they're not tormented for years after with ingrained thoughts of possible eternal consequences if they've got it wrong about their new belief.

George,

Thanks for the links. It looks like an interesting book.

Some points from the first link about the book though:

<<...the first explicit statement by a significant scientific body asserting that the acceptance of evolution and belief in God are compatible.>>

To say they are compatible, I think, is stretching it a little. Religion may be able to provide answers to questions that science can't, but there's still nothing to say that the answers it provides are correct.

Continued...

...Continued

The fact that religion can provide comfort and purpose, doesn't necessarily make it true, and many Theists seem to confuse comfort with truth.

Another point to make, is that if Christians were to start translating the Bible loosely enough to accept evolution, then surely at some point, they would start asking themselves: “Well then, does God even exist in the first place?”

<<Science can never really answer the question: Why is it so?>>

Well no, but there's nothing to really show that religion does either. Unless, of course, you're willing to start halfway down the back straight and assume that a God really does exist.

I also don't think that there has to necessarily be a definitive (let alone a divine) answer to the 'Why' question. The 'Why' question also begs another question: “Why does there have to be a reason as to why it is so?” The desire to ask why it is so, could simply be an evolutionary survival/advancement mechanism for all we know.

I remember watching the movie 'Children of Men', and it occurred to me how pointless our existence would become if we could no longer reproduce. Perhaps reproduction is our only purpose? Why does our purpose have to be a divine one?

<<And importantly, science cannot answer the question: how ought we to live (ethics)?>>

No, but if the theory of Natural Selection is correct, then religion becomes fairly irrelevant. Because Natural Selection rewards good traits, both physically and behaviourally.

The are a multitude of examples throughout history which demonstrate that morals and ethics don't come from the Bible. On the contrary, it has been factors outside religion (such as the shifting moral zeitgeist that Dawkins speaks of) that have enabled us to cherry-pick the good bits from the bible, and know what parts we should follow. Without the 'shifting moral zeitgeist' or Natural Selection's role in morality, we could still be stoning homosexuals, and burning heretics.

That being said though, from what I can make of the book from the links, I would still recommend it to Dan.