The theory of evolution is compatible with mainstream religion

You asked "how could a theory about the development of life disprove a super-natural entity like God?" -- Well, does that supernatural entity involve itself with with the development of life? Oh, it does. Oh, it suggests that rather than arising out of a slow and gradual process of incremental changes that life arise suddenly at the divine hand of the creator? That seems contradictory. Stop trying to shift the argument. I need not prove or disprove either notion. I am seeking to demonstrate the incompatibility between the two, not that evolution disproves God. Just as easily, God could disprove evolution. The theory of evolution is not compatible with mainstream religion. I do not suppose that one is true or the other false, I am simply saying that they can't both be accurate with their core claims. I am saying that you cannot bake a cake AND have it appear out of thin air (I'll leave the attribution of which process involves baking and appearing to the reader). You state that "[i]t's really not difficult to rationalize and explain the domain in which a hypothetical God could exist and operate." - Certainly, that is true. Now if you could demonstrate that mainstream religions believe in a "hypothetical God" you'd be all set. I contend that they are not compatible for the express reason that they believe in a real God who created life. You are a special creation of God. I contend that religionists are not apt to "rationalize" a "domain" for their God, but rather believe their God exists and has a domain: the universe! "I know I'm somebody 'Cause God don't make no junk." -- You are a cousin to monkeys and radishes, made via selection forces weeding out less fit lines as OPPOSED to being created in the image of God. You're a fluke of an uncaring universe and a mindless process which makes impressive things. You say that "Christians in this country embrace an allegorical interpretation of the Bible." - Better not let them hear you say that. 55% responded to a 2006 poll that God created the Earth exactly as it is less than 10,000 years ago. That seems to be pretty non-allegorical to me. And, praytell, what part of the Genesis "allegory" did Christ die for? In round 1, you said that "[g]enerally 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." - They do? They believe that man and life allegorically fell from the grace of a metaphorical God? I understand the desire to play both sides, and indeed I concede that to some extent some Christians do this same dancing around the issues. That is that wiggle-room is carved out of religion to the detriment of religion; it is a minority opinion. The vast majority of people either believe the Bible or the science and they do not, as you say, rationalize and hypothesize some vague domain for God. And where are the scientists in all this? Where are the scientists creating allegories of valid scientific theories and strong evidence in favor of these notions? Are genes simply metaphors too? Do the proteins created giving one organism a slight edge over another an allegory for something? Is the six hundred million years since the end of the Precambrian a poem on creation? Mainstream religion is compatible with evolution so long as it's a hollow void of true religion? According to that 2006 poll that sort of sell-out religion is only endured by 27% of the population. Mainstream? You state that science can answer the "how" questions but not the "why" questions. When a hurricane destroyed New Orleans I watched as religious figures debated the why question, whether it was the gays in the French Quarter who were spared the brunt of the force, the sin and decadence of Marti Gras, a loss of faith of the community, or a test of faith to bring God's wrath... I don't believe religion answers the "why" questions at all. Further, in explaining exactly how hurricanes form and why they intensify and why they act as they do and why this and that science provides answer to the why question too! You could take any question asking "why" and replace it with a question asking "how" and find yourself with more robust answer. -- None of this at all excuses the problem at hand. Mainstream religion rejects evolution. Evolutionists reject mainstream religion. This isn't because one side has failed to change their position into an allegory and make the two fit into the same head... this is because they both speak to the question of "how". How did life get here? Evolution or creation? You continue, noting "[w]hich is why the questions that religion attempts to answer are inherently outside of scientific inquiry." But, religion answered the question of how life came to be! Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." -- This is the core of the problem, evolution answer that question too: it is a series of small gradual mutations over millions of years producing the species of grass and fruit trees. -- To argue that Creation is inherently beyond trying to answer questions science answers is as incoherent as saying that my ancestral relationship with bacteria has no religious ramifications! Here, they are trying to answer the same question. Somebody is wrong and everybody knowns it! I'm not being presumptive when talking about mainstream religion, I have been giving statistics as the mainstream beliefs. Fundamentalism is mainstream whether you like it or not. These percentages may mean nothing to God, but they mean everything to the definition of "mainstream". We may very well be a special species with a number of remarkable adaptations, but the most impressive monkey is still a risen monkey rather than a fallen god. This is the promise of religion and the conclusion of evolution. They are not two ways of seeing the world, they are two contradictory answers to the same question. You proceed on to what, I admit, is an interesting argument; though a failure. You state "'Creationism' in the 21st century is near extinction what many Americans have chosen to embrace is a form of Intelligent Design"? Well, I have a poll here... http://www.gallup.com... 58% say that creationism is probably or definitely true (extinction?). Intelligent design? 31%. And this ignores the real problem with your argument. Intelligent Design is religion with a hat. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge Jones ruled that Intelligent Design could not be taught because it violated the prohibition against teaching religion in science class. On top of that, ID is not compatible with evolution! You spend a lot of energy trying to show how religion can bend over backwards to perhaps avoid saying anything about the creation of life on this planet and yet forget that evolution isn't going to bend with you at all. Even if ID was mainstream (which it isn't) it is *STILL* not compatible with evolution. ---- Although the point is actually minor, you say that I described "social evolution which operates on an artificial system... not the biological ... theory" - No. I am actually saying that biological evolution is going faster today. Biological evolution is more rapid today: http://www.reuters.com... It's auxiliary to the debate, but you seemed under the impression that evidence suggested that human biological evolution had stopped or slowed. Stating: "This is because even if you're retarded, crippled, and poor you can still find a niche in developed society." -- I use to believe the same thing. Apparently, as studies show, that opposite is true. A result religion might have an objection to. ---- Thank you for the fantastic debate. I recommend readers enjoy. Tatarize.