[Mitch G]

For me, these discussions always seem to be based on whether one's model of the universe includes a conscious, active God or not. If one's model has an active God to whom one can pray to for help or one who decides who makes it safely to work, then it's a logical conclusion that God created life and creates macroevolutionary changes and generally manages things.

On the other hand, if one's model doesn't have a conscious God, then it falls more in line with science where "God" is that next mystery to be solved as the model of the universe is explored and refined. For example, a long time ago, the scientific model of the universe was based on 4 elements - earth, wind, fire, water (or something like that). That changed over time to be based on atoms which by definition are the smallest, indivisible objects around. But that was shown to be wrong and evolved to protons and electrons which moved on to quantum mechanics and quarks and leptons, etc.

And, there are variations on the unconscious God where God starts the universe (i.e. big bang) and creates its natural laws and then lets the experiment run on its own. But, this variation would still except evolution as a valid explanation for all the diversity of life since by definition, God is not tinkering in this model.

Regardless, each person picks the model of the universe that best works for him or her. And, I would argue that neither model is better than the other in terms of helping individuals live their life.

And, for the most part, neither model precludes the scientific method. Over the past several thousand years, science has progressed even in cultures that clearly accept a conscious God. But, by definition when it comes to evolution and the creation of life one must pick one of the models and that's why these discussions never come to a conclusion.


Mitch