Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

This is a valid observation. To what do you attribute the "loss of faith" you note?

Interesting. Three of your five points correlate with what I observe as well.Let me take the two that I have reservations on. I agree with your first sentence, with one caveat: only those who attempt to treat the Bible as a history or science text find themselves in the position of choosing one over the other. IMO, rejecting either - for what they are - is a mistake. Galileo put it succinctly: the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. If you are put in a position where your faith rests in an over-literal reading of the Bible, I would agree that you are at extreme risk of either rejecting science and its findings, or your faith. I have a lot of respect for those who can do both. Unfortunately, this claim would require someone to demonstrate that the ToE is in fact illusion. I agree that it's compelling, however. More than that, it actually works in those instances where it can be applied. Which would be odd if it were in fact mere smoke and mirrors.The only other comment I would make is on #5: I agree with you - any science is complex. I am in awe of those here on this board who can discuss things like cosmology, physics, or even the nitty-gritty details of geology. It takes a lot of time and effort to get to the point where you can understand the intricate details. I wouldn't, however, say that people "aren't equal to it". The data is there. The observations are there. And the literature, books, and even courses are there to tie them together. There is no intrinsic reason for anyone with a modicum of intelligence and sufficient time and interest to dig into it NOT to be able to understand it. But you are correct - a lot of people seem to accept things, including the ToE, without knowing much about them. This is sad. However, having said that, there are a lot of things in this world that I more or less accept without any real understanding of them. I recognize the danger, but there are simply too many things to learn them all.

Well, until the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church WAS the church. Whatever the reasoning and the politics behind it, Galileo was forced to recant. Even after the Reformation, the protestant theologians continued to deny heliocentrism, as Dr. Adequate has pointed out. Possibly. However, at the very least (without ad hoc rationalizations and "interpretation" of the text), the Earth certainly wasn't formed in six literal days in 4004 BC. Geology and physics, not evolution, tells us that much. So if you read the Bible as literally true from the very first word, then you have a bit of conflict to deal with - as you noted. Either you go with science, in this case, lose your faith (if that is the only option), or decide that maybe - just maybe - the Bible wasn't intended to be a science text. Again, possibly. However, I see this as a very narrow viewpoint. I think it is the literalist who "compromise(s) or distort(s) known facts". After all, they deny the facts of science (esp. geology, physics, cosmology, etc - and of course biology). I understand your point about "not clearly grasp(ing) one or the other". From my experience, however, it's the "believer" who fails to grasp the beauty and evidence of biology, rather than the other way around.

Beautiful quotes. Some of my favorite ('cause they're based on biology instead of cosmology) include:Species tot sunt diversae, quot diversaes formas ab initio creavit infinitum ens.* (Carolus Linnaeus, 1735, from his seminal work Systema Naturae: Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum**.)And, of course, the naturalist/theologian John Ray, "Yet on ye other side there follows such a train of consequences, as seem to shock the Scripture-History of ye novity of the World; at least they overthrow the opinion generally received that since ye first Creation there have been no species of Animals or Vegetables lost, no new ones produced." (1695)It's kind of funny - the Catholic Linneus very much agrees with Faith, whereas the Protestant Ray talks about speciation/evolution 160 years before Darwin. Hmm, gotta wonder about those damn Romans...* There are as many species as originally created by the infinite being.** Nature's Systems: The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone.Edited by Quetzal, : forgot part of title

All the early naturalists in Europe and ultimately the Americas were Christians. The big difference between them and what you've implied here is that many of them weren't adverse to deciding that elements of the Bible - specifically Genesis - were wrong based on their observations of the natural world. By the turn of the 19th Century, catastrophism, special creation, and many other Biblical or Biblically-based former beliefs were well and truly on the way out. I sometimes find it amazing that 200 years later, we still have people trying to resurrect them.

I can't believe you're going to attempt to use Ussher's calculation to disprove geology. You mean to tell me that some 17th Century anglican preacher's calculations of the begats is going to trump the actual physical evidence from the rocks? It isn't geology trumping God, Faith. It's the physical evidence from God's creation in nature that trumps one man's opinion. For over 2000 years prior to Ussher, nobody tried to tie the geneologies to real time? Tell me - based on the geneologies in the Bible - at what age did each of the parents have the children? And how long did they live? IOW, on what basis do the years of the geneologies equate to actual years? Even beyond the fact that outside of the Bible itself, there's no basis to assume that the founders of that lineage even existed (i.e., A&E). This isn't "humanistic science" trumping God - a logical impossibility. It's waaaay extra-biblical Faith. If you're going to take the text as written, you'd better not drag in things that aren't in there. Rather, this is the ultimate in ad hoc-ianism attempting to trump science. Except the age of the earth isn't God's revelation. It's human interpretation of what is written in your Bible. You can't have it both ways. Either human intellect is capable of interpreting nature, or it isn't. If it isn't, then human intellect is also incapable of interpreting the Bible - making Ussher suspect, among others. Remember Linnaeus' quote? Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum ("The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone"). Nature - for a believer - should the the thing proclaiming the hand of God. Not some minor preacher from the 17th Century. Which trumps which, Faith? Note that I'm trying to argue from within the believer perspective. In the case of what you have written here, I wonder why you are denying the fact that God also gave us the intellect with which His creation is to be evaluated. I wonder which aspect God is more likely to accept: denial of His ultimate gift which allows us to see what He clearly wrote in works of His own hand when it conflicts with the text of a book compiled by man, or the reverse? Maybe it's not the folks who go with science over an old book - no matter how revered - who are in trouble. An intellect which, if you accept the divine premise in the first place, is also something that came from God. Why do you deny this gift? As I noted in the part you didn't quote:

quote:

---

...it's the "believer" who fails to grasp the beauty and evidence of biology, rather than the other way around.

---

In other words, the Bible-olater is denying the quite plain hand of God by denying the fruits that God has provided: the rational mind which allows us to dimly sense the work of the creator.