Gundato: Religious Belief and Scientific Research are not mutually exclusive.
Certainly not. There are plentiful examples of brilliant theist scientist, not least of which was Newton himself (although he did not believe in the trinity).
Gundato: Hell, there is the exact same problem for the Cult of Science :p. People who believe that Scientific Theory == Fact are less likely to want to dig deeper. Imagine if people had taken Newton's word for it and never dug deeper.
The problem arrives when ID advocates try to plant uncertainty into scientific facts. Like the fact that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Not 6000. Some scientific "theories" are simply facts, others are as of yet theories, at various stages of confirmation. There is no black / white picture.
In the case of Newton and his laws of motion, well, he couldn't possibly have known there was more to the picture since he did not have the means to measure the effects of particles travelling at near-light speeds.
Gundato: And while I do agree that the whole "lots of things have eyes" is a very good indicator that evolution is "true-ish" and the like, you kind of are opening the door for the other conclusion: If multiple things have eyes, wouldn't it make sense that some higher power thought eyes were a good idea?
We can show through fossil records how eyes evolved from the first simple light-sensitive cells in multiple directions into the multitudes of different eye designs that are found in nature today. That is pretty strong evidence of evolution. There was life before eyes - it couldn't see, but as it turns out seeing was rather an advantage.
Gundato: Believe it or not, but facts and empirical evidence can be interpreted in just as many ways as any holy scripture :p
What? The
definition of a fact is that it is not open to interpretation. Like the fact that 2+2 = 4 in the base 10 arabic number system. It is not 5, you can't interpret one of the 2's as a 3. Only those theories which cannot yet be wholly validated (under the rigor of validating a scientific theory) are still open to some form of interpretation.
Gundato: Oh, and just so that Stonebro won't get angry and accuse me of not "contributing": Der, religious people are stupid! :p
I know some crackingly intelligent religious people, with whom I've had very interesting discussion over certain matters, this one including. They all have one thing in common though; they are not fundamentalists, they don't take things literally, and they have a great respect for and understanding of science. Not one of them doubts that evolution is anything less than "the real thing".
After all, there are other aspects which are far more challenging to explain within the limits of current scientific theory. Like; what is this universe business anyway? Even as a non-theist and a scientist, I'm not sold on the big bang theory for example.
The theory of the big bang is actually a much better target for this kind of discussion than that of evolution. The only reason evolution is targeted is that it is so "high profile". The goal is obviously to get more of one side's agenda into the curriculum at the expense of the other.