re:"Yes, and the view that evolution was divinely driven (or designed) are routinely called creationists. "
So you have no problem with evolution being taught in the schools as it is.
Its not taught that way.
--------------------------------
"According to Darwinian scientists it is."
I don't think you can find a scientist who calls evolution an accident. But try, if you can....
Darwinian scientists deny there is any purpose or design involved in the universe, everything is driven by random chance:
A Glorious Accident: Understanding Our Place in the Cosmic Puzzle
Here is a meeting of some of the most brilliant minds and creative thinkers of our time--all scientists and philosophers, minds of extraordinary scope and imagination, pushing the boundaries of scientific theories and philosophical ideas in a series of unprecedented interviews.
Oliver Sacks, neurologist, psychiatrist, and author of Awakenings
Rupert Sheldrake, controversial cell biologist and biochemist
Daniel C. Dennett, philosopher of consciousness and author of Consciousness Explained
Stephen Toulmin, physicist and philosopher of science
Freeman Dyson, a physicist with particular interest in mathematics, nuclear physics, and astrophysics
Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist and popular writer on evolutionary biology
films.com
Dr. Sagan rejects outright (and, to me, gratuitously) any possibility of a Mind behind that universe; he carps captiously at religion; he insists on the exclusivity of accident as the cause of evolution.
………
Dr. Sagan writes that "until one day, quite by accident, a molecule arose that was able to make crude copies of itself."
americamagazine.org
[Y]ou have to check your brains at the church-house door if you take modern evolutionary biology seriously. The implications of modern evolutionary biology are inescapable, just as the conclusion of an immense universe was inescapable when we shifted from a cozy geocentric view to the heliocentric conception of our solar system. Stated simply, evolutionary biology undermines the fundamental assumptions underlying ethical systems in almost all cultures, Western civilization in particular. The frequently made assertion that evolutionary biology and the Judeo-Christian traditions are fully compatible is false. The destructive implications of evolutionary biology extend far beyond the assumptions of organized religion to a much deeper and more pervasive belief, held by the vast majority of people: that non-mechanistic organizing design or forces are somehow responsible for the visible order of the physical universe, biological organisms and human moral order.
[William Provine, "Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics." Science, Technology, and Social Progress, Steven Goldman, ed. 1989, pp. 253-254.]
And again,
Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. Called Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and considered equivalent to atheism then, it is no different now. A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works thought the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
[William Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), in Academe, January 1987, pp.51-52.]
-----------------------------
It is estimated that 99.99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct...did God make so many mistakes...?
There's no reason to think anything was a mistake.
--------------------------
Mother Teresa.....It doesn't matter that she "saw" Christ as a child..
She was 36 at the time of her visions. I think spending 50 years handling the bedpans of dying people will take its toll on anyone. Mocking atheists gleeful at learning of Mother Teresa's depression and feelings of darkness reveal more about themselves than Mother Teresa.
------------------------
BTW, are you aware of any evidence that Christ actually existed?
As a historicl figure, Jesus Christ is far better documented than Alexander the Great, Socrates, Julias Caesar.
As to his being more than just an historic figure - his family, which previously doubted him, and his disciples and associates numbering at least 500, claim to have witnessed the risen Christ and became his followers and ardent spreaders of the Gospel. Even former atheist Anthony Flew, now a deist and not a Christian, admits the resurrection is the best attested of all miracle stories. |
