For what it's worth, I don't consider that post to be contrarian, simply illuminating your ideas.
Well, first your first statement is wrong since the first life form could not have arrived via descent with modification. It's no use to say that is separate from ToE because that also makes the statement wrong since ToE does not explain life on this planet, but just lays out the potential for how life developed after life came to this planet.
That is exactly correct. The ToE does not explain how live on this planet began. It only explains how it evolved.
Secondly, as is amply clear by evos' objecting to ID theory, evolutionism does reject the concept that God can be causal to life developing and being here on this planet. That idea is considered a threat to science and as unscientific by evos, by definition.
Scientists reject ID as a scientific theory because there is no evidence for it, because it is not necessary to invoke it to explain anything, because it doesn't explain anything anyway, and because it invokes a supernatural agent. However, this is not the same as saying that they reject the idea of a divine being's involvement in the process as an article of one's religious faith.
It's important to keep the distinction in mind. Science speaks to what we can observe, but it says nothing about matters of faith. As several people have said here repeatedly, most scientists in fact accept the ToE and hold to their faith as well. That fact would seem to me to be compelling proof that one can reasonably reconcile at least some views of christianity with the ToE.
It is unscientific, for the reasons I discussed above, but no scientist views it as a threat to science so long as it is discussed only in terms of a spiritual belief. The reason it is often viewed as a threat is because, to the scientist, it falsely portrays itself as science, and may cause people to misunderstand the true nature of scientific investigation.
Now, having said that, I understand that you do not view it that way. For purposes of this thread, I have no desire to argue that particular point with you. I can't tell you the number of places that I have read scientists say that they have no quarrel with ID insofar as someone wants to believe it on faith.
I'm not saying that science will ever accept the existence of a supreme being from a scientific point of view. However, I am saying that science does not say that a supreme being is impossible. That question is outside the purview of science as it is practiced.
Saying that the ToE is inconsistent with the existence of god is rather like saying it's inconsistent with the idea of beauty. It is completely consistent with either idea, because both are outside of the realm in which science operates.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
