Re:The Perceived Threat of Science (Score 1)

At several points your post keeps going back to the idea that evolution is in conflict with God. That evolution somehow equals atheism.

Let me be more clear about my opinion on this matter. First I will address the question of whether evolution is in conflict with God?
Well, that depends on your definition of God. Is evolution in conflict with the idea of a god (or a higher power)? Not at all. But is evolution in conflict with the God of the Bible? I believe that it is. An honest straightforward reading of scripture will testify to this. One contradiction between evolution and the Bible is that the Bible gives a time line of about 6000 years from Adam to the present day. Many theistic evolutionists write this off to gaps in the genealogies (which I do not believe is a reasonable inference). Another contradiction is that the order of creation events differs from the order as evolution describes it. Most convincingly, however, is the law of sin and death. The Bible teaches that death had not entered the world until Adam sinned. Therefore, millions of years of evolution would have occurred with no death.
Now, although I consider the Bible at odds with evolution, I would not say that evolution somehow equals atheism. Many creationists would disagree with me, but I believe that to say that someone who believes in evolution cannot possibly be a Christian is highly unbiblical. I believe that a Christian can be an evolutionist, and vice versa. However, I do believe, at least at the moment (perhaps someday I will come to new understanding), that someone who is both an evolutionist and a Christian most likely does not have a firm understanding in one of their beliefs (either evolution or Christianity).

Approximately 50% of American scientists are actively faithful Christians ... About 99.7% or so of actively faithful Christian scientists are convinced evolution is true

I would be extremely interested to hear where you found these statistics, since they disagree with statistics that I have read in the past, and my own observations.

Which is a more complete, more perfect, more awe inspiring universe? An imperfect incomplete one where God needs to manually insert rain? Or one that was created with perfect natural laws and natural mechanisms that could itself produce rain He wanted for us, through evaporation and condensation?

Which is a more complete, more perfect, more awe inspiring universe? An imperfect incomplete one where God needs to manually insert rainbows? Or one that was created with perfect natural laws and natural mechanisms that could itself produce rainbows He wanted to create, through the laws of optics?

I am completely with you on these two statements. I do believe that God has set natural laws in place, by which He governs the universe.

Evolution does not explain life

I agree and understand that evolution does not attempt explain life. But wouldn't you agree that it is relevant to the discussion? Spontaneous generation has been scientifically discredited, so according to the best of our current scientific knowledge, it would be impossible for life to come from nonliving matter. Therefore, the best conclusion that can be drawn (at this time) from this apparent scientific impossibility is that it did not happen. I, personally, like to know answers, and find myself asking "then HOW?". The best answer that I feel science can come up with at this time is that there must have been some external intelligent input. And if I am going to concede that there is intelligent input to life, then why not the God of the Bible, for whom there seems to be a compelling reservoir of historical evidence?

So while there certainly could be a God deliberately planting misleading evidence for us, such a case would make all reasoning entirely worthless. It would make any and all discussion about anything entirely pointless. So the first axiom of any rational discussion with anyone about anything, must be the axiom to assume that there is *not* a malicious God deliberately planting false evidence to mislead us. That we may certainly misinterpret the evidence we see, we *MUST* assume that the evidence is not deliberately misleading.

If God wants to mislead us, then We Shall Be Misled.

Is it possible that God steps in to wave a magic wand to make it rain? Sure. But we have the overwhelming evidence of our senses (and the indirect amplified power of our senses through experiments), that things in our universe appear to operate within the natural laws of science. And if God exists then it is He who laid down those natural laws of our universe. And if God ever does step in to wave some magic wand, then it appears that he is extremely carefull to do so within those natural laws which He set down.

I agree whole heartedly with this statement. I believe that God gave us brains capable of reasoning, and I believe that we should use them to do so.

I have to go now, but in the next couple of days I will research and respond to the last 5 points of your last reply. Thanks for your reply!