In discussion with a friend regarding devine intervention vs. evolution he posed this mathematical question?
545406
Let me start first with the number of seconds in 4.5 billion years.  141,912,000,000,000,000 - Over 141 quadrillion seconds.  This is found by multiplying 4.5 billion by 365 (days), by 24 (hours), by 60 (minutes), by 60 (seconds).\n\nNot considering capitalization or punctuation, just the 26 letters of the alphabet, to find the probability of getting a random string of letters 1000 characters long, you would find 26^1000, or 26 multiplied by itself 1000 times!  This result is astronomically large...  9.4 x 10^1414   ...a number over 1000 DECIMALS long!  This is vastly larger than the number of seconds in the history of the world, or for that matter, even the number of particles in the universe.\n\nRegarding the first answer posted, kutekymmie claims that the chances of flipping a coin heads 100 times in a row is 1 in about 10 billion.  This is WAY off.  The actual odds are about 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376.  The entire population of China working day in and day out for longer than their lifespans would likely never flip a coin heads 100 times in a row.  Flipping a coin heads 100 times in a row doesn't even begin to rival the odds necessary for amino acids to randomly assemble and THEN to go on to create proteins and THEN create the simplest of cell functions.  Hardly any leading scientist recognizes random chance anymore as begetting all of life as we know it today.  Evolution theory must now rely on other explanations to describe the origins of life.
652920
By Arthur Custance \n"Man in Adam and in Christ"\n\nTO MY MIND, one of the saddest and most disastrous results of the theory of evolution as applied to man is that it has led to an entirely false conception of what man's true nature is.\n\nIf human evolution is true in the sense that Huxley and Simpson have held it to be, then man is an angel in the making, changing steadily for the better as he moves further away from his animal ancestors. His propensity for wickedness is recognized as unfortunate, but more in the nature of a relapse, a temporary set-back, a kind of unfulfilled-ness, which there is every reason to believe he will in time grow out of.\n\nBut if man is a divinely created being who has fallen from grace and can by nature change only for the worse, then his propensity for wickedness is something more than merely evidence of unrealized potential. From the biblical point of view it is a demonstration that something has gone dreadfully wrong from which there now seems no possibility of self-recovery.
663844
Jumping into the Evolution vs. Creationism is a messy fight.  What Baumgardner proposes is a very rapid movement of the plates to get them into the current position and also creating the massive flood referred to in the Christian Bible.  Geologic evidence refutes the theory at every turn.  The structure of the earth as we know it will not allow this.  The aesthenosphere is the plastic-y layer over which the solid plates move.  Geophysical and surface observed evidence tell us that this is a very slow process, inches a year at a maximum.  The type of catastrophic event describes in this theory would not be physically possible by the natural laws we have observerd.  Also, radio carbon dating shows the varying ages of rock throughout the Earth, ages that far exceed the several thousand years he posits.  His response is that the radio isotopes decayed at a diferent rate.  Basically, he wants the laws of science, the laws that have never been seen to change, to be broken to support his creationism theory.  I suppose if you believe in an omnipotent being that created the world, that being can change the laws as it sees fit; however, that isn't science, that is belief.\n\nMy opinion is that Baumgardner's theory is a feeble attemptto put a scientific face on religious thought.  The website I reference is a Evolution vs. creation discussion group.  Many people spent far more thought on the subject and you can find some very good points in the discussion thread.
279734
What the Archbishop said was: "I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." \n\nSo in essence he's suggesting it's not comparing like with like to compare Creationism with Darwinism.\n\nHe's also trying to avoid division in the Church of England at a time when the Church's role in an increasing secular society is being marginalised.
346312
Before answering the question definitively, I think it may important to be aware of a few important details.  When we speak of "evolution" we are generally referring to the notion of species evolving by means of natural selection.  Many evolutionary biologists argue over the details, but all agree that natural selection is part of the evolutionary mechanism.  And so, there are actualy more than one "theory of evolution" when it comes to the details.  \n\nLet's assume for arguments sake that your question therefore could be slightly rephrased into: is evolution by means of natural selection truly happening?  The answer, I think, is a clear yes.  You may have heard some say that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.  That is actually not the case.  what is controversially discussed are, as I pointed out above, the details of the evolutionary mechanisms.\n\nNow, assuming that evolution by natural selection is real, and therefore, that not only we as human beings evolved, and that we furthermore are still evolving, does that mean that therefore religious believes are impossible?  Again, I think the answer is clear.  And this time it is no.  science and religion are absolutely reconcilable.  But as always the devil is in the details...  When some scientists say that science is the only way to the truth and therefore evolution has done away with God, the problem is that they are making a metaphysical, that is anon-scientific, philosophical statement: The statement cannot be tested by a scientific experiment.  Consequently, if the statement were true, it would prove itself false, since it is not scientific.  It is, what we call in philosophy, the liar's paradox (If I told you I am a San Franciscan, and all San franciscans are liars, am I telling the truth?).  On the other hand, when a biblical literalist tells you that the Bible has told us how the world was created in six 24 hour days (and one Sunday of rest...), the problem lies in reading the biblical text literally.  The Bible is full of what in theology we call obscure text passages...  There are contradictions, there repetitions, etc.  For example, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, how come he dies at the end of the fifth book and writes about it?  I could list more examples, but I think you get the point.\n\nSo, we can conclude that indeed a materialistic interpretation of the world (i.e., science is the only way to the truth) and a biblical literalism (i.e., the biblical text is to be read literal by the mere literal meaning of its words) would present two irreconcilable positions.  But as we have seen, both positions are problematic.\n\nIf we allow for science and religion to communicate with one another, they can actually inform each other and in there dialogue provide one interpretation of the human experience of reality.  Accordingly, religion would thus attempt to interpret the world in light of Scripture, but also its tradition.  Science on the other hand tries to attempt the same using its own very particular methodologies.  The concepts from both disciplines are then brought to a dialogue with one another, and from that dialogue one new understanding can emerge.  And with this new understanding we engage yet once again in a new cycle of interpretation.  As such, even religion science, and definitely our overall understanding of our human experience of reality grows continuously, or if you like, evolves.\n\nI hope that helps.
884798
Please visit my blog http://360.yahoo.com/catholiccatechism and read my "Pacifico (of Evolution per Creationism ) - The Reconciling (of Evolution with Creationism)"\n\nThis blog entry will explain to you why you do not have to choose between science and theology. In fact, the very idea that this choice must be made is entirely fallacious. They both coexist just fine.
1173293
Since there is no proof either way (pro or con) an athiest has chosen one of 2 logical positions.  He just has chosen one that differs from the "believers".  His decision has no more or less merit than those who choose god.
1160398
He came up with the Theory of Evolution
748480
It's an urban myth, like most Creationist stories about evolution. In fact, from the biographies I've read, Darwin lent more and more towards agnosticism or atheism as he got older, starting out as a very strong believer in the Genesis story when he set sail on the Beagle, and disbelieving Christianity but still believing in God when he wrote the Origin of Species.
1167057
The theory of evolution is most definitely NOT a religion.\n\nI disagree with the accuracy of your comparison.  To elaborate...\n1) Evolution did not sprout from an inspired man.  Evolution was postulated to explain evidence, and that evidence points to common descent.  Evolution was postulated 100 years before Darwin published Origin of Species, and the ones who came up with it first were not greek, nor were they Charles Darwin.\n2) "Religion supports tales occurring before man."  If these tales are interpreted metaphorically, there is no conflict between science and the bible.  It is only biblical literalists that take issue with it.  Still, this statement and the supposed comparison doesn't help to define evolution as a religion.\n3) If religion is defined as that which answers the questions every man longs the answer for, I guess Jeapardy, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and other such TV shows are also religions.\n4) What constitutes proof is up to the individual.  Evolution is proven to me.  Maybe not to you.  That's fine.  For the sake of argument, we will say that there is no proof of evolution.  But there is a lot of evidence for it.  Creationists have no evidence whatsoever, other than twisted science, fallacious arguments, and illogical conclusions.  Oh yeah.  I forgot about criticisms of evidence for evolution.  Regardless of how valid the criticism, that isn't evidence for creation.\n5) "Evolutionists defend there views despite the inability to prove its basis"  Again, this premise is way off.  If you think a particular brand of car is better than any other, you may argue why, but you couldn't prove the statement to be true.  And I doubt you would consider your preference for that make and/or model a religion.\n6) Evolution is supported only on the basis of the evidence.  Prior to the fossil record, and prior to taxonomy, it was assumed that all earth's critters were created from nothing.  Then came the evidence.  Then came people who looked at it closely.  Then came the attempt to explain that evidence...evolution.\n\nI could go on through the rest of your points, but none of them are accurate comparisons between religion and evolution, in my opinion.\n\nHere is a much better breakdown of how religion and evolution differ...\nFrom http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html\n"1) Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life). \n2) Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments. \n3) Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not. \n4) Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist. \n5) Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that. \n6) Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies. \n7) Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off into new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.\n\nHow can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolutio
1085579
Agreed.  They both can be believed together.  This is another point of evidence that the Fanatics on all sides are the one's making it difficult for others to be open minded.  You have certain Atheists who claim Evolution proves there is no God (Evolution does no such thing... it is not out to prove or disprove the supernatural.)  And then you have those Christians who claim that Creation could not have come about thru Evolution.  Which merely shows me that, though I'm not exactly super-intelligent on the subject of Evolution, but even I know better than to make silly statements such as these.
969538
Disagree.  It solves some problems in evolutionary theory where selective pressures are subtle.  The mathematics are highly refined and led to new insights, but it's application in the real world is limited.
894453
Dear Francis B:  It is not for me or anyone to press God and His Realm upon others who do not wish to know of it.  If you will bear with me, I would like to say a few things about this:\n\n1.   As one who pursued the Intellect of my human mind most of my life and looked at all things, and felt pride in my Intellect's comprehensive ability to learn and understand , I now present to you what I learned :  The Intellect is but an exercise of mind.   Scientific theories come and go each decade.  The Sciences get up close to God and then, sadly, have no ability to mathematically formulate His Reality and Truth. To prove Him.  I would offer:  Don't rely on just the Intellect to live by.\n\n2.    Later in life, I opened up to Spirit Mind.  Nothing denominational, nothing very traditional, no dogma , and  began receiving "experiences" of Spirit. \n\n "Temporal Lobes of the Brain" is a discussion of the illusionary-type reality we experience here in the physical world.  But, you know, we are much more than just physical.  Made of something much more powerful. . .and, sooner, or later, we all come to Know.  Our Creator is not dependent upon our "belief" in Him.  He exists  - whether we choose to deny Him or recognize Him.  He looks upon what He created and listens while it turns to other creations He created and yells, "There is no God." And, He MUST think to Himself. . .how strange that is; my creation is acting as if it doesn't know me !  Yet, I AM  - and certain of myself !  Even a human father might find it a bit disconcerting -  when a child of his denies him. Same thing, really.\n\nAnyhow, spiritual or religious experiences come not from the human Intellect - but, from the soul/spirit part of Mind.  That "thing" that certainly exists, but is not reflected by the physical matter of "brain."  In thinking upon ourselves, perhaps we need to consider ourselves more in terms of a totality - rather than just one part of us as "real" and that there is nothing MORE to us.  That may be something to contemplate. . .\n\nI would like to submit to you further these truths of spiritual experience (or religious experience), as I have learned of it:\n\n1.   Spiritual or religious experience "reverses physical laws."\n2.   These experiences are often experienced during prayer or study.\n3.   These experiences undo the past in the present and release the future.  They are outside the laws of the physical world.\n4.    Spiritual or religious experiences REFLECT, therefore, the laws of Eternity, not of time.\n5.    Through spiritual or religious experience you feel God's constant Forgiveness upon you and are impelled to extend it to others.\n6.    Spiritual experiences (or religious . . .let's now use the words interchangeably) are part of an interlocking chain of forgiveness and is at work in all the dimensions of Time.\n7.    Spiritual experiences are healing because they deny absolute body-identification and affirm spirit-identification.  This places spirit at the Center of Mind where it can communicate directly.\n8.    Spiritual experiences honor you.  They dispel illusions about yourself.  They help restore your sanity.  They restore the Mind to its fullness. . .. \n9.    Spirit's strength leaves no room for intrusions.  Nothing can take the experience and its effects away from you.\n10.  By perceiving the light IN the experience, darkness automatically disappears.\n11.    Whole-ness is the perceptual content of spiritual experience.  It corrects the faulty perceptions of lack, or being separated.\n\nBest regards, Lana
1014228
Sometimes the line between evolution and christianity is blurred. Evolution is not just the theory that we came from apes. Evolution is just the theory that all creatures can evolve over time its like is a bear is mainly living in one environment and then moves to another that is evolution. The theory that man came from apes should not be taught nor the theory that man was made by God. That way nobody is offended. But Evolution should be taught.
838226
i think this person is trying to say that science (physics) and religion (10 commandments) are opposing forces and that while most people order their world around science, this person prefers to use religion...now why they think the 2 can't coexist is beyond me
803709
Why should they be mutually exclusive?  The concept of God is in many religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones.  He/She/It is believed in in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, by the ancient Hermetics and by Hindus just to name a few.  So, if there is a God, it's certainly possible that He/She/It DID indeed cause evolution to take place.  In fact, there are many Christians, Jews and probably a large number of Muslims who believe that.\n\nBelief in God is separate from the literal belief in a holy book.  First of all, a holy book can be interpretted metaphorically.  I think the concept that the six "days" of creation in Genesis may be longer than days now is a perfectly good one.\n\nAlso, many believe that God is ineffable and mysterious and therefore that no words and no book can accurately express who He/She/It is, but only provide us with metaphors that approach but never really get to that understanding.  If that's true, than it's meaningless to say that some holy book rules out evolution.  Science has proven evolution (the only reason we say "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is that Darwin explained the fact of evolution by the notion of natural selection and it's only that explanation, not the fact of evolution itself, that scientists ever dispute - and even then they only point out that mutation plays a role AS WELL AS natural selection - but I digress).  So, it seems to me that it makes more sense for anyone who believes in God to believe that God caused evolution to take place.\n\nMoreover, there are other ways to look at God besides purely literal ones.  The mythologist Joseph Cambell believed that all myth is metaphor and saw God as a metaphor for whatever is best for humanity.  One can look at God in terms of gnosis, too, rather than knowledge.  Knowledge is the objective truth of science.  Gnosis is how we experience our universe, which is different from objective truth, because of psychology and also because of our own perspectives as living beings trying to make the most out of life.  Many people of many religions have had experiences of the Divine (some of various Deities or and others of a One God).  That doesn't mean that the Divine is literally true, only that they had powerful experiences.  But, if those experiences make us better people, maybe this gnosis of the Divine is still worthwhile even if it's NOT literal truth.\n\nSo, in summary, I think you need to figure out what you mean by "God" and what exactly you believe about God before you can know whether or not evolution is mutually exclusive with that concept.
1010373
Newton advanced it as an axiom, by virtue of which it wouldn't be "proven", only tested (the resulting predictions tested.) If I say "suppose I assume a space where all parallel lines converge", I don't "prove" my assumption - it's an assumption. You work outward from it and see what you get. If what you get is impossible (or wrong), it was a bad assumption.