All belief is preference, mostly unseen. Some prefer to believe in Allah, others in a Christian God, even Buddhism and Hinduism have different divisions of belief within them. Any scientist that takes a theory as gospel is not a very good scientist; he or she well knows that it's only the best explanation that can be given at any particular moment in time, and that knowledge about any phenomena is never complete.

All authentic religions point to a perception beyond the mundane, and inner intuition that has absolutely nothing to do with belief. In fact, they say that belief (which forms the core of ego) is what prevents one from perceiving the wholeness of being. Ordinary religion, on the other hand, tries to sell God as prepackaged idea or image which must be believed in.

Evolution is only a theory, like gravity. How do we know people didn't really float through the air in the time of Abraham? The Bible is always right, especially when it contracts itself.

"Evolution" is still just a theory. You dont see Buddhists debating evolution because it is irrelevant to their religious beliefs and daily life.

People spin it any way they like.
Some use it to suggest humans are part of nature--others use it to say humans are superior to nature.
Just like the Bible.

We will never know 100 percent for sure where we came from-and at the end of the day it is completely irrelevant.

Secularism is classified as a religious system in philosophy of religion courses.

There is much to be distressed over within this article. I have found it increasingly intrenched the notion that creationism is a logical counterpoint to evolution. The whole rush to take sides within an artificial and woundingly dualistic argument is in itself not logical nor borne by the facts nor speak to the deep needs that people are attempting to fill or protect with these arguments. It is all so distressing.

One of the issues that is sidestepped is Meaning. What is the meaning of life. With an external God and the mythos of the particular, current, creed of the current creationist (they too change, evolve, go with the flow) with an external bestowing of meaning then any injustice, any moral challenge can be avoided. "Let God sort them out" is not just a deeply sarcastic bumpersticker it is representative of a pervasive thought track, funnel, pattern habituated to seem normal, even if you disagree. I find it dismaying that these believers, if confronted with undeniable proof, that their current version of an image of who Christ was, or what the geophysical facts are, which are dismissed with a "placed here to tempt you away from the truth (as our group currently interprets it) of the Bible." Placed by God To see if you'll love him anyways? Woo. That these people would then find life insufferable, meaningless, without bounds on their conduct is scary. That they would lose it is nearly a given.

I never feel much comfort in the sanity or safety in those that would not do a crime simply because they might get caught. The same is true of those types of believers that only behave morally when they think that their God will punish them. This is especially true with the additional belief in their own specialness, choseness. Then all sorts of atrocities can be committed, overlooked and even expected. Convenient.

And the secular knee jerk reactionist do all the above just about the same. The same outcome: exoneration from congruent moral conduct. Ideas (Idols?) that allow for the normalizing of poverty, restrictions of world resources and the entrenched entitlement of conspicuous consumption for the few, the chosen, are kin with the current creationist's ideas (Idols?) of original sin (we're only human) armageddon (there's too many people on the planet) and dehumanizing exclusion ("they are living proof that not all living things have evolved. They've not.")

A healthy culture, as a healthy person must learn to trust perceptions, facts. Must learn how to increase perceptual acuity, memory. Must learn to learn. And that includes integration of understanding of the limits of perception, of investigation, of logic. Our individual language and our collective languages need to have the flexibility to guide this exploration of life, reality and yes the concept of creation is also valid, helpful in what it describes and what it doesn't.

Maybe dualism is a very limiting idea (Idol?) when not integrated with more.

Goodbye, America! Burn people at the stake. Draw and quarter. Crush heads in a metal stamping machine. Put a glass catheter up that man's penis, then smash it with a hammer. We shall have to beat and pound the sin out of these apostates, these heretics. If that doesn't work . . . why, we'll kill 'em all. Then we will return to our houses and tell our wide eyed, open mouth children that the horses of New Mexico have silver wings and the squirrels in Golden Gate Park speak in tongues. You're finished, America, and don't even know it. Dead man walking.

And Bush wonders why the rest of the world looks at America with a jaundiced eye...

I have no doubt that the Whitehouse Wahabi and his televangelist cohorts will be delighted to affirm that 'our chilluns is lernin'. How to hate, how to fear, how to kill.

*sigh*

Christianity... the world's longest running, most successful death cult...

C'mon! Everyone knows that the earth was created 6000 years ago and that Adam and Eve lived with dinosaurs. At least, any educated person from Cobb County, Georgia knows that.

Sure some eggheads might point to geological formations or carbon dating or any old thing they pulled out of the ground, but doesn't your gut just tell you the Earth is 6000 years old? When was the last time your brain was right? Ya, I thought so. Go with your gut.

Thanks to Steven Colbert for bringing us closer to the Rapture. Hopefully, he can be exported to Europe as well.

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." Benjamin Franklin, American statesman, scientist, philosopher, printer, writer and inventor (1706-1790).

Evolution is "just a theory", granted, however one could surmise that it's very plausible when comparing the Homosapien, or any other life form, to the astonishingly fast changing transformation ("evolution") that bacterium go through in just a few generations. It's the main reason new and stronger antibiotics are having to be constantly developed -- they evolve so quickly, so as to be able to survive, that it's always a constant guessing game as to where they're going to go, genome-speaking, next. The little "buggers" are in warp-drive when it comes to evolution at a micro-level. Now, making the same assumption about other "creatures of God", you have...

...Evolution.

Totally bizare story. Thought the issue was settled back when my grandfather (an anglican priest) argued that science told us how the earth was created, the bible told us why...

Mind you, I think the bible is only fit for emergency toilet paper these days.

An excellent book is "The Year of Living Biblically", whose author followed EVERY rule in the Bible, Old Testament and New, for a year.

Sheesh...

The theory of evolution itself continues to "evolve" with each new scientific discovery. Reliance on Darwin's work alone means reliance on assumption that certain "missing links" WILL be found and documented someday and we're in the meantime to take it on "faith" in extrapolation that such links exist.

School children would be best served in America and everywhere else to be told exactly what is known, and exactly what is not. I remember someone in the Kansas school science debate a few years ago objecting to this, saying, but that would "confuse" the kids. Yes, and being told the truth and left to wonder about what we don't know is exactly what produces thinking teenagers as they grow up. It's good to know, for instance, that the Bible version of creation is short and scanty on details, and that the science version is voluminous, yet still scanty on some details.

The notion of showing kids DRAWINGS of a presumed series of apes progressing gradually upright in the old textbooks of 40 years ago was as fraudulent then as we find it laughable now on the TV ads for the new series, Cavemen. Telling them the Bible account is all they need to know isn't right either.

Kids always deserve the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth. That's the WHOLE duty of adults.

As I dont believe in the theory of electricity, I find this entire website blasphemous.

Eveyone knows that the internet is just a series of tubes that angels fly though carrying emails on their backs.

I have seen more evidence for evolution than for the existance of a mythical Christian god.

How many posters here know that the divinity of Jesus was decided by a vote?

Christainlty itself 'evolved', from a minor Jewish mystery cult, to being persecuted by the Romans for heresy, to being the state religon of Rome, to the 'great' Catholic Church, which then splintered into the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist... you get the idea.

So for an 'evolved' entity to deny evolution...well, I just think it's a grand irony.

"Religion is for the weak-minded"

Governor Jesse Ventura

The attack on Darwinian evolution is a direct result of the rapid degeneration of the standard of living of the American people. In a rapidly changing, frightening and dangerous world, people are looking for a way out of this mess. There are two paths. One leads to working class democracy, change and freedom, the other to fascist repression. The anti-evolution movement supports the second path and attacks the first by accusing science in general and Darwinian evolutionary theory in particular, of being amoral, anti-religious and anti-God. They would have our children be taught that the world came about due to God's "intelligent design" and that the plant closings, low wages, decreasing health care and increasing poverty are "God's will" as well, which must be endured.

"The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture is not attacking science or the scientific method. It is challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism."

Why scientific materialism? Materialism tells us, "an objective reality exists apart from our consciousness." From this it follows that the society in which we live is determined by defined and understandable relationships between how goods are produced and distributed and who owns the means to produce and distribute these goods. In this context, scientific materialism is a method by which we can not only understand the world, but also change it.

This movement against Darwinian evolution is part of the movement toward fascism as a way to maintain the status quo.

Darwinian captialists versus Darwinian evolutionists.

*sigh*

Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

Many excellent and interesting points raised here, and many superficial and poorly thought out points. To creationists, I would say, "Bad theology will not produce good science."

The author of Genesis was certainly aware that he was not there on the first day of creation, as the story inherently implies, so we can safely assume that he was teaching an entirely different lesson then that the world was created in seven days. He was saying in metaphor that Empires that violated the world's boundaries were in direct conflict with God's intention for the world, since the truly powerful God conquered chaos, not with a sword, but with a word. This God divided the land from the sea, the earth from the sky, created humans in the Gods' own image and charged them to be protectors of the land. (To have "dominion" is a word misunderstood by our culture.) Then after seven days, they rest to contemplate God and goodness, but also to mark themselves (Jews) as different from other nations who do not celebrate Sabbath. Those who insist that the Bible must be factually correct destroy the deep and beautiful truth that is in the Bible and fail to find the guidance that is intended there for them.

Pastor: I am sure you are aware that the Bible is a badly and deliberately mistranslated collection of Near Middle Eastern myth and oral history...

Science deals with observable and verifiable facts, while religion demands belief and ignores fact. They are not really rivals intellectually; the Church is concerned about becoming irrelevant in an increasingly educated world. It's a power struggle.

So the Americanization of post-Soviet Eastern Europe is still having bad effects. You'd think that after seeing US-imposed policies impoverish and kill millions there and after watching US missionaries aggressively make capitalist fools of themselves, they'd've learned to reject cockamamie ideas like biblical literacy and being anti-evolution. Hopefully, they'll get over it.

How can anyone take biblical literalists seriously? The Bible was written by people, translated by people, rewritten by people, edited by people, bowdlerized by people, selectively quoted by people, and there are still those who think it's sacred?

Deang: P.T. Barnum said it best - 'There's a sucker born every minute.'

ezefyler: I'll call your governor and raise you a physicist.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein.

neomunk, very few know that Albert then turned and muttered "and I knows how my bread gets buttered"

It is hard to imagine how any reading of the bible can make the reader not think what a nasty bunch of sadistic haters and mentally retarded bunch the authors were.Obviously,any bible reading class is very selective in its choice of narrative.The Old Testament God is mostly cast as a vengeful God,which means,really,a bitter,twisted and vengeful author.That creationists wish to hang on to these ideas speaks monuments about their mentality and sanity.

Those creationists keep it up and we're going to evolve into two separate species.

One of the comments made a start by claiming that a dualistic argument is at odds with reality. Thank you.

However, they should have gone on and stated firmly that the reality is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for everything that happened and everything that will happen. With his invisible spaghetti tendrils attached to every molecule in the universe, he controls the fate of everyone and everything. He uses angel capelli to attach to the small things, regular spaghetti to attach to larger things like cells, and noodles to attach to big things like Limbaugh's butt. There are even pictures of the Spaghetti Monster taken by the Hubble telescope, so there! And for those poor souls fated to destruction for denying his existence, the FSM really doesn't care.

Does God have a sense of humor?

Remember, He made YOU in his image.;-)

excuse me while i go puke

ezeflyer and neomonk: Thank you for bringing sanity to this discussion. Wonderful comments!

This is NOT about right and wrong. In the end, this is all about the separation of church and state. Leave religeous teaching to the church of your choice. Leave the teaching of science to the schools of your choice. There is WAY too much to learn in both areas to mix them up.

Science and religion are all evolving, learning, and subject to interpretation. It's a little like the old story of the three blind men trying to describe and elephant. One has his hands on a leg. Another the trunk. And the last is holding the tail. They all faithfully describe the elephant from their perspective. None is wrong, but none can describe the whole animal. I guess my point is, don't ram your blind vision of the elephant down my throat! All I know is that when anyone tells me they have the one and only anwser to the exclusion of all others, I'm outta there PRONTO! I'm not going to even get into a discussion of the marits of their "anwser".

And that's all I have to say about that.......

William Tyndale translated the Bible into English.
For doing that he was jailed, tortured, strangled and burnt at the stake. His corpse was quartered.

So is anybody who reads the Bible in English also guilty of heresy and treason?

Or has the mentality evolved?

and/or where's chris rock when you need him? to paraphrase him, 'what ever happened to crazy?... when i was a kid, the crazy kids were kept separate and had their own bus. they left school early just so they wouldn't come in contact with any of the other kids.'

he wasn't talking about creationists but if the shoe fits...

how is it that such incomprehensible stupidity gets a pulpit? if someone is going to turn the lesson planning over to the kids, do they pick the stupidest kid they can find to make the lessons?

well, if the vast majority of our elected officials are any indication, apparently we do.

the world is fast approaching the point where all points are moot.

There seems to be many posters` here that are much more taken with evolution than creationism. It is true that much of science and evolution can be proved at least in part, but as someone said, it may not be such a bad idea to live as if the Bible is also credible, just in case it really is! Rather than constantly argue and divide about them, better to give each philosophy a little thought instead of ridicule.

galen spoke of the Bible as an oral translation. It is, as well as Ahadith, this is an oral translation as well. By saying Jesus, whomever it was that said this, galen again, was a mythical figure whose existance was decided by a Roman vote. Then you are saying that Islam is wrong, as well, Jesus, in the Qur'an is considered God's most beloved and important prophets and the Messiah. One of Five messengers and one of the fivr resolute prophets. Muhammad believed him to be the virgin birth of Mary, lived a peaceful and honest life.
Of course, the Bible went through translations, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and so forth. Who knows what is true or what is not.
I do believe creationism belongs in a house of faith not in schools. Darwinism should be taught but not as an absolute. I got nuthin'.

Science is taught by discussing multiple theories. Karl Popper, probably the best philosopher of science of the 20th century, suggested that in order for a statement to be scientific, it must be falsifiable.

Creationism is a bootstrapped system which does not allow for even theoretical falsification. So if schools are to teach Creationism, they should teach it in a mythology course, and cover hundreds of other great creation stories as well. Native American, Native European, Asian, African, Aboriginal, wiccan/pagan, etc.

Kernel (10/20 9:56p),

Thanks for suggesting we resort to thought instead of ridicule. That's always a good idea.

Personally, I hope they stop teaching all forms of mathematics and science in school altogether. For one who is scientifically trained, the job market is way to tough with the flood of doctorates currently.

A creationists America will see my skills at a premium when they intolerantly religious need anything done.

Paul Bramscher, I agree. The empirical verifier is what separates science from all other intellectual disciplines. There is much art, passion, creativity, and emotional content walking the path of science, but none of these are what determines the success of a proposition. How many beautiful and clever theories have gone by the wayside simply because they had the unfortunate quality of being empirically invalid? Heck, a scientific theory doesn't even need to make sense, but if it passes the empirical verifier, it then determines what must make sense(If Feynman didn't understand quantum mechanics, is understanding really necessary?).

Kernal,

"It is true that much of science and evolution can be proved at least in part, but as someone said, it may not be such a bad idea to live as if the Bible is also credible, just in case it really is!"

Which Bible? Do you mean the one different than the other ones?
To choose one to live as if it were credible is to run afoul of the other ones, and thereby, not really hedge that safety bet, you incorrigible gambler you.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."

Napolion

Creationism will reverse the progress of society intelligence and development BACKWARD by 500 years into another Dark Ages.

More to the point, it's a case of "Watch this space". The Council of Europe is as maleable as any other authority. These votes may well come again, and again until at last the required result is achieved. Humans have such a talent for conflict it amazes me that Armaggedon has eluded us for so long. We certainly deserve some drastic culling. Loving thy neighbour is so uncomfortable nowadays, and its not just the Germans getting their deck chairs and towels on the beach first either.
Born in the U.S.A. the seeds are blown across Europe, and they have found nurture and propogation in many corners.
The count may be 2-1 this time, but the likelyhood is that when the pendelum does swing,( and we have seen a mighty lot of pendulum pushing over the last decade in the U.S.) the Council of Europe will be replaced!
Freedom of speech is fundamental to lovers of Liberty. We need to avoid having to make the choice between Creationism and Evolution. A choice is not essential and can achieve no lasting justice. When choosing is finally enumerated to the satisfaction of one side, the freedom to discuss and theorise may well be stolen away.
Be watchful, as well as tolerant.

On the other hand, if Creationists are so sure of ultimate Armaggedon, we should do our best to let them have it. Send them to their maker as soon as possible!!! We might then get to start cleaning up the planet.

DD,

"Thanks for suggesting we resort to thought instead of ridicule. That's always a good idea."

OK, let's turn to thought.

To begin with, "THE" Bible is not a singular entity, but an artificially yoked collection of texts; one can only consider those texts a unity from the standpoint of the faiths that claim they are a unity. The majority of the descendents of the first 39 (or 46, in the traditional Church canon) 'books' have never agreed that the 27 books authored by those who believed that the Deliverer had come represent an authentic continuity. The multitude of commentaries, both on the Hebrew scriptures alone and on the Hebrew-and-Christ scriptures together, exist because they have to be rendered credible, they have to be rendered INTELLIGIBLE, only through the perpetual operation of rabbis & theologians. ONe could coin the word "pluri-credible" since so many separate schools, none of whicih can demonstrate that the others are wrong, emerge. We see that they always wind up in battle, exactly because the only way to eliminate rival interpretations is through exterminating those who hold the differing interpretation.

Comparing religion to science or suggesting that they have equal credibility is like putting gang fights on the same level as surgical procedures because knives are used to cut into bodies in both cases.

I'm glad Paul Bramscher finally injected some common sense into this discussion. I've felt for years that there should be a course taught in every school in this country concerning the history of thought. Wouldn't even have to write new textbooks as many fine tomes already exist. The religionists would get what they want, the airing of their religious beliefs in public school, and those concerned (correctly) with the danger to the integrity and independence of scientific inquiry would get what they want, religion out of the science classroom.

"Where are the miracles and revelations of old that attended the fortunes of the prophets and saviors? Ancient accounts of miraculous deeds and divinely inspired revelations owe as much to the inscrutability of the distant past as they do to centuries of reinforcing tradition. I sincerely acknowledge the genius of the great religious founders, but I will not concede that their ideas were the result of divinely intervened gifts of revelation or that any one of them were other than you and I – human. As I have already said, this thought gives me great comfort and hope."

Justaman

The bible was never meant to be a scientific treatise on creation. In the beginning there was a "word" (probably mistranslated), a vibration...It may well be that creation is guided by an "invisible intelligence," but not Sky daddy Zeus, Alla, or Yahweh; these were attributes given to a God fashioned by belief, which ascribed to God the attributes man found within himself. For some reason mankind chose to value belief over present moment perception, and it begot all the divisions we see today: religious, political, economic, cultural, etc. The vast majority worship belief, and fight over specific beliefs and ideologies which differ from each other. However, perception of reality in the present moment never involves conflict, only understanding. It is also why science, in many cases (or anything factual), has become the enemy of religion (and other kinds of preferential belief systems)--scientific discovery often contradicts deeply ingrained beliefs--religious, political, or otherwise.

Yes! We all know that evolution is just a theory! But, how many of these people know there is nothing in the Bible that has been proven either????? It is strictly a theory too that was handed down through the Jews for centuries before Christianity ever came along to turn it into another religion! In order to believe in the God of the Bible you have to have faith! You have to take these peoples word that this is all the unvarnished truth. That somewhere along the line some ingenious charlatan like Bush didn't contaminate the text by adding a lot to it. Underlying faith is the basis of all religions. It is not proven and never has been. Why do they think there are those who spend their days and nights trying to prove everything in the Bible actually took place in the Middle East. I don't deny some of it might have in one form or another. But, I personally do not believe much that comes out of the Bible. I think most of it came from myths and legends like everything else has. It was written by man for man. Because a lot of men have a need to believe in some superior being that is personally looking out for them. And man has been adding to it for centuries. Putting his own spin on the original text. I am not saying there isn't a superior being who created everything. I just don't believe anything that comes out of the Bible. I think it was so adulterated years ago it probably doesn't contain much of the original text in it.

To atheists who think the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is the wittiest argument ever to be thrown out in theological debate: give it up. It persuades no one, it is not analguous to the situation you intend to mock, and it makes you look like an idiot. The only people who are impressed are other atheists, and you've already converted them.

I have to add a comment: every single time I see Creationism brought up, there are always a buttload of militant atheists who must take the opportunity not to just challenge Creationism, as would be proper, but to attack religion on the whole. Extremely poor battle tactics. You only alienate people who would be allies and push the fundamentalists you want to refute so that they cannot agree about Creationism without also agreeing to other beliefs which are not science-based. Creationism is NOT an opportunity for you to proseltyze atheism. It IS a time to discuss Bible-literalism which I think atheists are ill-equipped to do, since they find it impossible not to be belligerent and insulting when they try. If you must attempt to convert people to atheism at any moment the word "religion" comes up, then leave the evolution debates alone -- your obnoxious attitude and fanatic beliefs only make more trouble.

Opinionated__ Your ideas on people`s attitudes were right on. Atheism or Religion are not either one wrong or bad in themselves, it is when radicals of either one get carried away and then do more damage to their cause than good. God gave people freedom to choose what they wanted to believe, thank goodness we are not born as robots. There are many people that are not sure what they believe in, and insulting comments from either group are not productive.

There is a God or there isn't. What's religion got to do with it?

............at the Whitehouse breakfast table:
..noise -- snap,crackle,pop!

George - "Listen Laura, God's talking to me again. He says go to Iraq and murder a bunch
of children today!"

Laura - "Why don't you send Petraeus to do it instead; you know how excited you get you when you go yourself."