Mrrzy.. I have known people who I suspect held that view, though we never got quite that far in discussing the idea. It is not always a good idea to prod them about such things, as one can either get sanctimonious preaching or cold, angry accusations regarding one's destiny. It just isn't worth stirring up a hornet's nest.

I discuss it with Pete, because he is willing to compare views and has at least read some of the arguments on both sides and does not insult me for being 'unconverted'.

In the US, there certainly are many who hold the approximate view that Pete defends. I used to live in Kansas, and I can assure you they are there.

-------------------------------------------------------

Shimrod... Pete has essentially answered that general question a number of times. He admits it is 'faith', but then asserts that there is scientific evidence that supports HIS view against MY view.... we continue to discuss the details.

I asked in the original post for reasoned comment on BOTH the science of evolution...with examples... and on religion in so far as it disputes the scientific view of evolution. (At least that is what I intended to convey). It seems that this often devolves into general condemnation of religion in general, which is sometimes interesting, but not particularly helpful.... especially when it becomes a sarcastic dismissal of the intelligence of those with 'traditional' religious faith.

Ed T just posted an article about various ways to interpret the bible, in hopes the Pete will respond to it. The article is pretty good, though I doubt Pete will care to answer the lengthy questions it raises. Still, it is interesting and keeps to the basic topic I hoped for.


   I DO hope for more comments on evolution itself and the advances in science that support it.... like... a program I saw last night on the domestication of dogs. Here is one basic article
It seems that DNA/genetic studies have found the specific genes that allow the complex developments in canine characteristics (making dogs the most widely varied type of mammal on earth). It seems that certain pairs of genes make it possible for breeders to control a wide variety of dog sizes, shapes, hearing, smell, and general 'attitude'. The line in the program was (paraphrased): "A cow (bovine) anywhere will look like a cow, but dogs can vary from a Mexican Hairless to a Great Dane and still have 99% of the same genes."
The relevance of this is that we can essentially see evolution at work in dogs when WE selectively breed for certain traits! They now have a 'mutt' bred for sniffing explosives that simply LIKES to do it, and will make choices about where to search, instead of being led to suspicious areas by the trainer.
Other examples were given about herding dogs, digging dogs,..etc.

Repeating the point: By selective breeding, we are seeing traits develop that 'might' have developed accidentally over time in random evolutionary ways, but can be controlled and found in just a few generations.


(I am aware of Pete's general answer to these articles, but that's why I started this thread....there's more to a forum than Pete & I typing opinions... and LOTS more than people taking righteously indignant pot-shots at Pete *grin*)