alphaparticle

Yes I'm not quite sure what danger residents of a halfway house are supposed to pose to our children that random neighbor x doesn't. These sorts of knee jerk reactions are unfortunate.

Me too, Drew.

ted, then I would just repeat what I already said. "My own view is that God has directed the process of creation from the start. I accept that evolution is true insofar as there is a common ancestor for life on earth. I don't believe we all arose out of purely physical and blind processes. I really don't care what label that view has. Many would call me creationist, many would accuse me of being a patsy of atheist evolutionists, can't keep everyone happy." Do you have a specific question about my position as outlined above?

Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. So why are they doing that? Why is a valid question, is it not? Why did they evolve from nothing into cells? Why would they become complex organisms? Assembly is not a separate question in light of the Big Bang transforming from one state to a more complex one. Why not stay in it's original form? Assembly into life? chemical reactions. After all, our physical bodies are a bunch of chemicals interacting. Ultimately why? Physical laws. 'Why' in that ultimate sense is beyond the purview of evolution entirely, but from a purely physical view there is no need to see biological, chemical or physical units as striving toward a goal. Most things are explained merely as physical stuff with physical properties obeying physical laws, and here we see the results of those processes. Let me clarify, I believe God is behind any and all physical processes at all times, whatever they may be. As to why a single celled organism would be the common ancestor to more complex ones in the evolutionary model, it's because random chemical processes caused different types of organisms from previous ones to occur, and the ones that survived long enough to duplicate/procreate continued on for another round. Those that didn't didn't. The life that is around today have ancestors who arose from these processes and stuck around long enough to procreate. You claim that you trust that God is behind the curtains preordaining things but then appeal to random chance. Which is it Alpha... it cannot be both. My purpose on this thread was to clear up severe confusion about what evolution implies. Criticisms of it are not going to be any good if they are aiming at a completely different target altogether. It is not the case that on 'undirected' evolution we should expect gorillas to talk, for example. That is a serious misunderstanding of what evolution is at the core. My own view is that God has directed the process of creation from the start. I accept that evolution is true insofar as there is a common ancestor for life on earth. I don't believe we all arose out of purely physical and blind processes. I really don't care what label that view has. Many would call me creationist, many would accuse me of being a patsy of atheist evolutionists, can't keep everyone happy.

Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis. So why are they doing that? Why is a valid question, is it not? Why did they evolve from nothing into cells? Why would they become complex organisms? Assembly is not a separate question in light of the Big Bang transforming from one state to a more complex one. Why not stay in it's original form? Assembly into life? chemical reactions. After all, our physical bodies are a bunch of chemicals interacting. Ultimately why? Physical laws. 'Why' in that ultimate sense is beyond the purview of evolution entirely, but from a purely physical view there is no need to see biological, chemical or physical units as striving toward a goal. Most things are explained merely as physical stuff with physical properties obeying physical laws, and here we see the results of those processes. Let me clarify, I believe God is behind any and all physical processes at all times, whatever they may be. As to why a single celled organism would be the common ancestor to more complex ones in the evolutionary model, it's because random chemical processes caused different types of organisms from previous ones to occur, and the ones that survived long enough to duplicate/procreate continued on for another round. Those that didn't didn't. The life that is around today have ancestors who arose from these processes and stuck around long enough to procreate.

So,how many years ago did the so called evolutionary process "stop?" Why would it stop?Are we no longer in "survival of the fittest" mode.....Has natural selection reached it's peak ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,seems very funny that in the stone age man was evolving & evolving & evolving through the ages & then this process came to a halt ,a long long time ago,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not just with humans but wth all other animals,fish ,birds & creeping crawling things,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ugggh As the Dr so eloquently & "simply" put it,,,,,,God created us exactly as He designed us to be ,starting with Adam & as we are this day..........Praise & Glory to God God does not change,His Word is never changing,God does not lie,His Word is His Timeless Truth,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but mam,ahh quite another story,men change their minds,theories & their words every decade or so(putting it mildly).........................With love-in Christ,Kwik I don't think anybody would say the process has stopped insofar as it is merely statistics gene populations. If that is static for some reason, then these sorts of phenotypal differences don't arise either. You could argue a few things about human evolution in particular, one being that the way the process, such as it is, was going was disrupted by the human ability to mold environment. Or, you could argue that it is still going on in ways somewhat novel due to that same thing, and if we could see over 10k years we would see stark changes.

Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. That's incorrect on it's face. Evolution on this planet requires that there was an evolutionary predecessor in place prior to the formation of this planet... that "stuff" was organizing into other "stuff" through random chance for no intelligible reason other than a static design of biochemical cohesiveness. Ergo, single cells formed for the sole reason to develop complex organisms and then into something form functional proactive-ness. (As yet undefined). Life has it's singular purpose to survive and propagate through it's innate "code". (Again, undefined) So, all of life should be seeking it's preeminent status by inference... be it a slug, virus or complex organism. And since life must greet the environment and adjust accordingly, there must be ONE thing that survives and thrives in all environments. We've yet to see anything moving to that goal. So I say "No"... God wanted diversity for His pleasure... not for attaining some state of Perfection. I don't understand this argument at all. Evolution requires no specific outcome. On evolution the only reason that there are complex organisms, relative to single celled ones, is that through a series of steps the ancestors of the latter were 'successful' in the sense of existing long enough to duplicate/procreate. Evolution as it is formalized assumes the existence of the most primitive ancestor at the start, and leaves the question of its assembly as a separate inquiry, abiogenesis.

1. Why should women have hair on their faces? I don't understand your reasoning here. 2. Perfect for what? This question is entirely unrelated to evolution, which deals with common ancestry and the processes which guide which genes get spread and why. 3. Also irrelevant to evolution, and also incorrect, insofar as it is posited that the reason the dinosaurs went extinct is due to an asteroid impact.

Your question was nonsensical I'm afraid. Why don't I have the ability to fly? Why can't I "see" the body heat of nearby organisms?? You demanding that gorillas should be able to speak english is just irrelevant. It's not a nonsensical question. We can't fly because according to evolutionists we have never needed to. There is no link between ourselves and birds other than the claim of a common ancestor. Birds and mammals have evolved on different branches. But evolutionists claim that man evolved from apes. Why then do we not see apes becoming more human-like? That is what was really meant when asking 'do we ever find a gorilla that speaks English'? There is zero evidence of any species evolving into a completely different species. It's why evolution has always remained as a 'theory' in science and has never become more than that. Most scientific theories either become something else (such as a law) or they disappear altogether. We have had more than a century now of the theory of evolution and it's still nothing other than a theory. In fact it would have probably died a death and become obsolete if it were not for Antitheists pushing it and promoting it at every turn. You can see as many similarities between different species as you like (and there are many) but this is no evidence of evolution. In fact, similarities between species actually suggest a common creator - in the same way that there are similarities between Picasso paintings because Picasso was the creator of them all! The reason Ezra's question doesn't work is because it is based on a wildly incorrect view of what evolution is. Whether or not you accept it, a critique doesn't work if it is based on an entirely incorrect picture. According to evolution, all life on earth has a common ancestor. The organisms that are around today are around today because its ancestors were successful at surviving long enough to procreate. That is, slugs, ants, humans etc are all equally 'evolved'. Humans are not higher on some evolutionary scale than birds, ebola, or apes. Evolution as a process doesn't 'aim' at anything, let alone intelligence or the ability to speak. Apes have the characteristics they have because their ancestors happened to survive and procreate. That's it. Asking that an ape become more 'human like' is a very serious misunderstanding of what evolution is.

No problem.

Are you talking to me or someone else? IF you are talking to me, I have no idea what you are talking about. I never suggested anyone here took a radical stand. If you want to levy that sort of accusation, please be specific.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/generalrelativity/ 100 years ago Einstein developed his theory of general relativity. According to general relativity, gravity is due to the local warping of spacetime due to the presence of mass-energy. It is general and not special relativity because it is, well, more general. It rests on the principle of equivalence where acceleration is equivalent to the local presence of gravity. Special relativity results from considering reference frames that are at constant velocity, and leads to length contraction and time dilation-- empirically confirmed time and time again and widely used in science and technology (nuclear weapons are a spectacular if deadly confirmation of the reality of special relativity. A consequence of general relativity in particular is for instance, the sun warps the very fabric of spacetime, somewhat analogously to how the presence of a bowling ball warps a large rubber sheet it rests on. Where spacetime is more strongly bent, there are measurable consequences. For instance, the earliest confirmation of general relativity was the prediction of the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit because Mercury is farther down in the gravitational well of the sun and time goes more slowly there than it does for other planets as a consequence. General relativity explains a number of other effects also, including gravitational lensing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens) as well as the orbital change of binary neutron stars and is used in our technology. Your GPS would not work without special AND general relativistic corrections. Another prediction general relativity makes is the existence of gravitational waves. Experimental confirmation of these is already established through astronomical observations of the orbits of certain objects but is more directly sought through enormous interferometers (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO) seeking to measure gravitational waves-- these are the waving of the fabric of spacetime itself due to certain massive objects interacting. Though these ideas may seem esoteric and counter intuitive, and they are that, they make powerful and precise predictions. This is also widely considered a very beautiful and elegant theory, and perhaps can be seen as a tribute to God's handiwork as Creator.

For a while we simply licked and otherwise befouled whatever spot we wanted to dissaude the others. But as you can imagine in a family with only boys, that had limited effectiveness.

I have to agree with Shiloh on this too. Is there a clear biblical injunction against polygamy?

I don't think it really needs to cost that much. Why does it cost a quarter of a million dollars per kid? Over 18 years that means you are spending 14k a year exclusively on *1 child*. Unless there is some dire medical stuff going on, or you are paying out of pocket for their college later, or you are sending them on costly vacations, I don't get it. As far as getting larger dwellings go-- couples without children choose to do that too. Most of this is going to be lifestyle choice, not pure necessity. It occurs to me one way to spend all that cash though, if you are buying childcare. Daycares, nannies, private schools, then sure, I can see the 250k add up. But that again is going to be a lifestyle choice.

I very much enjoyed doing the chronological reading plan. I am considering just up and doing a repeat of that again shortly actually, as I found it very illuminating.

I will be willing to answer that if you start a thread on it in a non Outer Court part of the forum. I don't have enough interest to be the one to start the thread, since I would just be answering your questions. I see the YEC as akin to flat earthers. They come up with fantastic and unprovable theories while those of us who have used science in the real world see God's handiwork and majesty first hand. They practice the same anti-intellectuallism that the papists did against Galileo. What's the point in arguing with them when they just make stuff up? I don't see this commentary as helpful here. Everything you have said here is propaganda without much substance. What is the point of lobbing insults at one another?

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession. Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also. Hi alpha, As a YEC myself, I obviously disagree with your conclusion that the evidence best supports Big Bang Theory. I also disagree that the issue is “not worthy of debate”. The prevalence of secular scientific models represents a significant cause of people rejecting the Christian faith; as well as a major stumbling block for people coming to the faith. So I think it benefits both Christians and non-Christians to see that questioning and debating secular scientific dogma is actually permitted (actually encouraged by the correct application of the scientific method) – and that one can promote alternative models of reality without compromising their scientific or intellectual integrity. I do agree that the “faith v science” label promotes the illegitimate conflict myth – that science and faith are fundamentally incompatible with each other – which, in my opinion, panders to atheistic propaganda. I also think the admins can be a bit funny about what can and can’t be discussed in this section (which, in my humble opinion, stifles debate and engagement with unbelievers). Most importantly, I appreciate your use of hedging language; “I accept”, “the … model” & “I think”. I think this somewhat nullifies the challenge of the OP. It indicates that you already understand that Big Bang is not ‘a fact’, or ‘proven’, or, as Neil deGrassy Tyson suggests, ‘scientific law’ – levels of confidence which cannot be justified in logic, or by the scientific method. Your use of hedging language further indicates that you understand the role of presupposition in scientific interpretation – which is a welcome change from the usual position of Big Bang proponents. I suppose it was bound to happen I'd agree with you somewhere, and I do agree with a couple of your points here.

I will be willing to answer that if you start a thread on it in a non Outer Court part of the forum. I don't have enough interest to be the one to start the thread, since I would just be answering your questions.

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession. Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also.

I accept the big bang model because I think it best fits a few major items of evidence. I'm a believer and don't really think this issue is worthy of debate here. Mostly my hope is that others will see diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic and not assume everyone is YEC etc.

Glad it all went well for you guys and glad to see you back.

I understand that, but the point is that everything in science pertains to the material world whether it's astronomy, chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc. None of that makes any sense apart from an intelligent, all wise, all powerful creator. This is not about evolution. The problem as I see it, is that science in its purest form should be able to provide an understanding of the scope of God's creation. Science should be and can be a tool to glorify God. One does not have to explicitly acknowledge the God of the Bible in order to do experiments. But the order and complexity of our universe really can't be explained adequately apart from God. I don't disagree with the last sentiment you expressed. Sure, in terms of ultimate understanding, it will be God who is the source of all order, laws, mass energy, spacetime etc. But, whether or not one acknowledges God as the ultimate source of natural order doesn't stop them from making discoveries (which you also seem to acknowledge). People are able to study the natural order even if they don't know where it comes from or why it is there. Insofar as science is about describing natural order though this isn't going to inhibit discovery. It is in view of that latter fact I don't see on what meaningful level the 'life' of science is predicated on whether or not its practitioners on the whole are believers.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe. If one doesn't believe that God created and sustains His creation, one can't have a right understanding of science. For example: If you remove God from creation, you must explain how it (the universe/life) created itself in violation of scientific laws. By attempting to do so, scientific understanding gets convoluted. It's "dead" science. Does one have to explicitly acknowledge the role of God as ultimate creator of everything that exists to be a master mechanic? I think it is clear you do not. Likewise, for the *vast majority* of scientific enterprises it is unnecessary for its practitioners to explicitly acknowledge that God is the ultimate foundation of reality. The *vast majority* of scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origins questions at all. Nothing that science does makes sense apart from a creator. I mean you "do" science and be an atheist. The problem is that apart from a Creator, science has no explanation for the origin of life or the ultimate origin of the universe everything science proposes has to have a cause and none of those theories make sense apart from an all-knowing and all powerful Creator. We already know that life cannot derive from non living matter. Life had to be created. There has to be an uncaused cause for life to exist. The universe is simply too complex to have simply "happened" apart from a Creator. It is too designed and ordered for their not to be a Creator. I don't believe this commentary addresses what I said. The large majority of science is *not* about origins related issues and in view of that it is very much alive. If you want to discuss evolution and/or the viability of abiogenesis I'm game for that on another thread.

I don't think I understand this assertion. How is science 'dead'? And I am not sure how it matters if God is *explicitly* 'in it' or not. It works pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe. If one doesn't believe that God created and sustains His creation, one can't have a right understanding of science. For example: If you remove God from creation, you must explain how it (the universe/life) created itself in violation of scientific laws. By attempting to do so, scientific understanding gets convoluted. It's "dead" science. In reading up on this discussion, I can't help but find myself frequently agreeing with alphaparticle (although, we would likely differ on many other issues). Really this seems to be a matter of how one is looking at it. I tend to think of science with a little "s", meaning that it is simply knowledge gained through the scientific method. In this sense, I just don't see how it could ever be considered dead. The process of observation-hypothesis-experiment-results-conclusions-repeat is something all of us use on a continual basis and we will continue to use it until we're dead (or taken). On the other hand, when you look at Science with a capital "S", meaning the formal system of researchers, grants, publications, etc. that are in theory supposed to be using the scientific method to gain knowledge, you can spot fields (like those mentioned previously by Enoch) which have stepped beyond the realm of testable, repeatable, falsifiable science. If you wish to call these fields "dead," by all means, go right ahead. But don't equate them with little "s" science and say that the whole blessed thing is dead. I think we all agree that knowledge gained through the use of the scientific method will be limited in comprehending the universe. Does this really mean that it is "utterly powerless and wrong"? If I find through repeated tests that defects in Gene A result in disease X, then probably that relationship is real and true. Does that explain the universe? No. But it will probably help to understand and cure disease X. Hold the Fort, Ehud Yes, Ehud, I believe you hit the nail on the head as far as what I am trying to argue. An aside on the topic.. In reality, I think part of the problem is with the scientific establishment. Too often fields like physics try to sell themselves to the public based on speculative and the most 'sexy' seeming sides of it, mutliverse speculations, cosmology, the spookier philosophical implications of certain theories etc. In so doing they do not give the public a very accurate idea about what the vast majority of people who are physicists are actually doing with their time (and here I use physics as an example because I am most familiar with it). Most are doing condensed matter research. This involves studying the properties of of matter in, well, condensed form. They establish the scientific foundation behind advances in stuff that allows, for instance, the rapid improvement of hardware in computers, imaging in medicine, and so on. When I consider some guy studying the properties of graphene, his conclusions will not depend on whether or not he acknowledges God as ultimate Creator of all that exists, and in particular the carbon atoms in his graphene sample. It is bizarre to me that certain self proclaimed spokespersons of the scientific establishment have made religion an issue. It shouldn't be. It doesn't have an effect on whether or not someone is good at chemistry. Likewise, I hope the community of believers doesn't swallow that lie, either.