Quote Originally Posted by Dowty View Post
I know you're a smart guy, and I certainly respect your opinion. You've shown much more basis for what you believe than anyone else that has been on here saying Christians are wrong but provide no explanation as to why or what they even believe to be the alternative. That's why you're pretty much the only one that's still saying anything about the alternatives. You and I have never spoken on these things so I never knew where you stood til now, but it certainly wouldn't ever have any bearing on our friendship unless I felt you were attacking me personally, which I do not believe to be the case. Without differences of thought, we would have missed out on some of the biggest advancements in human history.

While this all sounds really interesting, and while I always enjoy seeing scientific advancements and will support technological breakthroughs that I can believe in, it sounds to me like you need just as much faith in the unseen as a Christian would to believe these things. You even classify the field as a collection of theories. It's currently unproven. It sounds like it could even come to a conclusion of Divine Intervention since there are so many theories out there related to the subject. I obviously don't know as much about Biogenesis as you do, but it just sounds that it could be possible from what you've said. So please enlighten me some more on this. From what I'm reading, it doesn't even really sound like it's not out to debunk Christianity; it's more or less an attempt to understand DNA and cells at their core. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though; I'm not well-versed in biological science.


I'm not saying you fall into this category, but it seems like most of the time, atheists will go after anything that promotes itself as an alternative to creationism whether it makes any sense or not. What dawg80 said is correct: Christians don't, and can't, believe in evolution, but it is possible to support parts of it. I personally believe in micro-evolution as I defined it earlier. Otherwise, how could we explain flu strains that are now showing resistance to medicine? Adaptation on a scale such as this is completely different than macro-evolution.
J, I doubt any of these research fields are driven by the motivation to disprove Christianity. I think these fields exist because scientists are always questioning the whys and hows. I suspect Christianity will continue to adapt to new information as it becomes undeniable (except at its insular fringes), and will just say that the new science still allows for a creator god. For me, the more I learn about these fields of science, the less mysterious life and the universe seem.

The more I get into the weeds of it, the more convincing it becomes that all the fantastic things we see and experience are unique but perfectly natural and there is no requirement of a supernatural explanation.

Regarding your question about a flu strain not adapting - I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. Clearly some bacteria show signs of adaptation to drug treatments. MRSA is probably a good example. Adaptation is not necessarily a given for any given species. Some will go extinct. Placing a stress on a species may influence evolution, but unless you have a molecular (such as mutation) driver occurring under such a stressed environment, seems unlikely that there would be a genetic adaptation, particularly if the stressor only lasts for a short duration (hundreds of years or less). Also, a virus is a bit unique because it isn't a self-sustaining life form in the classic sense. They, RNA viruses, rely on the host cell of other organisms to replicate the virus.