Hello Joe,
I am not sure what to make of this discussion. After all these posts, @deliberateresult, you seem to have a fundamental problem with science.
Let me offer an example by describing how this conversation about biology would have sounded like if it were instead about physics. I choose physics because, as you assuredly know, there are physicists who state that the Big Bang can be explained as the result of a fluctuation in a quantum field–and therefore it is foolish to believe that there is a God who created it. As far as I can tell, the Joe Palcsak OP would be:
“Astrophysics is opposed to God’s Word. How can we expect anyone to believe that God created the universe when scientists say it can be explained in purely natural terms! Our kids will fall away! We have to teach them that the universe does not behave according to equations, but instead it reveals God’s wisdom and power.”
And then Joe would cite all manner of quotes from physicists–some of them Christian physicists, can you believe that?–that describe the universe as behaving in a purely natural manner, which is to say according to mathematical equations such as the Friedmann-LeMaitre equations.
And then Joe’s friends would say, "Actually, Joe, the science of physics does not make any claims about faith matters. Atheists choose to believe that the physics perspective is the only valid one, but as Christians we believe that God created the quantum field out of which the Big Bang arose.
“We also believe that the universe has a purpose. The science, as we see in the Friedmann-LeMaitre equations and Einstein’s gravity equations, doesn’t describe a purpose. But that doesn’t mean the universe has no purpose; it only means that the purpose can not be inferred using the scientific method. In fact, the reason we believe the universe has a purpose is that the Creator has revealed His purposes in His Word, in His interactions with men and women like us, and even, at rare moments, in His interactions with us personally.”
“And besides, those Christian physicists you quoted also state that they believe that the universe is created for and according to God’s purposes, even if the equations do does not offer any proof. You have profoundly misrepresented their faith and their philosophy of science when you leave out their faith perspective, often found on the same page as the passages you quoted.”
“Bottom line: the physics perspective and the faith perspective can agree, even if some claim otherwise.”
And then Joe’s response would be:
“Here are some more quotes that prove that the Big Bang can be explained as a purely natural process. Therefore, the Big Bang intrinsically excludes God! How can any Christian agree with the Big Bang?”
Substitute biology for physics, and the theory of evolution for the theory of the Big Bang, and you have everything you need to know about Joe Palcsak’s 128 posts and the 540 replies.
I don’t think I can say anything else that you will benefit from–clearly you have derived no benefit from anything I’ve said in my 34 posts. So I bid you adieu, my brother, and this time I will have the self-control not to bother you any more with my unfruitful words.
Blessings,
Chris Falter
EDIT: If you’d like to talk about anything other than biological origins, I would be happy to do so. You have always been civil, you love God, you work hard for your family–we have plenty of common ground.
In fact, if you can think of a constructive way to move the origins discussion forward, I’m all ears. I happen to be out of ideas on that front.