I will simply say that you have many misconceptions … so many that I must move on.

A few points. In “a)” you said that a theory cannot be pernicious. True, but the writer said its “pernicious influence” which I would argue true. Whether intended or not, something may indeed have a pernicious influence. E.g. mass media.
In “b)” I agree to a large degree (that rhymes) but I do think, though Darwin’s scholarship presents itself fairly reasonable, it is not, in fact, well rounded nor thorough. We don’t live in a vacuum, nor should we make theories as though we do. Darwin for the most part didn’t do this, but, then again, for a large part he did. A good history of Darwin and his theories is recommended. But you are right, he came to the wrong conclusion. He said himself that if the fossil record doesn’t confirm his theories, they die on the spot. 150 years later, they still don’t fully support his theories.

I do not contend that Darwin had good points. He did. A lot of what he said really is good science. We certainly should never throw rocks anything, especially what we don’t understand – why I say to study his theories. When you really understand them, AND the surrounding sciences, it is clear however the evidence for evolution comes up lacking. Certainly adaptation over time, (no Creationist would argue with that) but the original “primordial ooze” from which the whole theory rests shows that, at that time, Darwin made fairly terrific leaps and guesses that just don’t hold up. That is why many people say his science is “shoddy.”

I agree fully, we should explore our world and seek to understand. That was the driving force behind Newton and, in fact, most early scientists. Now, they seek for verification of their own theories (which is both good and bad, depending on how strong any set paradigm has a hold on one, and how objective they can, in fact, be.)

As a last note, Evolution is in fact a very strong point of contention between Christians and atheists. It doesn’t always show up in the pulpit, but it should show up in school – what I mean is this: For “good science” to be good science, it must, as both Lydia and I said, be fairly objective. Truly studying the facts do not lead one to either the “fact” of Evolution, nor the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). It leads to a point where one must make up their own mind based on other criteria. Scientists (and Theists) who say that science disproves (or proves) the existence of God are not saying scientific things: they are saying Metaphyiscal things, and must therefore back those things up Metaphyically.

We should therefore, seek with all our heart, the truth, what others think, why and how and understand, to the best of our feeble, finite minds, the world around us. Most people are afraid, or confused (Man will always distrust what he doesn’t understand) of the unknown. What makes “great men” is to explore that, not cower in fear of it. Seek and you shall find, Knock and the door will be opened to you.

I wonder how many people really understand what science is, it’s parameters, and its role in our life. Charles Darwin was theologically trained, yet he understand science.

Being human involves both the natural world and the spiritual world … and the later is not within the natural world. I appreciate his quote: “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections — a mere heart of stone.” … to which he speaks about not only how science works, but also how people must look at it.

Since human life is both in the natural world and the spiritual world, no compromise is needed … yet understanding how the two intertwine is important.

The Pew Research Center has much good stuff. As you will see, most of Christianity officially understands.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=394

Bumblebee … good discussion … thanks!

There is a lot to learn! Trust me, I know. But even that is not an excuse for not learning anything and agreeing blindly. If anything, agreeing thoughtlessly is worse than disagreeing thoughtlessly…both of which everyone is guilty of to some extent.

Since I haven’t read the article, it’s probably not best for me to continue down that track … but I was making points based on what you were saying about the article.

Agree that people need to learn to make a judgment …. but there’s a lot to learn. But on the topic, many Christians say that one doesn’t have to choose as the two do support each other without compromise.

Since you used the term, what do you mean in the last sentence of your response’s first paragraph (about compromise points)?

I wouldn’t say that authors of articles like this “prey” on anyone. My entire premise is that it’s the individual’s job to do their own research and reach independent conclusions instead of just taking any one viewpoint as their own. People can allow themselves to be “preyed on”, but I don’t believe the article was written to lead people astray. You know?

The majority of Christian demoninations do NOT tell their members that they must make a choice … God or Evolution … therefore evolution is NOT a battleground between Christians and Atheists.