[continued from previous message]   
      
   I'm struggling to understand what your real point is here. This   
   discussion started with your sig about Darwin and now you claim you   
   want to just about the Big Bang and what preceded it. What has the Big   
   Bang to do with Darwin?   
      
   [snip for focus]   
      
   >>   
   >> I'm assuming that like myself, you believe in God someone with whom we   
   >> can have a personal relationship. How do you get from someone tweaking   
   >> with atoms and particles to that type of God, the one shown in the   
   >> Bible, how does it improve your understanding of God?   
   >>   
   >> I have posed this question to several religious believers who support   
   >> ID and reject the Theory of Evolution; none of them have made any   
   >> attempt to answer, hopefully you might.   
   >   
   >Before I could answer a question like that I would have to know exactly   
   >what you mean by "tweaking atoms and particles."  I have a feeling it is   
   >going to mean things we might not agree with about what is accepted or   
   >consensus.  Explain further if you wish.   
      
   You have been focusing on the Big Bang which is where atoms and   
   particles came into existence and claiming that it was caused by God;   
   that is an example of what I mean by tweaking with atoms and   
   particles. I struggle to find any relationship between God involved in   
   that sort of activity and the loving father in heaven that I believe   
   in, who sent his Son to redeem us.   
      
   >   
   >   
   […]   
   >> I gave you several examples of wholly committed religious believers   
   >> who fully accept what science has to say both in regard to cosmology   
   >> and to the TOE and have indeed made significant direct contributions   
   >> to science. At least three of them - Collins, Polkinghorne and Miller   
   >> - have published books, articles and interviews explaining their views   
   >> and how they have no difficulty reconciling science and religious   
   >> belief. How much of their work have you read or work of others   
   >> explaining how the believe science and religion can be reconciled?   
   >   
   >Let's just say I am familiar with them all,   
      
   Sorry, I don't want to sound disrespectful but that sounds like an   
   evasive way of saying no you haven't read any of their work.   
      
   >though I don't think I have   
   >read Polkinghorne.  I have found it to be harmful that anyone with a   
   >Theistic or Design background will immediately get blacklisted and their   
   >work either banned or ignored.   
      
   That is simply not true as far as *theists* go; I have given you three   
   examples of committed theists who have risen to the pinnacle of   
   science over the last 50 years so. The history of science over   
   previous centuries is littered with theists who made major,   
   well-recognised, contributions to science; Copernicus was a Catholic   
   cleric; Isaac Newton was a devout Protestant; Mendel who is regarded   
   as the 'father of genetics' was an Augustinian monk; Lemaître who   
   first proposed the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Do I have to go on?   
      
   Those supporting intelligent design do get treated with disdain but   
   that is not because they are theistic, it's because they try to   
   dismiss well-established science with nothing to offer in its place   
   except vague hand waving towards God - and they are dishonest by   
   referring to an Intelligent Designer when they really mean God.   
      
   >But, that appears to be changing, and   
   >rather quickly it seems.  But, I suppose that's just a personal opinion.   
   >  It is always going to be a problem for creationists in our "modern"   
   >culture trying to convince anyone that there is a supernatural anything.   
   >  It's just the world we live in.   
      
   You won't convince anyone by trying to attack science that is well   
   established and based on evidence. I don't even know why you would   
   want to do that; I believe the way to convince people about God is to   
   bring them the Good News that Jesus Christ gave us and the hope it   
   offers against the things that people fear in this world today;   
   science has nothing to do with that.   
      
   Indeed, attacking science in the way that intelligent design   
   proponents do, can be counter-productive. It's not just me saying   
   that; Augustine of Hippo, one of the Christian theologians that ever   
   lived, speaking over a thousand years before modern science as we know   
   it began, warned us:   
      
   "If they [infidels] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they   
   themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions   
   about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters   
   concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and   
   the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of   
   falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience   
   and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy   
   Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when   
   they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are   
   taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our   
   sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously   
   untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof   
   and even recite from memory many passages which they think support   
   their position, although *they understand neither what they say nor   
   the things about which they make assertion.*" (emphasis in original).   
      
   ['The Literal Meaning of Genesis', Book 1, Chapter 19]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)