A little more irony.

Actually blind faith is never called for in scripture--even in the passage with doubting Thomas.

1) In the book of Judges, Gideon asks for multiple physical proofs that God was God. The proofs were given. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "and Gideon, after serving his military purpose, was cursed for demanding proof."

2) When Moses asked to see God's glory, God complied with the request. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "And Moses' inability to rely solely on blind faith is the real reason he wasn't allowed into the Promised Land."

3) Psalm 19 teaches that the heavens declares God's glory. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "but only as a crutch for the weak-minded."

4) When Jesus forgave the sins of a lame man, he then healed the man. Instead of containing a footnote that reads: "and for those who required the latter, let them be anathema," my bible reads that Jesus said it was so we may know the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins. That is, he was proving, with physical evidence, he was God.

5) When Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, they thought they were seeing a ghost. He showed them he was flesh and blood, and that he could even eat. My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "and their rewards in heaven were diminished because they relied on physical proof."

6) Paul writes, in the letter to the Romans, that since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. My bible doesn?t have a footnote that reads: "but pay attention to that evidence at your own peril." Instead, Paul adds that the reason for this (scientific data) is so that men are without excuse.

7) Even in the case of "doubting" Thomas, where Jesus allows Thomas to examine His wounds, and even though Jesus blesses those who believe without seeing, my bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "and Thomas was cast out for his reliance on proof."

Ah, but he blessed those that believe without evidence even more. Thomas' blessings are, in effect, reduced because his faith wasn't great enough.

Do you know what it means when a theist begins resorting to special pleading, Mr. Heddle?

Too bad the only 'proof' He offers these days is His image on grilled cheese sandwiches.

Faith without proof is exactly what is expected from Christians. That demand for faith is why IDiots are heretics. That they worship the Bible above God -- insisting that God can only exist within the limits defined by what is clearly the works of human kind -- makes them IDolators, too.
IMHO

No EoRaptor, blind faith is never expected. The distortion of Christianity into "just believe, and don't you dare ask why" may be what you'd like, but it is not what is taught in scripture.

So, David, if your faith isn't blind, then what *specific* evidence would it take to make you decide that the gospel is not true?

And I mean *specific*, not just "Prove that the Resurrection did not take place."

Hebrew Bible and New Testament texts are rich enough to support both David Heddle's and Caledonian's positions. I think it was John Paul II who defined faith as "acceptance with grace of revealed truth." "Revealed truth" is a euphemism for a proposition that adherents are asked to accept on the basis of some authority figure's spiritual experience/dream/fantasy, which won't necessarily have any real evidence to support it.

Over the past several centuries, extra-scriptural authorities have changed the definition of "faith" to move (or return) to a definition meaning "acceptance that doesn't rely on evidence." I believe it was Martin Luther who wrote, "He who would become a Christian must first tear reason from the mind." And Pope Pius IX wrote the following (mostly in his 1864 "Syllabus of Errors" listing doctrines that were anathema -- some of these were renounced only in 1965 as part of the Second Vatican Council):

Let him be anathema . . . [w]ho shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions, even when opposed to revealed doctrine.

Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations (condemned as Error No. 3)

Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. ? Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851 (condemned as Error No. 15)

I defy anyone to make sense out of the definition of "faith" in Hebrews in a manner that is consistent with human reason: "For faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction [in King James version, "evidence"] of things unseen." Say what?!

Based on my careful study of what petulantly intolerant and aggressively evangelizing religious Americans seem to mean when they haughtily use the phrase "people of faith," I have concluded that "faith" no longer means (as suggested by Benedictine monk Brother David Steindl-Rast in 1974) a "courageous trust in life" and confidence that thinking beings can make sense out of the universe with humility and humaneness. No, "faith" now seems to mean Persistence and Certainty of Belief Impervious to Evidence and Reason. This new kind of faith may or may not be incompatible with a particular non-random sample of Christian or Jewish scripture. But it is surely incompatible with science and human reason.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. who manage to successfully and happily balance or reconcile their faith with human reason do so by comparmentalizing their minds -- a wonderful human talent.

To me, faith by itself is the act of acceding to a belief in the divine that can't be demonstrated beyond doubt by means of the scientific method or by any other evidence grounded in the observable physical world. One may have faith while retaining a measure of scepticism and uncertainty regarding one's understanding of the exact nature of that divinity.

This understanding must always be open to revision as we come to learn more about the physical world in the same way that the heliocentric planetary model caused us to reinterpret biblical geocentrism.

Blind faith means the uncritical acceptance of some characterization of the divine decreed by Authority.

Antonio

David,

Sorry, but saying that "blind faith is never expected" simply isn't justifiable. Sometimes it is expected. I know from experience. I was raised in a church-- part of the very large denomination of Southern Baptists-- that did expect blind faith; and those teaching me this position used the example Mike used, that of Thomas. "Just believe, and don't you dare ask why" is exactly what I came out of that church with.

Doubting Thomas is a great example. Jesus did not hesitate to give Thomas tangible evidence. So it is perfectly alright to back one's faith up with evidence.

If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it cant be taken on its own merits. ~ Dan Barker

You know, I'd actually be awfully curious to see a serious discussion on the scriptural basis for faith requiring or not requiring evidence. Unfortunately, we're instead getting a discussion with Heddle, whose views on neither scripture nor science are mainstream and whose statements cannot be taken at face value. Unfortunate.

Going slightly offtopic here:

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

All the way through the gospels, Jesus keeps making comments like "No one comes to the Father except through me", or exhorting people to "believe in" him. When he says these things, Jesus is clearly asking us to do something. What is it Jesus is asking us to do? As an unbeliever, of course, this is not my problem, but I can still be curious from a standpoint of literary analysis. It doesn't explain much to say Jesus wants us to "believe in" him; that could mean nearly anything. What exactly are we supposed to believe, and for what reasons? I think there's a fairly wide variety of valid answers to that question.

Why am I going into this? Well, because I think if we're expected to believe based on evidence rather than blind faith, I think it's immediately reasonable to ask what kind of evidence that scripture is expecting us to find. Maybe this is literally supposed to be unbleeding nailholes in the hands of a guy you watched get crucified last week, I don't know. But I think it's fairly reasonable to suggest that, whatever it is Jesus is asking us to do when he says to "believe", it isn't intended to have much to do with biological speciation or the value of the cosmological constant. I'd like to think that if a creator god were to reveal to his creation proof of his existence, it would be through something more sublime than an ambiguous math riddle left behind in the energy density of the vacuum.

One way to look at this:

Evidence -- Prior Experience / Knowledge
Faith -- Present State of Belief

This is probably why Jesus scolded Thomas for not having enough faith. Thomas should have already had *enough* evidence to believe based on prior experiences/knowledge; after all he was Christ's disciple for 3 years and he saw all the miracles firsthand. Furthermore, all the other disciples already told Thomas that they had seen the resurrected Christ. But even conditioned on this "past evidence", Thomas still thought that the probability of a resurrected Christ was low.

This may highlight the interplay between faith and evidence. Christians claim to have evidence (e.g. the past work of God). Given prior evidence, are they willing to trust God and take a "step of faith" in the present?

This little episode brings to mind one of the responses for CA601 in Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims:
"Intelligent design implies philosophical naturalism. As noted above, all science, industry, agriculture, and so forth is based on nature. That does not stop evolutionists, other scientists, engineers, manufacturers, and farmers from being able to look beyond the materialism and find spirituality in their lives.

The intelligent design crowd, on the other hand, seems unable to make that step. They seem to require objective, material evidence to back up their spirituality. But that, of course, makes their spirituality naturalistic. For all their complaints about materialism, people like Dembski and Johnson are trying to expand materialism into the field of religion."

I accepted this as a theoretical position that a creationist could hold, and I even accepted that people might actually believe it. But until today, I never believed that anyone would actually come out and admit it.

Wow. Just wow.

Let's not forget the story of Jesus calling Peter to walk on water. Peter managed it until he looked down at the roiling waters and was unable to keep his total and complete focus - he began thinking about possibilities other than his managing to walk on water. He doubted that walking on water was anything other than the only possible outcome, even while he was aware that he had been walking on water for some time. According to the story, that is when he began to fail.

Faith is about putting one's conclusions before one's analysis. Keeping an open mind towards alternate possibilities, or even the consideration of alternate possibilities, leads to the revocation of miracles.

This is blatantly obvious.

Gentlemen:

For the record, I'm a believer but also a Darwinian who understands that 'theistic evolution' is *not* a scientific position. It's theology, and therein lies the rub, as far as the source of this business is concerned.

The IDevotee eager to undercut Miller's position is not doing so out of desire to promote reason as a strategy or to cleave religion from science, etc. Far from it!

Rather, they are eager to knock Miller because in their minds he constitutes a greater *threat*. Miller's personal take on evolution is a theological position, a rival to their theology---and most definitely not a godless rival.

This may wound the vanity of many here, but the truth is that creationists are not the least bit frightened by professed atheists. You are a convenient 'bogey man' for these folk, since skeptics who don't invoke God in any fashion can be easily (albeit unjusty) dismissed in the churches with the ad hominem 'of course he/she's just an atheist.'

They can't do that with Miller, and that's the *real* reason guys like Philip Johnson have said that people like Miller are the greater threat.

Respectfully submitted....SH

Hi Caledonian,

You have good insights, and you accurately describe what even many Christians think faith to be (blind faith, as David Heddle mentioned before).

Yet, faith can also be 1) analyzing prior evidence and then 2) fixing one's present and future actions based on that analysis, despite the uncertainty that those actions may bring or the unclarity of the situation.

I think of Acts 1:3

"to whom He also presented Himself alive after his suffering by many infallible proofs..."

Those "infallible proofs" did not diminish the faith of the early Christians; rather those proofs *strengthened* their faith and helped these Christians to persevere through the persecution brought on by the Roman emperors. Many of the disciples, by faith, chose to become martyrs, because they had been exposed to infallible proofs of Christ's resurrection.

I guess my only point is that while one does not need evidence to have (blind) faith, one's faith would surely be strengthed in proportion to the amount of evidence available. Faith and evidence don't clash, and we shouldn't try to compartmentalize faith to one corner of our brain and reason to the other corner.

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of believers are so absolutely sure they know the mind of god that they consider their insights justify their telling the rest of the human race what to believe and how to behave.

Historically, such claims have lead to the self-righteous bigotry that, in turn, leads to atrocities of religious warfare. Thus, the evidence would suggest that no matter how much faith they think they have, there is always someone with an equally intense faith who will be seen as a heretic.

Makes one wonder what a supreme being that created the entire universe (if there be such) would think of the faithful.

Anyone read Charles Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind"? It deals exactly with the subject of how blind faith and dogma of christianity replaced flexibility and open-mindedness of paganism. A good very serious read.

I've always thought that Thomas should be the patron saint of engineers.

My take on the story is that he it's not Jesus he doubts, but his fellow disciples. After all they have just seen a resurrected Jesus, so their faith hasn't really come into play. Thomas figures the others have "seen" what they would so dearly love to see.

On the hand, when Thomas is presented with the evidence in the form of Jesus, he commits fully.

On another issue, I think there's a serious problem with a provable god. That problem is that you end up with a nice man sized, man controllable god. God is bigger than that.

Coin,

You know, I'd actually be awfully curious to see a serious discussion on the scriptural basis for faith requiring or not requiring evidence. Unfortunately, we're instead getting a discussion with Heddle, whose views on neither scripture nor science are mainstream and whose statements cannot be taken at face value.

I can only argue with one point: my scriptural views are mainstream--unless by mainstream you mean either "liberal" and/or "fundamentalist." That is, my theology is at odds with liberal denominations and also, say, Jerry Falwell. Fundamentalists tend to agree with many commenters here that faith is something akin to blind faith. However, if your "mainstream" includes the traditional reformed denominations (such as Presbyterian PCA) then my views are more-or-less textbook. Go to such a church and listen to a sermon on faith and you are likely to hear (backed up by the Greek Lexicon) that faith means something much closer to trust than to believe with no evidence. When Peter denied Christ, it is said his faith failed. That does not mean he stopped believing in God or Christ, it meant that he didn't do what he knew was right. And "live by faith" doesn't mean "just believe," it means to trust that obeying God is not only what you're supposed to do, it's the right and good thing to do.

KeithB,

So, David, if your faith isn't blind, then what *specific* evidence would it take to make you decide that the gospel is not true?
And I mean *specific*, not just "Prove that the Resurrection did not take place."

I salute you sir (not being snarky) for I have never heard that question posed in the negative--what evidence for the gospel not being true, etc. It's not often that someone (myself including) asks a novel question on the blogosphere.

You question requires a subtle answer, because it is tied up with a lot of other doctrine I am sure nobody wants to discuss, so I'll be as brief as possible. God provides evidence, but that must be distinguished from proof as in "proof that he exists." Whether or not someone believes the gospel is ultimately a gift from God. (What people normally call regeneration, or being born again.) It is not a result of looking at evidence and mustering the belief (although it may appear to manifest itself that way.) This gets back to the Miller-Dawkins question, which might be recast in this hypothetical comparison:

Miller-type:
(1) From studying the evidence of creation (i.e., scientific data) I
(2) came to realize that there must be a God

Dawkins-type:
(1) From studying the evidence of creation (i.e., scientific data) I
(2) came to realize that there is no need for a God

The points seems to be that two smart people (for some unknown reason--obviously not IQ, or education, etc.) can reach vastly different conclusions. The answer is, in my opinion, that there is a step (0) not being made explicit for the Miller-type: (0) God regenerated me, by an act of divine will for which I had no part or say, after which I was prepared (ordained, even) to accept the gospel.

The Dawkins-type did not receive step (0).

One (because of a new heart with new desires) is then is biased to seeing God in the world around him, the other is not.

Finally, back to your question. If my theology is correct, then nothing could stop me from believing in the gospel, because this same theology leads, by inescapable logic, to the related doctrine of eternal security (you can't lose your salvation.) Now if my theology is a house of cards, then compelling evidence that Christ did not live, or was not resurrected (e.g., his body discovered) or that the scripture writers were frauds, or that scripture was hopelessly inconsistent, any of those would destroy my belief in the gospel.

Geez, David, don't you even see the implications of your statements? Your "Step (0)" that Miller recieved and Dawkins did not is just another way of saying that Miller was pre-ordained to be saved and Dawkins wasn't. It's interesting to see that your "reasoning" is based on shoddy theology.

RealityBytes, you don't want to get into Heddle's theology. He believes in a pretty hideous god.

Believe what you want, in 1692 those in Salem Massachusetts did. They had eyewitness documented supernatural demonic events, some happening in a court of law no less.

From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women were convicted of witchcraft and hanged, most died through suffocation. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to confess to being a witch. This witchcraft was documented by a large segment of the population, the church, and government.

My point is if don't you believe these recently documented supernatural events took place, why do believe 2000 year old documented supernatural events took place?

David:

I was not being snarky at all since this is a question I deal with every time someone says they have a "rational" faith - which I now think is an oxymoron.

You said:
"Now if my theology is a house of cards, then compelling evidence that Christ did not live, or was not resurrected (e.g., his body discovered) or that the scripture writers were frauds, or that scripture was hopelessly inconsistent, any of those would destroy my belief in the gospel."

This was exactly the type of statement I *was not* looking for, since is it is trivially true, and even comes from the Bible. What specifically do you consider compelling. If you cannot answer, then your faith *is* blind.

For example, if they found a "Epistle of Simon" dated to the mid first century with compelling internal and external evidence that states that the zealots overpowered the temple guards at the tomb and stole the body, would that be compelling enough?

KeithB

Re."snarky" you misunderstood. I meant I wasn't being snarky when I said it was a good question. I wasn't accusing you of being snarky.

Yes such a document, were I convinced of its authenticity, would be enough.

It's not blind faith. I see evidence all around. You see it too. It gets interpreted differently, obviously. I may be interpreting it incorrectly, but that doesn't matter--the point still holds that I am not believing "for no reason."

So faith = believing for BAD reasons. Got it, thanks, that clears things up nicely.

"God gave proof to these people..."

According to your Bible.

By that argument, you could support the reality of "Beowulf", "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and "The Lord of the Rings."

That isn't proof. That's creative writing.

Carl, yeah, I've seen Heddle's posts on his blog, here, and at PT. I just wanted to point out that his slip is showing.

"By that argument, you could support the reality of "Beowulf", "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and "The Lord of the Rings." That isn't proof. That's creative writing."

By Marley's argument you'd have to dismiss the minutes of the Wannsee conference on the basis that we don't have physical (as opposed to documentary or testimonial) evidence of the substance of the discussion and, since Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings out of his imagination, the people taking minutes at Wannsee must have been doing the same. We'd take all the histories, such as Plutarch, or Xenophon as being merely fiction and of no value whatever. Going to gut any history before the invention of photography (and after the invention of Photoshop) and leave only the physical aspects of archaeology remaining. Marley, if true to the logic he uses above, considers Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Archimedes, Genghis Khan, indeed any historical person for whom we don't posses remains or photographic evidence, to be fictional characters. Even those for whom we have physical remains would just be corpses with nothing known of what they'd done but that they'd died.

So it's Marley's fault that he's using Mr. Heddle's reasoning?

The existence of books doesn't make them true. Hell, the evidence supporting the reality of certain elements of books doesn't make the entire thing worthy of belief: this is why we have historical fiction, like the movie Titanic.

And I'm really curious as to what evidence brought Mr. Heddle to his faith, when he provides none and even relates the origins of his conviction as a conversion experience, complete with meaningless words like "regeneration".

Much as it makes me cringe to agree with Heddle -- no pain, just cringe -- he's basically right. Blind faith is not asked, nor is it preferred.

From the Doubting Thomas story, however, the story I would prefer be taken away is that Thomas doubted, and asked, and his questions were answered. This is not a call for blind faith in any sense. It is instead a call for rationality, a call for skepticism, and a case where questioning blind faith was rewarded with evidence.

In short, stick with science, the Gospels say.

Don't miss the message.

Cool, we're in agreement then. The moment god feels like giving signs to the rest of us, we'll all be hunky-dorey.

Hi,

I'm the person who wrote the e-mail to Casey. I've been reading his work lately and find him quite insightful, so I zipped him an e-mail giving him my view of Miller's speech a few weeks ago.

I'm actually a YEC, but fully support evolution being taught in the schools, though I certainly feel that it should be taught with a critical eye. I'm open to Intelligent Design being discussed as well, though I'm not sure as to what extent.

Blind faith in Christ is fine, IMO, but there is so much supporting evidence for the accuracy of scripture that it's silly to have to rely on one's faith alone. How on earth would one know whether they have chosen the correct religion in which to place their "faith" if they have no evidence as to whether it's closer to the truth than another religious avenue.

1 Peter 1:3 states: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

The answers are there for those who take the time to look for them.

I've found that most people at these blogs are very cut and dry, either for or against the truth of scripture so I won't waste much time going any further.

I will recommend a few books for those who are interested in searching for the answers themselves:

"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist", Norm Geisler/Frank Turek

"A Skeptics Search for God", Ralph Muncaster

"A Ready Defense", Josh McDowell

There are many, many other excellent books along these lines. After reading them myself, I found that I was actually pissed that my religious upbringing was centered on primarily the "faith alone" outlook. My faith has strengthened considerably since I've found the answers I was looking for.

Oh, and I've started a blog of my own if anyone has an interest:

http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/

Forthekids, be careful. Josh McDowell plays fast and loose with evidence, and is a lot more rah-rah that would be required for a fact-based case that he often claims to establish. Same with the Geisler/Turek book. Logical problems and evidence problems rather indicate that they don't distinguish well between fact and assertion.

Ed,

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate your tone as well. I've been posting in a forum for quite some time, and the word militant comes to mind when I try to discuss my point of view with evolutionists.

Anyway, the books I listed were what I would consider intro books to apologetics. I would always advise checking sources for yourself so you can rest assured that the author is not pulling your leg. I've checked into everything I've run across which I've questioned. Believe it or not, I'm quite the skeptic.

Every once in a while, I've found that an author may make a bit of a stretch, but for the most part I've found that their information checks out to be pretty accurate.

Considering the scope of all that I've read, the evidence outweighs the option to be able to disgregard scripture as merely an ancient set of beliefs.

Have you read any of Francis Schaeffer's work? He's an interesting read.

Thanks for your response.

Colin wrote:

It doesn't explain much to say Jesus wants us to "believe in" him; that could mean nearly anything. What exactly are we supposed to believe, and for what reasons? I think there's a fairly wide variety of valid answers to that question.

As I understand it (first as a Christian and now as a Pagan), Jesus wants us to believe, with or without convincing evidence at the moment, in the wisdom and rightness of his teachings; and he wants us to act on this wisdom, with or without immediate or visible material reward (another form of "evidence"). A salaryman who becomes a corporate whistelblower -- risking his family's financial security -- because Jesus appeared in the flesh and told him he would be rewarded for it, is blessed; a guy who takes the same risk without such direct prompting, with no visible prospect of reward, because he figured out that this was the right thing to do, is even more blessed.

Oops, I was replying to "Coin," not "Colin." Sorry...

Caledonian's comment about Peter reminds me of some contemporary pop references. First is Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff. Second is our beloved Dumbo. Of course, you can see why Jesus didn't just hand out magic feathers.

ForTheKids: You might also read The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, by Mark S. Smith. It is a useful antidote to Geisler, Turek, et al., and based on very solid evidence, which is presented for the reader to verify. Enjoy.

"Hebrew Bible (never mind the rest of it) texts are rich enough to support both..." my backside. The creo has little to no knowledge, and cares less, about the Hebrew Bible.
"My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "And Moses' inability to rely solely on blind faith is the real reason he wasn't allowed into the Promised Land."'
Yes, as a matter of fact, he was! Not for that act, in which Moses wasn't exercising much free will, but for another. And as far as the example cited, G_d revealed himself to Moses, and only to Moses. The rest of us are supposed to take it all on, yup, faith.

Mike,

"Hebrew Bible (never mind the rest of it) texts are rich enough to support both..." my backside. The creo has little to no knowledge, and cares less, about the Hebrew Bible.

"My bible does not contain a footnote that reads: "And Moses' inability to rely solely on blind faith is the real reason he wasn't allowed into the Promised Land."'
Yes, as a matter of fact, he was! Not for that act, in which Moses wasn't exercising much free will, but for another. And as far as the example cited, G_d revealed himself to Moses, and only to Moses. The rest of us are supposed to take it all on, yup, faith.

Mike,

Moses was kept from the Promised Land for a lack of faith (trust) when he disobeyed, striking the rock for water. He was not kept out for demanding physical evidence--scripture is in accord with what I stated--God was willing on several occasions to comply with Moses' request. I think you need to read more. Also, it is really odd that you would say that God revealed himself "only to Moses" given that all the Jews were eyewitnesses to unimaginable miracles. In fact, the Jews in the Exodus did not get into trouble because they lacked blind faith, but because they lacked trust--exactly what I am claiming that scriptural faith really means. They didn't stop believing in God--they stopped believing that God's plan was good for them.

p.s. I don't know what a "creo" is.

Heddle: "Creo" means "creationist." There's also sort of an "oreo" motif: hard science on the outside, soft pale religious mush with no structural integrity or nutritional value on the inside. People pretend to buy the cookies for both the hard and soft parts, but quickly dump the hard science part for the yummier, and easier-to-digest, religion part.

Raging Bee,

Thanks for the explanation!

Miller does see evidence of design... In the universe as a whole and the Bible. What he doesn't see is multiple "intrusive" or "interruptive" acts in the history of species that require unnatural interventions. He thus proposes that biological evolution can be *rationally* comprehended.

You know, Dawkins thinks that biology is reducible to chemical reactions, as does Behe. I guess that means that Behe is an atheist too.