Creation, Evolution, and faith

I don't think I have ever come across that kind of evolutionist. I wonder whether they even exist.For myself, I first heard of evolution in high school. I thought it very interesting, and it fitted the evidence from the biosphere rather well. Still, I knew it was controversial and I saw no need to make up my mind one way or the other.Later, as an undergraduate, I took a biology class where I learned more about evolution. It continued to be interest. I continued to remain uncommitted. I was mainly interested in physics and mathematics at that time, so it was not important for me to make a commitment. It was several years later, then a graduate student in mathematics, that I read Watson's book "The Double Helix". It was then that I recognized that everything fitted together so well that evolution had to be correct.There were still the question as to how life originated. And evolution does not answer that. The question is still not settled. And then there was the question of whether each of the major phyla were independent, and evolution occurred only within the phyla. By now, I a pretty well convinced that the phyla probably arose from common ancestors - i.e. the did not independently come into existence. And then there is the Lynn Margulis and her theory that eukaryotes arose as a symbiotic union of simpler organisms - I find that very interesting and highly plausible.I hope you can see from the above account that it was never a matter of accepting on faith. It was always a question of looking at evidence, withholding decision until there was enough evidence, and even then being willing to revise my views as more evidence became available.By the way, there is no need for you to individually reply to this post. Think of it as contributing to the overall picture of how people decide on such issues, and of how very different evidence based decisions are from faith based decisions.

Quite honestly, nobody has a such an answer. I'll note that this is the question of abiogenesis, and is not itself part of evolution.The three main competing hypotheses are:
(1) Divine intervention (god did it);
(2) Panspermia (earth was infected from outer space);
(3) It results from chemical events on the early earth.Many theists might see (1) as the obviously correct answer. Atheists will tend to rule it out. Agnostics will leave it there as a hypothesis, but point out that there is no evidence.On (2), there is some evidence of organic molecules in outer space, but too little evidence to settle the issue. Panspermia was more attractive when it was believed that the universe had existed forever, for then there was the possibility that life had always existed somewhere in the universe. However, if the universe is finite, as BB cosmology asserts, then the case for (2) is a lot weaker. It does still open the possibility that life could have got it start somewhere else other than earth.At present, I am inclined to favor (3). But I would not expect it to have involved the chance creation of suitable DNA or RNA. Rather, it seems plausible that simpler homeostatic processes could have formed some kind of pre-life, and have evolved toward the kind of life we see now. That early pre-life stage could have involved something like symbiotic unions (if you can use "symbiotic" with pre-life), with our current biology arising out of those unions.In any case, at present I am open to any of those three possibilities, and I am open to consider others. We might never have the evidence to be able to settle this issue.

I think the scientist is actually going to be asking "Can we assume that these footprints were made at the same time, or could they have been made over a period of many days or years or millenia? Do they actually show many animals present at the same time, or could they have been made over a longer period with never more than a few there at one time?"

There is zero evidence that would validate the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and there is more than enough evidence to contradict that.There is plenty of evidence to validate the Bible as a compilation from Jewish folklore and tradition, and to validate that some of it reflects history.We need to be clear about what is and what is not validated by the available evidence.

No, I do not believe that Galileo invented the telescope. Who Invented the Telescope?
No webpage found at provided URL: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question37.html
History of the telescope - Wikipedia

I'm not really meaning to "pile on" here, so there is no need for you to reply. If they "can't tell you what the speed of light is" then I'm not sure what it is that you think they believe.What most people believe, is that their technology works.Whenever we use our hi-tech devices, we are actually checking the speed of light. For example, the TV antenna design depends on the speed of light. Things like the speed of light are built into our technology to such an extent that we are continually testing it.

I don't see such a fallacy being committed here.What I do see is that some on the theistic side, particularly kbertsche, have been claiming a near equality between the basis of theological reasoning and that of scientific reasoning. Those on the scientific side have, unsurprisingly, been emphasizing that the differences are far greater than is being admitted.Those on the science side of this debate fully recognize that historical studies have to rely on weaker evidence than is typically available for scientific studies. Yet, even those who do historical research still have standards of evidence that they uphold. Thus we see them pointing out that the evidence regarding Jesus is shaky. Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should browse through those posts to provide some context for recent posts. That could be an interesting topic, though I won't be the one starting such a discussion.I think you would find that most of those on the science side support the idea of such historical studies, while there would be some criticism from the more fundamentalist Christians.

But this is not what we see.What we actually see is that secular biblical scholars study the Bible to find out what it says. But religious biblical scholars study the Bible to find out if they can come up with ways to construe the Bible as providing support for their theology. That is to say, confirmation bias is a core component of their method of study.(abe) above comments withdrawn. See Message 305.Edited by nwr, : add remark.

Okay, I'll withdraw that comment. I was mostly going by what I hear on apologetics, but I admit that apologetics is not scholarship.

I don't think that's quite right about atheists. It may apply to some atheists, and perhaps that is all that you meant.In forums such as this, we do see atheists adopting the same kind of stance as YECs, as a kind of strategy to challenge the YEC reading of Genesis. But it seems to me that when not involved in such debating, atheists have very different ways of reading genesis.

Yes, I would include Dawkins among the "some atheists" to which your comment does apply.I tend to think of Dawkins as more an anti-theist than just a plain atheist.It seems to me that there are many atheists who take a "live and let live" attitude toward religion, and who tend to see Genesis as a compilation of folklore, perhaps seeing some of it as poetic.

I agree with the distinction you are making between the metaphysics of Kepler et. al., and the metaphysics of today. I very much doubt that this has much to do with theism vs. atheism. It seems to me that theistic physicists are just as likely to talk of the fabric of space-time.This change, it seems to me, has more to do with Newtonian mechanics having been displaced by GR (general relativity). With Newtonian mechanics, you had explicit laws which you could consider to be laws of nature. With GR, you have gravitation explained in terms of curvature of space-time, a notion that lends itself more to the "fabric" way of talking.

I cannot recall coming across anyone who has made such a distinction in the "all by itself" direction.

I am not seeing anything metaphysical about that.