I don’t know about this science and religion kissing notion.
We know what kissing can lead to. It is a slippery slope. Once they start kissing, it could lead to more intimate connections, even interpenetration of the one by the other.
So, is it that you want your religion to become more scientific, or your science to become more religious?
Can’t they just be content with being friends?

What a ridiculous post. “This ignorance has serious consequences.” There is no proof for macro-evolutionary theory, and everyday that goes by, the THEORY of evolution becomes weaker and weaker. It’s not grounded in good science, and people are catching on to the absurdity of this implausible and clearly out-dated theory.

There is no proof for macro-evolutionary theory, and everyday that goes by, the THEORY of evolution becomes weaker and weaker.
Then you should have no problem at all linking to peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals presenting an alternative interpretation of the huge amount of evidence we have that supports the notion of macro-evolution.

That quote you gave: … “In the long history of humankind…. those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”, must come from his later book “The Descent of Man”, where he tried to explain social and cultural evoluion among people since the dawn of their history. David Loye has a great book about this. He shows how Darwin got quite passionate about the development of cooperation and social morality as boons to survival. I guess Darwin felt there is an ongoing evolution of our conciousness and the quality of our lives. Sounds like a sort of religious realism to me.

I think there’s a lot to be gained from a science-religion exchange. The Christian perspective (mine), anyway, can really benefit from what science is learning about human nature.

James,
I’ll do even better by presenting something much more exhaustive.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
Make sure you click on “Download the List” so you can see the HUNDREDS of names.

I’ll do even better by presenting something much more exhaustive.
A list of supposed “scientists” (none of whom actually present their credentials in biological science) signing on to a list sponsored by a front group for fundamentalist creationists is somehow more exhaustive than peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals?
Again, please present a viable, scientific alternative interpretation of the evidence that has been vetted by members of the scientific community through the accepted practices of that community – the practice of peer review and publication.
Oh, and please tell me: How many Steves are on your list? If the length of one’s list of scientists is now being considered a viable means of determining the opinion of the scientific community, let’s see you find a list of over seven hundred scientists named Steve.

James,
About this “viable, scientific alternative interpretation of the evidence that has been vetted by members of the scientific community through the accepted practices of that community – the practice of peer review and publication” that you’re wanting, I simply wouldn’t know (nor do I want to take the time) to find such a thing.
And I find it odd that your response to my post is to pretend that the website is not credible. That’s a rather interesting defense. Furthermore, the length of the list is not to implicitly say that “my list is longer than your list” (clearly I know that’s not true). My point is that the jury is CLEARLY still out. If something is scientifically “proven,” would there be such a large discrepancy? A (supposed) fact is a fact right?

I simply wouldn’t know (nor do I want to take the time) to find such a thing.
Then you can’t really make the claim that “everyday that goes by, the THEORY of evolution becomes weaker and weaker.” Unless you can present evidence to that effect that adheres to the standards of the scientific community, you’re making an unsupported claim. If you’re not familiar enough with the literature on the topic to be able to present one scientific source that presents an alternative hypothesis, you’re not familiar enough with the literature to make any kind of claim about the relative strength or weakness of the theory of evolution.
(By the way, your scare-caps on THEORY are as unnecessary as they are ignorant. By the standards of the scientific community, universal gravitation is also a theory; it is only popular literature that labels it a law.)
And I find it odd that your response to my post is to pretend that the website is not credible.
I don’t need to pretend. Credibility in the scientific community, as in any academic community, is defined according to certain parameters – among the most important of these being the idea of peer review. How many peer-reviewed articles in well-respected journals presenting alternatives to the theory of evolution do the creationists at the Discovery Institute have to their names?
My point is that the jury is CLEARLY still out.
Not really, no. If the jury were still out, there would be articles that meet the standards of the scientific community presenting alternatives to the theory of evolution. While there have been alternative viewpoints on the mechanisms of evolution and the time frames involved, the basics of the theory – that is, natural selection and macro-evolution in general – remain largely untouched. The jury is only out in the minds of fake scientists like the creationists at the Discovery Institute, whose fundamentalist desperation to cram God into the process overwhelms any notion of the scientific mind they may have at some point had.
If something is scientifically “proven,” would there be such a large discrepancy?
Nothing is ever scientifically “proven.” A theory cannot be proven, only disproven. Thus far, the theory that best fits the evidence (facts are facts, as you say, though the rhetorician in me says that what we call “facts” are socially constructed symbolic interpretations of material reality) is macro-evolution by natural selection. Creationism – whether the six-day creationism promoted by fundamentalists or the weak-tea “intelligent design” creationism promoted by intellectually-dishonest evangelicals who want to bring creationism in by the back door – quite simply does not fit the evidence we have.

Dr. William Lane Craig is brilliant! I’m wondering if you would find his scores of articles credible.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_main
Or you can pretend that nothing is credible unless it is line with your specific standard, because I’m sure the “viable, scientific alternative interpretation of the evidence that has been vetted by members of the scientific community through the accepted practices of that community – the practice of peer review and publication” is the only thing that presents “truth” on the planet.

I did find this bit of info on Discovery Institute’s website:
Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski, Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe, Darwinism, Design and Public Education by Stephen C. Meyer & John Angus Campbell (Michigan State University Press) and Debating Design (Cambridge University Press) by Center Fellow William A. Dembski and ID critic Michael Ruse.
Does this count? Or do you write all of them off as not credible too?

Sam:
Actually they’re either not credible, or they don’t do the job that you say that they do.
The Free Press is a popular press, and not a scientific venue.
The other three books you mention are from excellent university presses, but the books take on issues of philosophy and not science–and there is a difference! (Debating Design in fact is a debate that argues as strongly against design as for it.)
What James is asking for, and what has not yet been produced, is a specific scientific article or articles, published within the venues of the scientific community, and peer-reviewed within that community, that demonstrates the falsity of evolution (and then has not been refuted by further research). The height of that bar is not new: it is merely the common standard for being accepted as established scientific fact, and has been so at least since the 17th century. “Truth” is another matter entirely–and leads in many directions. One may always assert one’s truth, but then it remains only one’s own, and does not become part of science, which is a communal enterprise to come up with the best possible knowledge about the world.
Frankly, with all the strong competitiveness among scientists, if there were a different explanation, it would be in everyone’s interest to try to demonstrate it. The feather in the cap would be great indeed.

The problem is you have a standard that literally cannot be met. There are such things as “peer-reviewed” articles and books that challenge macroevolutionary theory; however, you don’t find those credible by definition. Are you going to tell me that Michael Behe (who is a Biochemist and not a creationist) should not be considered credible when he challenged Darwinism? In his book, “Darwin’s Black Box,” Behe argues that many biological systems are irreducibly complex and would had to have “popped up” at the same time to exist. Clearly, Darwin did not understand the complexity of a cell (he couldn’t have in his time). Furthermore, Darwin thought maggots came out of nowhere, which is why he thought evolution could also be possible. But he was wrong.
The scientific community disowns anyone who challenges evolutionary theory (see the movie “Expelled”); therefore, you write them off too as not credible. You’re caught in circular reasoning and you expect me to play? This is similar to the current global warming debate. Those who challenge anthropogenic global warming are also discredited by the media and science community and are called “global warming deniers” (which is similar to the rather pleasant attachment given to anti-semitics that pretended the Holocaust didn’t really happen; they were called “Holocaust deniers”). Clearly, I’m not going to change your mind. At least do yourself a favor and read some books and articles contrary to your presuppositions.

That is great that we are able to receive the loans and that opens new possibilities.