I have been a strong proponent of this kind of thinking for years. It's nice to see an evangelical Christian who is a renowned geneticist help put this kind of relevant information out to be discussed.

It may not totally satisfy beliefs on both sides of the issue but can certainly give us another vantage point to continue the discussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090502/us_time/08599189528400

Well at least he's trying to have an open mind unlike most evangelicals. I listened to an NPR talk show today and they interviewed a guy who went from born again to atheist. The first caller was someone from Petal, Mississippi. I knew it was going to be a thumper. In his southern drawl, he went on to tell the listeners about his beliefs and "blind faith", something I don't believe in. He did say at the end it was his beliefs and in the end he could be wrong, which I respected him for. He didn't come off like the conservatives who post here and basically say I know everything and you better follow me. I don't dislike evangelicals, just the ones who somehow think they know more about the unknown than I do and I don't know.

I think it's entirely possible to have strong faith and still be able to deal with science.

And it begs the rather obvious question: "If we were, in fact, created, then why would our creator give us great learning tools in the form of sharp minds, if we are not to use them?"

>>why would our creator give us great learning tools in the form of sharp minds
Would you think the Creator would want to make humans in His image/likeness/personalities so we could communicate,reason,understand,enjoy life?

I don't understand the question.

I find that article extremely frustrating. I'll deal with it though.

CJ-How does if frustrate you?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A. Einstein

Mere mortals can neither explain the mysteries of science in totality nor adjudicate the paradoxes of the history of religion. Any religion. The failure to communicate these complexities, or at least to present them for inspection and discussion, is a disservice to both science AND religion. To not be open minded to the expanding knowledge base humanity is building, however, seems to be a trait of zealots, whether they be militant Islaam or Christian extremists or Dick Cheney.

It frustrates me for the reasons Andy listed.

That article, while possibly noble in it's effort to look for truth, has found none.

While I am used to that, this very topic is one that I struggle with sometimes and more recently has just plain been focused to a point of deep contention within myself. Therefore I find it, once again, disappointing when someone feels they are close enough to the answer that it sounds like truth - but I don't find very much truth in that article. I'll read it again when I'm less pissed and see if my own issues are causing me to cloud what is trying to be conveyed. But frankly, I do not need a whole new set of ways to ask the same old questions. And that's all that article feels like it's doing...for now.

But, I have to admit, I do appreciate you asking me Chris.

I mean, would it not be great to have a real answer?

Sean- I don't think we'll ever know the "real" answer. I have come to a point in my life that there are mysteries I will never truly know. Yeah it bugs me, but I move on.

What this article does for me is to let me know that we don't have to be so rigid in our thinking, on many kinds of topics. The middle ground is not so bad really.

What struck me was your reaction to the article. The last thing I suspected from anyone was frustration.

This is why we call it faith. There are not going to be any real answers.

BTW: Hearing the same questions asked differently is interesting to me.

It's interesting because the person doing so shows us a picture of their mind, how it works, what is important, what they think is inclusive, how they reason...

IMHO, the discussion is the goal. Understanding of who we are, how we work (think) is valuable stuff. It brings us empathy, and I don't just mean bleeding heart, water works, "you poor thing!" empathy either.

I mean just standing in the shoes of another person, with enough presence to actually say, "Chris would say..." with some credence.

This is progress, for each new mind met. I find it very rewarding, in that I end up with lots of tools to use for my own idle musings.

Perhaps CJ, some of your frustration is mismatched expectations. Maybe look at this article as not the source of some new truth, but the story of somebody who made it fit within their own mind, experience and life.

And FUCK YES it would be great to have an answer.

(I'll deal with the additional questions.)

One thing I think we can get an answer to is whether or not life can endure anywhere but here. I'm looking at MARS, or one of the more interesting moons, and wondering just why we can't go and plant something and watch for a bit...

The ethics of it are troublesome, but I'm kind of selfish as I just don't see the greater harm. And I would like to know something about that answer before I go.

When I read that article, I didn't get the impression that it intended to look for "truth" or a new way of looking at things. I took it to be about helping people to cope with living in the modern world without feeling that they might be betraying their upbringing, without destroying friendships that they have built in their churches, all while avoiding causing themselves painful identity crises. Although I have not been in this situation myself, I can appreciate how some very serious Charismatic or Evangelical Christians might run into these issues.

My take is that God invented science so it's a natural that the 2 go together.

Dan- I have this image of God in a white lab coat with two students in his classroom, Darwin and CS Lewis.