Thank you for your nice note. You clearly have studied much, but you have missed the point of my essay, and, ironically, are proving it. I was making a simple observation that if there was no Bible or God to confuse the question of origins there would be no objection to the design inference in nature. You seem to disagree because you believe there is no ‘physical’ evidence for God or ‘religion’.

My essay is about imagining exactly what you are NOT, i.e., assume there IS no God or Bible. In that case what reason would there be for rejecting the design inference? You state that there is no evidence for design, but if you believe this you are in a very, very small minority of observers. All leading evolutionists, including atheistic Darwinists, see design. They just believe it is not true design; instead it is “apparent” design.

So the abundant evidence of design in nature is not in question by anyone of any standing in science. The only question is the cause of design. And I submit, as my essay states, that if there were no threat of God (the Divine Foot) entering the picture there is no reason to reject the design inference.

Can you think of a reason?

I read your article: But For the Bible, We Might All Be Creationists

I find your title a little misleading and I must disagree with you, evolution-science isn’t opposed to God or religion, they are opposed to the lack of ‘physical’ evidence for such. So far Christianity, and other Bible-based religions, haven’t been able to provide that evidence.

I am a researcher (of sorts) myself. The following is an example of the type of study I do:

(Genesis) Adam/man (synonyms) - translation (Strongs #120, 119): ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood

(Genesis) “man became a living ’soul’ “:
- soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature

- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature of earth

Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being as many suppose but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (had to have been a chimpanzee because humans have 97% of same DNA). He only later gained ‘God’s image (an immortal spirit)’ which allowed him to change from animal to human. Thus the reason why we can’t find the missing link between primate and human, because such never existed.

animal = soul
human being = soul + immortal spirit

Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are ’soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in other animals? Could it be because we have something the other animals don’t have - a spirit?

Science has become intolerant of the Bible and God because Christianity doesn’t know their own book and are teaching the wrong things.

I have a brief (10 min.) synopsis of my 15 years of Bible research that I have written to interest the scientific community in the ‘real’ Bible, but also to challenge religious indoctrination. You can email me if you’d like to read it.

Regards,
Dawn Wessel.

I’m guessing you’re looking for another answer, however… perhaps “atheist”?

But that isn’t right. For example, I might be a theist who believes in abiogenesis and evolution. I might believe in a god who is supernatural, transcends matter, time, and space, and is omnipotent and omniscient, but didn’t actually create life. Instead, He decided to create a universe where life might or might not evolve, and chose not to think ahead to the point where He would know if life would evolve or not (sort of the way He likes to be surprised by what people will do, rather than deciding everything we do in advance).