The theory of evolution is compatible with mainstream religion

"I am not divisive, evolution is divisive." You need to stop making generalizations like this. Your interpretation's implications are divisive not the theory itself, how could a theory about the development of life disprove a super-natural entity like God? Nothing can. Just like nothing can affirm his existence. "It largely contends that we are the inevitable result of evolution; we are not. One quick change in the carboniferous and poof, we never would have existed." It would contend that we are the unlikely result of evolution. And you're right, we should have never existed just pure chance that we did pop into existence. Except maybe if some omnibenevolent God was tipping the odds in our favor =) You see where I'm going with this? It's really not difficult to rationalize and explain the domain in which a hypothetical God could exist and operate. It is because a majority of Christians in this country (and the entire Catholic tradition) embrace an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Last round I felt that you were attempting to straw man some of my arguments by introducing the ridiculous nature of the Fundamentalist account for creation and arguing against it. In reality, the majority of the mainstream religion we're arguing about appear to comfortably understand the different realms for which the two operate (Keep in mind that 40% of scientists in the natural sciences believe in God!). Take Brian Greene who is a theoretical physicist at Brown University, he works at the University's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP), and is leading a research program applying superstring theory to cosmological questions. He offers this explanation in a 2004 National Geographic article: "Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions. How did the universe evolve to the form that we see? But it is woefully inadequate in addressing the 'why' questions. Why is there a universe at all? These are the meaning questions, which many people think religion is particularly good at dealing with. This is where many people will find God, and the fact of having a final unanswerable 'why' will not go away, even if the 'why' gets more and more fundamental as we progress." If you don't need an explanatory principle, don't invoke it. Which is why the questions that religion attempts to answer are inherently outside of scientific inquiry. "We are nothing more than a massive accumulation of lucky genetic mutations. That isn't what is accepted or even acceptable by mainstream religion." Again you're very presumptuous about the nature of mainstream religion. I think most theists would hear this and merely equate this 'luck' with the realm within God operates. Again I ask, what does a percentage mean to God? You're trying to use statistics to argue against an entity we can't even define. And yes, one "little jiggle" could have kept humanity from ever existing. But we do exist. In a way this only re-affirms the perceived power and manipulation that theists accredit God of having over the natural world. What's left after we establish that we do, in fact, exist? Why do we exist. Which is a hypothesis that science can never have. "Human evolution, according to recent studies is actually going much faster (not stopped as you contend)" I foresaw this argument in the first round and already addressed it. What you proceed to describe so is a form of social evolution which operates on an artificial system that we have created from social constructs. This is not the biological evolutionary theory that you have drawn your philosophical implications nor can it be associated with Darwin or the natural sciences. From the perspective of evolutionary biology and the natural selection associated with it we as a species have effectively immunized ourselves from otherwise lethal forces of an adopted environment. I don't mean to suggest that evolution is not a constant force in nature but the kind of environmental survival of the fittest mechanism that works in the natural world does not apply within the confines of established civilization. This is because even if you're retarded, crippled, and poor you can still find a niche in developed society. The natural world would not be so forgiving! "Certainly humans have advantages over other animals, but my point is that we are just another ape, the third chimpanzee, better at using tools and having a larger brain." Agreed. But we appear to be in a position of significance control and power over the rest of the animal kingdom and the the planet. Aren't we? This is what I was referring to when I clumsily described how we as a species are winning the evolutionary struggle. You can downplay the significance of homo sapiens as much as you would like, but I am under the sincere belief that we are an incredibly endowed species and I think the theory of evolution only re-affirms this belief. You also provide several articulate arguments that appear to reinforce the "god of the gaps" model you are describing. Again, I don't think this is hard for your average person of faith in the United States (90%) to rationalize this. God can operates through the forces of the natural world. He is not "tweaking" a little bit here and there. He would be a constant force that absolute laws of the universe stem from. God doesn't just directly intervene here and there with miracles and magic. I think that's a rather archaic model that you have attacked because most modern day theists accept that these kinds of examples of empirical and natural support will never be found for affirming the existence of God. "You believe God did it or evolution did it. " You provide statistics that support this false dichotomy but it doesn't re-enforce your arguments because I think you're misrepresenting mainstream religion in your wording. 'Creationism' in the 21st century is near extinction what many Americans have chosen to embrace is a form of Intelligent Design which is false but it also accepts a vast majority of evolutionary theory. Michael Behe popularized this movement and although it is also empirically flawed it does accept the mechanism of Natural Selection, the age of the earth, speciation, and the fossil record. So again, remember what we're debating here. This isn't a black and white issue people can understand evolution and evolutionary theory and interpret it differently and recognize it's own implications. It's no less valid then the interpretation that you have adopted. The top five reasons you supplied are great because they prove that the sad truth in America is that people don't understand evolution and blindly despise it because of the implied divisiveness you (and many others) have assigned to it. The idea that Jesus Christ in some way refutes or is a reason for not accepting evolution speaks for itself. This is a problem of perception not that the two notions are contradictive. "Evolution doesn't directly explain abiogenesis but it does reduce it to a trivial point." Not really. It narrows it to the conclusion that life began. We assume it was simple life. I don't see what else it could possibly explain and there is much much more that needs explaining. "You can't pick and choose what "mainstream religion" accepts." I'm not trying to. I'm using the generally recognized allegorical interpretation of the Bible that lends itself to a macro-context of morality in the Bible. I have to stay in generalities because the group you have identified, "mainstream religion", is an enormous percentage of Americans that have a range of beliefs but who generally adopt an allegorical interpretation. You really just don't find Christians running around condemning virgins to death anymore. Okay that's all for now. Nice second round. I hope people take the time to read through this debate because it really has a lot to offer! -connor