I'd encourage anyone who's posting on here to read “Letter to a Christian Nation”. Maybe then you'll understand why those of use who don't hold your beliefs don't understand how you can think such rubbish is real.

Also, the teaching of all theory-like .. umm… stories that explain how we got here would take several years of high school science class. That's why we only explain the one that has a basis in science. The rest simply do not.

Mr Brayton, thanks for going to bat for the rest of us.

I'd encourage anyone who's posting on here to read “Letter to a Christian Nation”. Maybe then you'll understand why those of use who don't hold your beliefs don't understand how you can think such rubbish is real.

Also, the teaching of all theory-like .. umm… stories that explain how we got here would take several years of high school science class. That's why we only explain the one that has a basis in science. The rest simply do not.

Mr Brayton, thanks for going to bat for the rest of us.

You stated that you feel that you are accountable to God.

No I didn't. I said that one can believe in evolution and also believe in a God to which we are accountable, as thousands and thousands of scientists who are also Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religions believe. I said nothing about my own views. Personally, I am a deist, not a theist or an atheist. That means I suspect that something (and I do not try and define what that something is) created the universe but I see no reason to believe that whatever did so takes any interest in us whatsoever.

The Bible's trustworthiness is beyond doubt at least in the sense that we are not given the option of taking bits a pieces of it as truth and tossing what we don't like. The evidence supporting it's accuracy and authenticity is as abundant as that supporting your ideas of evolution.

This statement is entirely false. If one is to take the Genesis account literally, it simply does not square with the evidence at all (but bear in mind that most Christian denominations do not take that account literally, only the most theologically conservative ones do). The earth was not created a few thousand years ago, it is 4.55 billion years old. And life on earth was not created in a week, it evolved gradually over the course of some 3.7 billion years. Even the order of appearance is wrong (fish and birds appear on the same day in the Bible; in the real world, birds do not appear for some 300 million years or more after fish do; whales appear before land mammals when the reality is the opposite). If you want to take that all as allegorical, as St. Augustine did and as most mainline denominations still do, then it is compatible with evolution in a very broad sense. But if you want to take it as literally true, the evidence clearly contradicts it.

One question that want to ask is this: I know there must be benefits to proving life evolutionary, but I have not put thought to it. Could you please enlighten me as to why this process is so important? (This is a serious question.)

One could as easily ask that question of any scientific theory. Rational people think there is always value in understanding reality and finding the truth. We don't need any practical benefit from understanding the natural history of life on earth in order to justify an honest search for the answers. But in fact we do have practical reasons anyway. Understanding how life evolves provides powerful insight into many issues that are important to our survival. For example, understanding how bacteria become immune to antibiotics, which is evolution at work, helps us develop new drugs to fight infections. Understanding how populations respond to environmental stresses helps us develop better ways to deal with damaged ecosystems and help maintain the balance of life in those situations. Understanding how certain traits developed and were selected for to aid in survival in one type of circumstance may actually be harmful in other circumstances (tribalism, for example) may help cultures evolve and leave malevolent behaviors behind. The truth is never useless. Understanding reality always aids us in one way or another.

Good point. Forgive me for generalizing. I've always had a hard time separating the origin of life and the process of life. Because I am not as qualified as you appear to be, I will not bother to argue about whether or not evolutionary processes are currently taking place. I know I change everyday in my thinking and my body adapts to different climates. So if that is what can be called evolution, count me in.
I would be curious as to what evidence could be given for the origin of life. I will have to look into that.
Now about my comment that you called word salad – nice phraseology. :) But you do seem a bit angry in all of your responses. I suppose that is a reflection of your passion about all of this. It is good to be passionate. Here was my point that was so poorly expressed that even you could not comprehend it. You stated that you feel that you are accountable to God. Who is the God you are accountable to? If it is the same God I am referring to (which I will take for granted since you did not correct the context), then it is the God of the Bible. This is where my statement fits in. The Bible's trustworthiness is beyond doubt at least in the sense that we are not given the option of taking bits a pieces of it as truth and tossing what we don't like. The evidence supporting it's accuracy and authenticity is as abundant as that supporting your ideas of evolution. So if a verifiable document gives an account of the beginning of life, why would that not be substantive. You claim that explanations are not document and yet you ask that we believe evidence documented by someone present during tests who observed the results, etc. Why do you doubt the God you claim to be held accountable to. Just think of Genesis as God's journal of the work He did and all you have to do is read His notes on how life began. And you won't find any notes on the evolutionary processes.
One question that want to ask is this: I know there must be benefits to proving life evolutionary, but I have not put thought to it. Could you please enlighten me as to why this process is so important? (This is a serious question.)

Now go ahead and tear it all apart! :)

I did try to qualify my statement with the word 'primary'. I'm sure there are people out there who believe leprechauns do make it rain, but I would hardly label it as a primary explanation.

So how does one distinguish between a “primary” explanation and one that isn't “primary” other than that the creation myth you believe in is primary and all others are not? Hundreds of millions of people accept the Hindu creation myth, which is entirely different from the Christian one. Whole civilizations have accepted hundreds of other creation myths that differ from yours. Science has a very effective way of distinguishing between the different types of explanations: those explanations that are testable, falsifiable and that explain a wide range of data are good theories and those that aren't are rightly ignored.

And I also said that IDC is not a scientific theory. But it is an explanation. In other words, it is a statement(s) made to clarify something and make it understandable.

It is an “explanation” only in the sense that “leprechauns make it rain” is an explanation for rain. It makes no predictions at all that can be tested and therefore is scientifically useless.

I simply believe that evolution as a theory has not really been around that long and yet (because it gives mankind a way out of being held responsible to a Creator) it has been largely accepted regardless of whatever evidence is or is not available. But like I said, I'm not a scientist or expert at really anything. But I still wonder what everyone is so scared of?

The theory of evolution has been around far longer than all sorts of scientific theories that you likely do not doubt – the term theory of disease, the theory of relativity, plate tectonics, etc. Theories are not judged by how long they've been around they are judged on how well they explain the data. And evolution explains the data very well. If you haven't taken the time to do serious research into the various lines of evidence that evolution explains quite well, you simply aren't in any position to make any credible statements on the subject at all. You certainly are not justified in making the ridiculous claim that scientists believe it just because it allegedly gives us a way out of being responsible to God (especially in light of the existence of vast numbers of scientists who accept evolution and still believe that we are accountable to God).

And what kind of evidence would you have to have to qualify Creationism?

It depends on what you mean by creationism. Some forms of creationism do make testable claims, especially young earth creationism. The claim that the bulk of the geologic record was deposited by a global flood is testable. In fact it has been tested and it fails to explain a vast range of evidence. It was thus rejected by scientists even before Darwin came along. But if you mean a vague “God did something” creationism, that is not at all testable because it makes no predictions about the nature of the evidence.

I would think if the documentation of an explanation could be reasonably verified, than the explanation could be also be accepted as a valid theory. Is this wrong?

This is,quite literally, gibberish. It's word salad. Those words do not make for anything even approaching a coherent sentence. Explanations are not document. They are verified by their ability to explain existing evidence and accurately predict the nature of new evidence. Evolution does so quite well. Creationism does not, and in most forms cannot.

The Genesis account states that God did it. Some believe aliens did it. Some believe that something just appeared out of nowhere. It seems that evolutionist claim that their explanations are testable, yet when it comes to the actual beginnings of life they are as untestable as any explanation. At least that is how it seems to me.

No, evolution does not depend on how life got started; evolution only explains how life, once started, leads to biodiversity. But even theories about the origin of life (abiogenesis) are entirely testable, whereas “god did it” is not testable.

Methodological naturalism may be necessary to your field of investigation, but it seems to me that it arbitrarily lays claims to limits it cannot demonstrate to be final.

I have read enough of a synopsis of the general positions taken in works of philosophy and popular presentations of science (such as Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World – one book among others which I read carefully with underlining), to understand what is being claimed and why. I am not a PhD in Biology, but have read a great deal of history, theology, philosophy and treatments of debates among scientists (mainly physicists) about the nature of the cosmos, as well as discussions of development among biologists and debates about theistic evolution.

It is difficult to know what you mean by what evolution says, since I think that the theological implications of evolutionary theory have been frequently discussed in the 20th century and popularized by some prominent authors – leaving me with the distinct impression that, while evolution may just describe a process (one accepted by ID advocate Michael Behe – correct?) – it has been used to shut off discussion of the need to look into where the limits of natural investigation intersect with questions of purpose. I cannot even begin to understand how one can discuss the emergence of a teleological anything to anyone (as some accident or mere animal adaptation) using a system that repudiates teleology as a prior or post quality. To me that seems incoherent and a contradiction.

How can the sciences not intersect? If cosmology is concerned with the origin of the earth – then the processes at work in evolution would have some relationship to cosmology of importance.