>>As for science being "open-minded", I think there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. "Inherit the Wind" is one of the most simplistic, stereotype-laden pieces of propaganda I have seen. I would argue that if the movie were made today, it would be the "evolutionists" that would be marching around with signs, condemning anyone who would dare question their hold on the educational establishment. Talk about dogma! Even the title of this thread is telling - If W. doesn't "believe" in the proper manner, he is condemned to being ignorant or worse. Sounds a bit inquisitorial to me. Witch hunt for "creationists", anyone?<<

It isn't science that is dogmatic, but scientists, being human beings, are capable of all the folly of any other. However, scientists are unable to claim that they speak for God.

I like the movie "Inherit The Wind" because while it is simplistic, as you say, it has an 'in your face' progressive point of view which is unusual for its time. It has a tacked on love interest which is kind of forced, but a lot of its courtroom scenes are lifted from Scopes 'Monkey Trial' transcripts. And you've got to love Gene Kelly in one of his few non-dancing roles as a stand-in for H.L. Mencken! And a few great lines, such as: "Darwin got it wrong, man's STILL an ape!"

I chose the title of the thread to be deliberately but not offensively to-the-point. And yes, if 'W' doesn't believe in Darwinism, he is worse than ignorant. If you read through the thread, I believe several people hold to the viewpoint that 'W' purposely skirts the issue, which is the sign of an intelligent politician.

>>Darwin wrote his theories with the assumption that there was no God. Indeed, that may have been the impetus of his research - how do we explain origins without positing a purposeful creation? His conclusions flow logically from this premise, but I would question his premise. If the "scientific method" must by definition remain mute about evidence for a Creator, then it is based on a philosophical postulate that is as debatable as any other philosphical starting point - including the idea that "there is a God". It seems a bit ridiculous to me to start with the presumption that there is no God, then lift up your conclusions as "proving" that there is no God!<<

I disagree. Darwin wrote a LOT of books on a lot of subjects. He also wrote about his own intellectual development. It is pretty clear that he was the product of a very good education, including the standard Church Of England doctrine, and he believed in it. Over the period of a long life he eventually questioned his early beliefs, religion included. However, The Origin Of Species, his first major work, was not written because of a disbelief in God.

In a larger sense, The Darwinian Theory does not deny God, it denies certain people's beliefs in how God works. So, with respect, Bo, I'm not denying God, I'm denying you.

Science investigates what we CAN know about the universe. It doesn't address God as necessarily being or not being. As mentioned above, Einstein thought of physics as understanding the mind of God.

>>Biology (and particularly micro-biology) is much more complex that many popular "evolutionists" (and many "creationists") give it credit for. I suppose it depends on your definition of "evolution". If you mean simple adaptation, then you could say evolution happens every time a baby is born. But that is a long way from the conclusion that evolution can bring about new species, let alone its capacity to bring life from non-life. <<

'Real' scientists as opposed to 'popularizers' and creationists, are well aware of the complexity of life, it's why there are laboratories, and millions of bucks spent on their work, not to mention whole lifetimes of study and endowments and magazines full of articles I can't even pronounce, let alone read. As mentioned above, 'evolution' is not in question here. Evolution is a fact. When you find bones in the ground of critters that are not living now, and are totally different from critters living now, when you find remains of ancient critters EXACTLY THE SAME as some living now, and others that are not quite the same as those living now, it follows that there are forces it might be interesting to understand in the history of biology, particularly when you can relate them to geological events. There were many theories of why such variation (and occasional non-variation) should occur, and Darwin's version explains things the best and is the current pop favorite.

>>Our knowledge of genetics also brings the "natural selection" premise into question. Genetic mutation, when it happens randomly, 99% of the time is fatal. It is almost never "advantageous" to an organism. Then there is the difficulty of "passing on" the mutation. I find it stretches credibility to think that such a mechanism could produce an organ such as an eye, no matter how many millions of years you give it.<<

There are plenty of evolutionists who'd agree that we don't have a hard answer, but theories are constantly being proposed and discussed, such as the observation that light sensitive organs exist of differing degrees of development in thousands of different creatures. There are theories of how eyes could evolve, and my favorite, wings. And doesn't it stretch credibility in creationism that a creator would develop so many defective critters and people and saddle us with parts that have little or no use such as adenoids and appendixes? Not to mention what does this creator need with mutations?
As far as genetic mutation being fatal 99% of the time, it's probably higher than that. Nature (or God) performs more abortions than any number of clinics). The forces of production are so high that 99.99% of mutations can be fatal. All that is necessary is that some be successful. The productive capabilities of life will take care of the rest. As for the problem of passing on the mutation, there is no problem if it's genetic. It's already there. That is exactly HOW it IS passed on.


>>DNA/RNA is, basically, coded information. We are only beginning to decipher the code; the most elegant explanation for a structure such as DNA is a programmer, a designer, a "Creator", if you will. But a "dogmatic" scientist would likely torture reason rather than consider such an idea.<<

Isn't it interesting that you couldn't come up with this idea without the scientists who tortured out the chemical and structure of DNA to begin with. Ain't no DNA in the bible! (Seriously, there is no argument here. DNA is one of the ways God does His work).

>>That said, I agree that it is a dangerous thing when religious people start trying to dictate what science can say. I would argue that it is equally dangerous when scientists start trying to dictate what religion can say.<<

I think it's dangerous when anyone advances his or her personal agenda in the name of God. The first two of the Ten Commandments are among the most important and most abused by folks claiming religious orthodoxy. God exists because it ain't YOU and it ain't ME. More than one God does not exist because ONE's ENOUGH.

>Peace,
>Bo

Bacatya, Bo, a real pleasure to read your work