It seems like the thread may have gotten a little off track with different poeple debating the relative merits of the theory of evolution and other theories, and having fun poking holes in each other's arguments.

My take on "Some front line views of the war against God," is that the discussion topic started out being about the video trailer in the first post and about how Ben Stein and other intelligent design proponents feel persecuted because they feel questioning Darwinism can damage their careers. Without actually seeing Ben Stein's Expelled movie, I can't be sure, but I think it is probably about whether or not intelligent design should be taught as an alternative to evolutionary theory in science classes in US public schools. This has been an ongoing battle in the US public school system for years, with proponents of creationism and intelligent design attempting to get their alternative explanations added to the public school curriculum, or to have the limitations of Darwinism taught.

My feeling is that this conflict should be more accurately called "The war against Science," rather than "The war against God."

Unless you believe in the literal truth of the creation story in the Bible, science and religion are not in conflict. If you believe that God literally created the universe in 6 days about 6000 years ago, then there is a conflict. But otherwise, the two are not in conflict. Science does not attempt to address the ultimate cause for existence. An intelligent person can accept the scientific theories for cosmology and evolution and still believe in God as the ultimate creator --- many scientists do believe. Likewise, an intelligent person can accept those scientific theories and not believe in God or a creator --- many scientists do not believe. God is outside the realm of science.

Science addresses observable, measureable phenomena and then attempts to explain the physical mechanisms of how those phenomena occur. In the case of evolution, science observes the phenomenon of the diversity of species in different geographical locations and at different times in the fossil record and proposes a physical mechanism for how that diversity occured over time. Science sticks to the physical phenomena and the physical mechanism --- it does not address whether the phenomenon is part of "God's plan" or ultimately driven by a creator or designer that is not part of the physical phenomenon under consideration. That is a matter of faith, not science. If you choose to believe that there is a supernatural force, creator, God, designer or whatever you want to call it, that is your business, but if it cannot be physically observed or measured, science cannot address it one way or another.

It is an assault on science to try to insert any kind of unobservable or unmeasurable force as the mechanism whereby phenomena occur. Most assaults on evolution take the form of finding a phenomenon that is not adequately explained by the theory and then saying it cannot be attributed to a purely physical mechanism, so it must be due to an intelligent designer, a creator, a God, or other unmeasurable force. For example, a critic of evolution might point to a gap in the fossil record and say that because there are not transition species between two species in the fossil record, the proposed mechanism of evolution cannot explain how one turned into the other, then they mght propose that a designer was required to make the transition. Or the critic might point to a complex biological structure and say that it is too complex to have been the result of the proposed mechanism of evolution, so it must have been createed by a designer. Scientifically, that approach does not work. The honest scientific answer to these kinds of criticism is that the theory of evolution is consistent with many observed phenomena, so it is given a lot of scientific weight, but it does not yet provide all explanations for all the observed phenomena. More scientific investigation is required to complete the theory. In the case of the missing transition species and complex structures, maybe more fossil transition species will be found, or maybe the future understanding of how genetics works will show that transition species are not always necessary --- it may be possible that evolution procedes by leaps sometimes, and there is a physical mechanism for such leaps. Science always provides that theory can be modified as new facts come to light. Science always provides that theories are not necessarily complete.

One of the things that I object to in the Ben Stein video trailer is the claim that questioning Darwinism is a career killer. That is not so. Any scientific theory can be questioned, as long as it is questioned in a scientific way. For example, it is scientifically fine to point to the examples I mentioned earlier, the gaps in the fossil record and the complex biological structures, and say, "I question whether Darwinism's natural selection or genetic mutation can account for these phenomena." No one can be criticised for pointing out the shortcomings of the current theory, and no one's career should suffer for doing so. But it is not scientifically OK to say that these phenomena are due to a designer or creator, or God without proposing a scientific way to investigate the designer or creator, or God. To do so is an assualt on science, and if that person's career is in science or involved with teaching science in school, then it is appropriate that their career suffer.

It seems to me that the people who like to frame this debate as a "War on God," like to take the position that they are somehow persecuted victims. I don't buy that at all. I saw a poll recently in which some huge fraction of Americans do not believe in evolution. I don't remember the exact statistics, but to me it was alarming. Creationists and proponents of intelligent design are not victims and do have a large following in this country.

In some ways, I think it is not really all that important to day-to-day life whether a person believes in evolution or not, but evolution is not strictly an academic question. Some of us do need to understand evolution, because evolution does affect our daily lives. There is no way to understand the emergence of new strains of drug-resistant germs or pesticide-resistant insects than by understanding the physical mechanisms of evolution. I do not personally believe that there is an intelligent designer out there who is working to overcome our antibiotics and insecticides.