Let me preface my comment by saying I haven’t read all the replies to this thread. Therefore, what I have to say could have already been covered. Here is how I as a scientist have come to accept both evolution and creation theology.
When the bible says God created the universe in six days, I interpret days as periods of time. Therefore, I believe that God’s intervention in the creation of man fits into the evolution of our species.
My scientific reasoning for the above statement centers on the cranial capacity of modern humans as compared to gorillas. Our average cranial capacity is between 1420 to 1480 cubic centimeters, while gorillas average between 340 to 750 cubic centimeters. Now my hypothesis is that with a larger brain we have the capacity to reason. Therefore, we have the God given right to chose to love our Creator, our selves and our neighbor. This I believe proves we have a soul.
Now, back to evolution, let’s look at evidence that anthropologists have found with the fossil skeleton remains of possible human/ape beings. The australopithecine skeletons have an average cranial capacity of 380 to 550 cubic centimeters, similar to the gorillas. While the hominid skeletons, (including the Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthal), had average cranial capacities of from 1400 to 1450 cubic centimeters, similar to us today. Also, it is important to mention here, that the australopithecine species lived well before the hominids.
Scientists keep mentioning the missing link between these two evolutionary groups. Also, why such a significant increase in cranial capacity? Was it a mutation and/or God’s intervention?

When the bible says God created the universe in six days, I interrupt days as periods of time.

Shouldn't the words be verified rather than interpreted? And if you interpret them as identical to modern scientific understanding, what actual information does the bible give?

Regarding cranial sizes, here's an interesting article from Panda's Thumb. It's a parabola!

Interbane wrote:

When the bible says God created the universe in six days, I interrupt days as periods of time.

Shouldn't the words be verified rather than interpreted? And if you interpret them as identical to modern scientific understanding, what actual information does the bible give?

Shouldn't the word be interpret rather than interrupt? (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one )

I am starting to plan writing a book on scientific reading of the Bible. This question of the seven days of creation is an interesting one to consider in light of the theme of this thread about why believers are so easily fooled.

Some of my starting assumptions are
• Sensible analysis begins from a perspective of radical scepticism.
• The actual process of compiling the Bible was vastly different from conventional religious views, and even from the views of academic theology which takes far too much on face value.
• Widespread wisdom traditions in ancient times were systematically and successfully suppressed by Christian Orthodoxy.
• This suppression was so efficient and ruthless and long-lasting that it enabled broad acceptance of false claims, especially around the historicity of Bible stories.
• Biblical texts often speak at multiple levels, with a secret or esoteric symbolic meaning intended for initiates concealed within a public or exoteric literal meaning intended for wider use.
• The victory of Orthodoxy involved the triumph of literal exoteric errors.
• Fugitive traces of ancient wisdom traditions may be found in extant sources.

Applying this heuristic to the Genesis creation story, we should start by ruling out any unscientific meanings involving revelation from a supernatural God, or claims about history that conflict with modern scientific knowledge. The text is pure symbolic allegory. But some of the keys for the allegory are missing, and we have to go looking for them.

The key place to look is in ancient astronomy. Part of the problem with Christianity is that the triumph of Orthodoxy involved the denial of its astronomical roots. In the ancient world there was an intimate connection between astronomy and religion. This link was systematically severed as Christianity gradually replaced ‘the heavens’ by ‘heaven’.

The newer pope came out with an affirmation of evolution which defenders of Catholicism have been quick to characterize as nothing new in Church doctrine. It's true that the Church has for many years accepted evolution--with a theistic twist. What was different for me about Francis' statement is the reference to the nature of God. It seems deistic and therefore non-biblical. But if there is a good thing to say about the Catholic Church, it's that it has been less tied to this "word of God" idea that is mostly a creation of Protestantism, whereby no word of this God-written book can be challenged.

“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything,” he said. “However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness.”

The creation of the universe, Francis said, was not a singular event, but rather “went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.”

Back to evolution, it's hard to imagine not being able to bring oneself to open the pages of that radical periodical, National Geographic, which every issue has content pertaining to evolution. We all know that humans tend to pick their positions first, and then select their evidence to support them, so there we have an answer to evolution denial. That deniers can look at something like "Five Proofs of Evolution" and maintain their intransigence is impressive indeed.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

DWill wrote:
Back to evolution, it's hard to imagine not being able to bring oneself to open the pages of that radical periodical, National Geographic, which every issue has content pertaining to evolution. We all know that humans tend to pick their positions first, and then select their evidence to support them, so there we have an answer to evolution denial. That deniers can look at something like "Five Proofs of Evolution" and maintain their intransigence is impressive indeed.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

I especially enjoyed the video Transitional Fossils that you can link to from the article.

Ditto. I really like those five proofs article. Regarding no. 5, not only is bacteria constantly mutating, but so are many viruses out there, which is why we have to change our flu vaccines every year. I read something interesting about Ebola recently that suggests that if an organism is stressed (as in, say, a changing environment) that it more readily mutates. In some cases, pathogens evolve so rapidly that the strain found late in an infection has little in common with the initial strain.

Some of my starting assumptions are
• Sensible analysis begins from a perspective of radical scepticism.
• The actual process of compiling the Bible was vastly different from conventional religious views, and even from the views of academic theology which takes far too much on face value.
• Widespread wisdom traditions in ancient times were systematically and successfully suppressed by Christian Orthodoxy.
• This suppression was so efficient and ruthless and long-lasting that it enabled broad acceptance of false claims, especially around the historicity of Bible stories.
• Biblical texts often speak at multiple levels, with a secret or esoteric symbolic meaning intended for initiates concealed within a public or exoteric literal meaning intended for wider use.
• The victory of Orthodoxy involved the triumph of literal exoteric errors.
• Fugitive traces of ancient wisdom traditions may be found in extant sources.

There is so much conceptual violence here I don't really know where to begin:

It would be easy to rule out nearly all ancient documents/texts, religious or non-religious, if "radical skepticism" is your starting point in a analysis of history. Cherry picking religious texts clearly indicates an agenda in place to advance a personal hobby-horse.

Academic theologians do not take things at face value.
We could use Saint Augustine as a theological starting point. His writings actually discourage "face value" analysis.

The historical claim that Christianity "suppressed ancient wisdom" is an over-simplified and stupid claim that could only be uttered by a whig historian.
Again, anyone can cherry-pick history to advance a biased view. Amateur historians are best at this.

Christianity as a ruthless suppressing force is more whig history.
It is not surprising to discover that history is riddled with accounts of governing bodies, both religious and secular, involved in the suppression of certain works in an effort to maintain rule. It's not strictly religious suppression.

Power politics and religion were so intertwined, to imply that it was strictly religion that played the "bad guy" role is simpleton history.


I could go on.

We are all familiar with Robert's brand of atheism.
To be fair, it should be distinguished from the atheism of most everyone else here in BT.

Robert's atheism is religious dogma dressed differently.

Amateur historians are best at this.

We are all familiar with Robert's brand of atheism.

Robert's atheism is religious dogma dressed differently.

Ant, stick to the claims. None of these insult have anything to do with his arguments. How will Robert respond except in kind?

Interbane wrote:

Amateur historians are best at this.

We are all familiar with Robert's brand of atheism.

Robert's atheism is religious dogma dressed differently.

Ant, stick to the claims. None of these insult have anything to do with his arguments. How will Robert respond except in kind?

Hey, man..,

Robert called me stupid in a post you must have missed.

Go over to it and tell him to quit with the personal attacks and stick to the claims.

fair is fair. Stop singling me out.

Otherwise, you know where you can go with your playing at being the fair and impartial moderator.

Hey, man..,

Robert called me stupid in a post you must have missed.

I didn't miss it: "Ant, with your continued stupid inability to grasp any form of complex argument, it does not surprise me that you fell for that idiot argument at Salon."

His reply was a reply to your snarky one-liner. It doesn't matter. Both of you, just stick to the arguments. We're above name-calling on both sides, even if we believe that it is absolutely justified.