tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4618988352454777309.post7348587774503084934..comments2009-12-07T10:53:18.633-08:00Edward Correiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18357564637531283635noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4618988352454777309.post-72710482825326689482009-12-04T13:42:59.170-08:002009-12-04T13:42:59.170-08:00I&#39;m commenting on something other than this particular post and I hope that you don&#39;t mind.<br /><br />I am of the mind that both the Big Bang and biological evolutionary theories are just that, theories, though there is empirical &quot;evidence&quot; being proferred as means of demonstrating the viability of the claim to actual knowledge beyond a mere intimation of being the actual case.<br /><br />According to your view, are you of the mind that these are still theories that in the end must be appropriated through human faith along with the empirical evidence not being able to be conclusive in its support of evolutionary theory? Or do you consider these theories as actual fact (beyond a reasonable doubt), and thus base your thesis of the Uncertain Believer on them?<br /><br />I am of the mind that as fascinating as Darwinian evolutionary theory is (and the Big Bang), it&#39;s as acceptable to believe the original Genesis account (which I believe is myth) as it is to set my faith on Darwin&#39;s theory. To me, both accounts of creation don&#39;t seem to hold a lot of water. I&#39;m not too sure how wise it is to base one&#39;s faith in God in either &quot;theory&quot; as, to my knowldge, both can&#39;t really be demonstrated as being the case apart from some amount of faith being exerted.<br /><br />When you get right down to it, isn&#39;t faith required both in the belief in God (whatever our notions of God may be) and the belief in evolutionary theory? Is it all that wise to base one&#39;s ideas on God in a theory of empirical reality that is still unproven as undeniable fact?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com