thaluikhain said:
What I find particularly frustrating is that, IIRC, it is more controversial now than when Darwin first published. At the time, most Christian either didn't care, or found it interesting to some degree. It didn't threaten their worldview, it wasn't something they had to hush up.
But then the Monkey Trial happened in Texas, and it became something that many Christians felt they had to oppose, because it somehow became part of their religion, for no good reason that I can see.
Actually they were opposed to it, very much so, it is simply that it was not taught in the public schools and so they didn't feel they were being forced to teach what was, in their view, a lie to their children.
And the Scopes trial was in Tennessee, not Texas.
As for my part, yes I support and accept evolution, based on a preponderance of both documented and readily observable evidence. I also believe that religion and science can, and should, exist together.
I heavily subscribe to the idea that, even if something seems random to us, it might not be to an outside observer, based on the idea that if one knew or could calculate the position and movement of every atom in the universe, one could, in effect, predict the movements of said atoms, precluding the idea that events are random. So for our own purposes evolution (and by extension pretty much every other thing that happens in the universe) is random, but may not be, in fact, random, but also not guided by said outside observer.
Just for the record, I am Christian.
