Frank, We certainly know your hostile view about Christians but it adds nothing to the debate on Christianity for or against the theory of evolution. How do christians view evolution? I mix amongst several denominations and find people hold to both old Earth and young Earth views. Those Christians that hold to old Earth believe God is author of the creation of all matter, time and space at a distant past and is mentioned in Genesis 1: 1 - 3.

I have a theory that: However there seem to have been catastrophic natural events about 6,000 years ago (maybe a nearby meteorite implosion) that indicates that there has been a establishment of human society in the Middle East. Hense the record of Adam and Eve the survivors of the radiation impact and their location on the Tigrus and Uphrates River system.

As human beings we are very good at making our own rules or we cherry pick the rules that suit our predisposed view on life. Spirituality is no different and that is why someone can still claim to be a Christian but reserve the right to disagree with some aspects such as contraception, abortion etc. We all cherry pick - atheists and theist alike.

The fact that many people seek a higher spriritual force/energy/icon whatever you wish to label it, seems to suggest that this may be just one part of our complicated human psyche and maybe fits somewhere in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If one understands spirituality in this way, evidence in the form of concrete substantial physical matter, becomes irrelevant. The most important aspect is the outcome - how we decide to treat others ie. to be known for our fruits.

Spirituality for the most part, however we define it, will always be an 'internal' construct to suit the particular individual. The construct may evolve itself with maturity, time and will be dependent on experiences and changing needs.

Idealistically this should not pose a problem as long as the State retains its independence. And of course providing those beliefs cause no harm to another person.

The way I see it, sometimes the problem with religion (and not only religion) is that people try so hard to convince others of the 'rightness' of their point of view, that the dogma becomes more important, while the spirituality aspect falls to the wayside.

If a Christian (or any other) person wants to embrace the idea of evolution as being part of God's grand design then so be it.

One thing is certain,theoretically, when we die we will all be the wiser.

Well at least the rapture has not taken place.
See we are getting visitors so that is clear.
Yes I too want to know why I a lefty have had thoughts put in my head that do not exist Steven.

I'd have to endorse Grim's observation that "We are all prisoners of our own preconceptions", though there's a fatality to it that we ought to reject. As David F says, Buddhists (at least Theravada Buddhists) get by without a God, their motivation being enlightenment, freedom from ideology, from preconceptions. There's no doubt that fundamentalism holds sway on both sides of the debate today. The rationalists seem to think they've arrived at humanity's consummatum est: "reason", "techne", "Progress" (as distinct from "evolution"), but the truth (figuratively) is that their own "faith" is as far removed from "reality", here on the ground, as that of religious fundamentalists. Liberal rationalism has no end-goal, no noble aspirations and is untroubled by ethics (though happy to politicise them). Rationalism works hand in glove with capitalism’s obsession for growth; neither purview is directed or sustainable, merely compulsive. Meanwhile faith, traditionally associated with humility, love and asceticism, is denigrated by the other side as the antithesis of reason--and indeed is bastardised in practice by a resurgent, worldly and reactionary fundamentalsm that treats it like the ultimate commodity, the get out of jail free card.
Your catholicity, Graham Y, or that of the Catholic church, looks populist, and the extremists on the other side, by virtue of their current ascendency, look like pedants. I'd love to dismiss one side or the other, ex cathedra, but the more I ponder the more uncertain I become.
The middle ground, agnosticism, for me.

Hey David, I agree (and thanks for the link, btw, fascinating stuff).
One of the problems I have with intelligent design is that preconception about evolution being somehow 'progress'; getting better all the time, or teleologically moving toward some form of perfection.
To my eye, evolution is quite different. The more 'evolved' an organism becomes -ie more perfectly adapted to it's environment- the more vulnerable it becomes, should that environment change. I would suggest many extinctions occur because of this vulnerability.
I guess arguably all extinctions, -if you include competition or over predation by 'less evolved' species.
I would further argue that the great success of Humanity is largely due to us being peculiarly unevolved. We're not particularly fast runners, not great climbers, we don't have well developed teeth or claws, and (without our technology) we are certainly more at the mercy of the elements than even our domesticated animals.
It seems it is our weaknesses, rather than strengths, that have made us great.
Taking a fractal view of our species (comparing our species to a single individual) I would think we are barely into our -male dominated- adolescence; still confident of our immortality, secure in the knowledge that no matter how brave (stupid) we are, we will survive...
I would like to think that age will bring wisdom, but considering the average age of our politicians, and their persistent inability to make long term goals or decisions, I really have to wonder.
Is doing the 'wrong thing' simply preferring personal gratification, to the long term survival of the group? Are these the social implications stevenl is referring to, the idea that 'survival of the fittest' is an intensely selfish philosophy? If so, he has overlooked the facts of nature; the very real existence of maternalism and paternalism, the willingness of parents to sacrifice their lives for their children, and the equally real -if perhaps slightly more rare- existence of altruism. These traits do have survival benefits for the species, rather than the individual.

Mitchell(12feb):

Evolution is very much a core finding of modern biology. *some* resort to theistic evolution. Most (I suggest the vast majority) of biologists have no issue with biological evolution as normally described.

Your "best theory" comment is a little odd. It has been about a fair while now. It is the conclusion drawn from the fossil evidence. Darwin proposed a mechanism that has become regarded as the core mechanism. Population and Molecular biology has made the observations more extensive and detailed, but not weakened the case. Evolution, like electricity, is a fact. The theories are about how it works. A
theory that gets better *without* challenging the founding basis is hardly at risk of being holistically revised.

I agree that the bigger churches probably don't hold with evolution in their heart. They have a vested interest in not being risible. If evolution were to be "magicked away" those same churches would fall over themselves to evict the relevant doctrinal appendices.

One *does not* have to respect the determination of the "looney fundies". Most are determined because pastor whips them into a frenzy, sells them any number of dodgy books and magazines and the zealots within the church police all the others. Closer investigation shows that the stuff in (say) creation research quarterly (or whatever) is pretty weak stuff. Just because a junkie "wants" his fix, and is genuinely distressed if not able to score, do we "respect" his determination?

StG (11feb):
If you are not a biblical literalist, don't you *also* get annoyed by fundies who don't think you're a "real" christian? Don't those fundies *also* make assumptions about all athiests (and other hobby horses), who they blame for all the worlds faults? (note pelican).

Wobbles(13feb):
Are you sure there is no consensus on evolution? I would suggest that virtually no working biologists and few other scientists contest the broad picture of biological evolution (and neo-darwinism). This would be in stark contrast with the large number of differing religions, let alone the diversification of christian sects, itself a "cute" reflection of adaptive radiation.

Rusty