In response to "jobelow"
Glad you're not flaming; thanks for that. Anywayz.
Exactly to what level do you take the Bible "literally," as this could be the subject of very interesting debate?
I believe in the 6 day, each day being 24-hours creation (yeah, a fundamentalist; have fun ; D )
In one sense that you may in reality view science as not so open minded is that it generally doesn't accept supernatural explanations.
Science can't explain things outside of what we see. That's just a limitation. I think that science is an extremely valuable tool that lets us see His hand and really appreciate Creation.
I would add to and revise this definition (and if you want to dispute me, I could pretty easily cite a source for you later) for the context of the scientific method. Simply, a scientific theory is a model derived from experiment testing a viable hypothesis, specifically the data derived from this experiment and the logical conclusions that may be drawn, used for further research. In this sense, I have yet to have demonstrated to me any theory other than evolution (including argument from intelligent design, etc.)
I invite you to do some research in the field of Flood Geology. There have been many experiments dealing with how the Flood could have shaped the earth we have today. And, yes, that is a more accurate definition of a theory.
I have recently discovered a deliberate deviation between "Creation" and "Intelligent Design" in that ID actually does make a full attempt to show itself as a viable scientific theory that could hold up in secular science. This attempt, to the best of my research, is stil teleological in nature, meaning that it makes extremely arrogant assertions at its very base, on top of its core of reasoning being incomplete and flawed. By contrast, the other end of Evolution Theory is incomplete, being that it is a progressive science, still in the stage of discovery, as all good science should. In simple terms, ID has an open beginning, and Evolution has an open end, in terms of research. In simpler terms, ID doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Extremely arrogant assumptions at its very base? With your open ended evolutionist point of view, can't you say that a God could have started evolution and let it go from there? Intelligent Design has yet to be proved wrong. Generally, evolution has just been revised over and over again to accomodate new discoveries such as punctuated equilibrium. We're standing on the Bible. Evolution is standing on discoveries that we don't even know about yet.
"Belief" has no place in science. Assumption is necessary for the forming of a hypothesis, by beyond that, science tends to deal with facts instead of belief.
Your previous statement said that evolution has an open beginning (as it is progressive). Therefore, isn't evolution more of a belief than fact since that facts it rests on are in the form of new discoveries yet to be made? What we see now does point to evolution because that is what it is, a comelian to the facts of what we see now.
In truth, nothing can be proven "absolutely true," as one can always result to nihilism as a refutal to any assertion. But the overwhelming body of evidence for the hypothesis of evolution, the veracity of its experiments, its flexibility to new data, and the initial falseability of the hypothesis (something not available in intelligent design to the best of my knowledge, though falseability in the hypothesis of intelligent design has been attempted) make evolution a much more viable scientific model.
Assuming no presumption of Creationist beliefs, macroevolution is not such a leap of faith from microevolution, but regardless, it can be and has been demonstrated.
Name one experiment that verifies macroevolution.
Life origins are relatively easily studiable in comparison to the objects of true philosophical debate, which are generally less tangible.
If indeed you take the Bible literally, do you believe:
The world was created in 6 24-hour days? (or 6 1000-year days for that matter?)
Noah carried two of every existing species on the ark, and if so, is this feasible?
Why would Noah need two of every parthogenic species?
Why would Noah need only two of colonizing species?
How did carnivores survive on the Ark?
Do you require a naturalistic explanation for Biblical miracles, as do Biblical scholars perscribing to Intelligent Design? And if not, why?
Ok, this might take a while...
1. I believe that the world was created in 6 24-hour days by God, correct.
2. Yes, given the dimensions of the ark, this would be feasible. Noah would have probably chosen younger animals, in order to save space aboard the ark.
3. Not sure what you're asking.
4. He would only need two because the entire genetic data of that distinct species would be contained within those two animals. For clarity (bear with me), Adam and Eve produced the entire human race. Their DNA contained the genetic information for all mankind. It's just that with each generation, different genes express themselves.
5. Not specified in the Bible, but he probably just brought extra meat along, preserved of course, for the carnivores.
6. No, because we believe in an all-powerful God who can do supernatural acts.
7. That is an interesting question that has bothered me alot, and I am afraid that it can't be answered. That's the whole point, though. We believe in creation through faith. God works in mysterious ways.