Originally posted by Seekerof
are those that put their faith in macroevolution getting nervous or is this simply another attempt at politics disguised as a scientific
'free-for-all', adding to their already illustrious anti-christian agenda?
Odd that it'd be see it that way. I'd think that, if anything, one should look at it as an indication of how basic the research into abiogenesis
is. This is the first time a major university is doing this sort of thing for that particular field. The origins of life from non-life is a huge and
difficult issue. Modern organic chemistry has only exist for around a hundred years, thats only two or three generations of scientists working on it
(one professor, a grad student, and an undergrad TA, so to speak eh?) Considering the progress that's been made without major pushes like this, I'd
think that the 'evolutionjists' are the last people that should be 'worried', in all honesty.
faith in macroevolution
There is no faith required for 'macro' evolution, it's observed. Macroevoltion is defined as evolution at and above the species level. Speciation
is macroevolution, and speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Its science, not faith.
illustrious anti-christian agenda
I'd hardly say that science is anti-christian. I'd thnk that the thousands of scientists who are pious christians would disagree with it being
anti-christian. Heck, Darwin was a christian, Newton, etc etc, they didn't see a conflict. (tho darwin is somewhat controversial in this respect,
but his weakening of faith is probably attributed to the death of his young daughter than biology).
The Natural Theologists of the pre-darwinian era were basically scientists and they didn't think that they were starting something anti-christian, so
far as I know. Why say science is anti-christian? Why anti-christian specifically too, as oppposed to anti-religion-in-general?
If nobody was asking the tough questions or exposing the flaws in evolutionary theory, do you think these guys would pursue such an endeavor?
I don't want to be too harsh, but don't kid yourself. This has nothing to do with 'creationists' asking the 'hard questions'. If creationists
and IDers were asking the 'hard questions', then they'd
be the ones doing this research. They're not, because they're not doing hard
research (generally, especially wrt 'creationists', tho some IDists or ID-like people could be said to do some hard research).