The theory of evolution is compatible with mainstream religion

Hey Tatarize! Great debate topic and I'm excited for the exchange! I'm a big fan of yours on this site and I know this will be hard fought. I will admit that I'm back at school and so you might have to wait a couple of days for each response, simply because I feel that this debate deserves my time and attention. Let me start by explaining that I understand and accept the theory of evolution. Natural Selection is an elegant mechanism for the development and complexity of life on this earth and I believe that the existing debate and controversy over the theory of evolution is largely based on distortion of the facts and religious rhetoric. Having said that evolution should never be used as a basis for the kind of cosmological divisiveness that you're asserting it to have. The philosophical implications that you have mapped onto the process of evolution are in no way a part of the theory of evolution merely an interpretation of its significance. Lets start with a basic definition that we can work with and flesh out: "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 Since you have already presented some opening arguments, I'll just go ahead and address them from top to bottom. "1) You are special." Actually I would contend that by an evolutionary stand point the human race is indeed unique and special. We, with the dawn of civilization and society, have been able to effectively immunize ourselves from the otherwise perilous effects of Natural Selection and the "survival of the fitness" battle that the animal kingdom must constantly participate in. We no longer need to hunt for survival or fear predators, instead we live in an environment where we can produce art, culture, writing, and even debate online. We have created our own social constructs or society for which one could argue a sociological evolution occurs (making oneself more competitive and desirable in a society) but certainly not the kind of biological evolution that Darwin or evolutionary biologists describe. So it would appear that even from an evolutionary stand point we are special because in a sense we won the evolutionary struggle! We control and manipulate this plant (for better or worst), we have supreme dominance over the animal kingdom, and we're really in no position to be challenged by forces outside of our own as a species. "Evolution holds that we are simply a result, rather than a predefined result. Rather than a sentient species of chimpanzee becoming dominate, anything could have happened." Evolution couldn't possibly prove this. It's likely that everything happened by random chance and by accident but does something being extremely unlikely make it impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient deity to control and manipulate. This is all based on the pre-supposition that God exists (which I don't) but I would even concede that there is no way to definitively prove that this wasn't all within "God's plan" because really there is no extent to God's power and mystery (Haha don't you love that line?). Evolution doesn't prove that things weren't pre-defined either that is another philosophical interpretation that you have mapped onto the scientific theory. "2) God created life (with or without evolution)." Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. It merely describes the methods for the increasing complexity in life over time. This is the most common perceived point of contention for people though but really evolution is based in observable traits of nature that we can use to understand the course of biological life on this earth. There are contending theories about the origins of life and the Universe most notably being the primordial soup theory of abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory. "Mainstream religions do not find comfort in the idea of a shrinking God, explaining less and less about the universe. There is a true need in mainstream religion to have God at the bottom of things, rather than as a secondary unneeded notion." Scientific America had an interesting response to this perceived conflict and the "god of the gaps" argument you appear to be employing. "You can be a theist, believing that behind the veil of randomness lurks an active, loving, manipulative God, or you can be a materialist, for whom everything is matter and energy interacting within space and time. Whichever metaphysical club you belong to, the science comes out the same." I think it's important to remember that most "mainstream religions" hold God as an overseeing eternal powerful force that is a constant presence in our world. You assume that natural occurrences and the theories that predicate them are not the direct result of God but in reality the ambiguity and inherent mystery of the notion of God prevents you from making this assertion. So my question to you is, why the divisiveness? Religion is a belief system and today in society it would serve us better to tear down the walls of division between science and religion so we as a culture can embrace and support scientific discovery. By creating this false dichotomy between religion and science you alienate and intimidate people from encouraging and participating in scientific discourse. "3) Perfect/Good creation... The natural world is not benevolent. It is not good. It is not perfect." Agreed. But I think this accounted for by a Christian perspective. Generally Christians believe that man and indeed life on this earth fell from the grace of God and evil and maliciousness was introduced to the world. This is allegorically represented by Adam's falling from God's grace and indeed the basis of free will. I'm not an expert on this topic but I don't think it has ever been a problem for theists to explain evil and imperfection in the world. "99% of all species which have ever lived are dead." But what does this mean to an eternal and omnipotent God? Time is nothing and and neither are the statistics that try to predict who he is paying attention to and downplay the human race's importance to him. Ultimately, I don't think this is a point you can win because it implies that you understand how God prioritizes. Which can't be true. Haha remember how mysterious he is? Ultimately, I agree with your points about how religion and God is NOT a source for understanding and explaining the Natural world but that doesn't mean that the natural world disproves God's existence. As long as the Bible is interpreted on an allegorical level and God is accepted to be a force outside of observation (thus the need for "faith) then evolution nor the natural world will ever be in contradiction with God. Again, thanks for the topic and I can't wait for your response! -connor