ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

11/05/2006                                                                                       View Comments

Evolution vs. Creationism: No Contest

By Alan M. Perlman, PhD

I’ve been just as surprised as any liberally-educated secular humanist by the resurgence of religious superstition and fundamentalism in my lifetime. After all, we’ve had the brilliance of Greek and Roman civilization, then the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and, most recently, the dawn of the Information Age.

After decades of painstaking research and observation, we have a theory of how things began: Big Bang (or some other equally momentous event), followed by the creation of simple, then more complex chemical elements, the solidification of planets, then just the right mix of circumstances to set up our blessed little globe for us.

It took fifteen billion years or so, and there are perhaps billions of galaxies like ours. It took us a million years to go from hominids to the Internet. It’s all quite miraculous.

And I thought that religious believers and modern, science-minded folks had reached accommodation on the question of how the universe came to be: people who continue to believe literally in the Book of Genesis could continue to do so, but in the privacy of their homes and religious institutions. They would not try to foist their beliefs off on the rest of us, who would continue to conduct public life, including education, according to the scientific truths arrived at by the difficult, honest work of human reason, investigation, and experience.

But in perilous and uncertain times, people are susceptible to the soothing but false messages of religion: it’s all part of God’s plan, whatever God wills, we’ll never know why he does things, God wants us to kill the infidels, it’s all preparation for the hereafter, and if you have any questions, all the answers are in the sacred texts – or the commentary thereon.

That must be why religious believers still command center stage, despite an appalling record of intolerance and violence, which continues to this day.

But it seems we always have perilous and uncertain times, often because of religion.

It’s a vicious circle: religious intolerance and fundamentalism breed discrimination and violence, which contribute mightily to troubled times, which drive people towards orthodoxy and fundamentalism, which in turn breed more conflict and violence.

This process doesn’t bode well for the human race, now that mass death is so easily achievable. Inflicting misery on unbelievers used to be very labor-intensive. You had to get on your horse and round up a whole bunch of other fanatics who were willing to grab their swords, get on their horses, go someplace else, and kill unbelievers. Today, 19 people with box cutters can wreak havoc.


Still, I thought we had at least reached a working accommodation on the question of how we and our world came to be.

I was wrong. Orthodoxy and fundamentalism are ever on the move. They are aggressive. They push their version of creation and Armageddon as the only acceptable versions. They cannot tolerate dissent or diversity. They are always looking for acolytes and converts. They are not prepared to share the one planet we have with anyone else.

Fifteen billion years and 50 billion galaxies are not miraculous enough for God-believers. They not only want to take the book of Genesis literally -- they want the rest of us to do it too. "Teach the controversy," they urge.

Yes, by all means, let us teach the controversy. The controversy begins with the fact that we have not one, but two ways of knowing. It is very difficult for the two to coexist. Neither one will gain universal acceptance -- not in my lifetime, at least, and perhaps never.

The real controversy is over whether the two points of view can even be compared. I don't think they can.

There are basically two ways of learning the truth: reason and faith. They have been in conflict for millennia.

Almost everything about our daily lives requires the processing of information and, oftentimes, we must act upon that information. So the questions of what we believe and how we believe, even if we don't think about them, are very important. Some people subscribe to science. Some to faith. Some try hard to reconcile the two. Others, as we’ll see, don’t even bother.

Most of us in the industrialized Western world live by science and reason. "Science" is more than computers and labs and people in white coats. It is a way of believing and knowing.

For thousands of years, beginning with the crudest tools and the mastery of fire, human beings have learned about their world and improved their lives through experimentation and experience or -- via writing and other media -- through the experience of other, reliable sources.

The other kind of knowing, faith, is belief without proof.

Things are true because we so much want them to be true, or it seems that they ought to be true, or they fit well with beliefs we already have, or the right people are recommending them to us, or – very important -- people have been repeating them for thousands of years...and perhaps for other reasons as well. Belief without proof is nothing more than belief founded upon perpetuated hearsay and accumulated say-so.

You would think that the two kinds of knowing would be incompatible -- that if you don't believe without proof, then you would not be able to take part in most organized religions. But the fact is that a great many people manage to do just that. Surgeons don't pray for instructions on how to operate on the patient; they get those from knowledge and experience. But these same surgeons may also go to church or synagogue on the Sabbath.

They may also struggle mightily to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with scientific findings (e.g., the idea that there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark). Some Modern Orthodox Jews believe that if your science doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), then something is wrong with your interpretation of the Torah.

What hogwash! If your science doesn't agree with the Torah, it's because the Torah is 2,500 years old.

There is no controversy, and no conflict, between Genesis and evolution. One is a story -- the product of a very few ancient priests who may have been writing down what had been preserved orally – while the other is supported, insofar as possible, with actual, physical, data.

Creationism, creation science, and all such attempts to provide scientific underpinning for the Scriptures are fallacious from the start, because they begin with a fully-formed story, which they then try to prove. It’s really deceptive and disingenuous to call both Genesis and evolution “theories.”

“Intelligent design” not only has all the drawbacks of creationism – it fails the simplest evidentiary tests. If I were designing a human being, I certainly wouldn’t put the windpipe and the food tube so close together, thus making it easy to choke to death. And how come we have no backup heart or liver? Aren’t they more important than ears or various other things we have two of?

The scientific process, by contrast, begins with data that point to a hypothesis, which is then confirmed or disconfirmed by further data...or it may begin with a hypothesis based on informal, anecdotal observation or the like, which is then, again, refined -- perhaps even abandoned -- on the basis of further data, knowledge, and experience.

So asking whether Genesis or evolution is true is ridiculous. In the scientific sense, only evolution is true, although many people adopt the other (the “faith”) way of believing – and some people do both.

Either they park their wits at the door when they enter a place of worship and go along with the show, or they postulate a "Cosmological God" who created the cosmos pretty much along the lines that science has outlined.

Yet what are they doing at a religious service, where the fundamental premise is that the Biblical account of creation is true (except, of course, liberal services like those of Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, where the ancient texts are spun so that they mean what they do not)?

Of course, people will continue to collect data in support of one point of view or the other. But the data must be accumulated and presented in a valid and impartial manner. Creationists have a habit of presenting only the evidence that supports their point of view. Not very scientific – or convincing.

Also, I would caution against taking the material on the Discovery or History Channels too seriously, simply because they don't have very rigorous standards of proof.

They may even be guilty of unscientific, pro-religious bias when, for example, they find a big hunk of wood in Turkey and the commentator asks, in a soft and reverent voice, "Is this a piece of Noah's Ark?" To the believer, this is solid evidence. To the scientist, it's a hunk of wood.

I have one parting shot for the creationists: the Genesis story is only one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of accounts, in ancient and modern cultures all over the world, of how things came to be. So why is this one true, while none of the others is? I know: it’s true because you believe it's true. End of discussion.

But the fact is that all religious believers think, with equal fervor and sincerity, that their creation myth is the right one, and there’s no way to decide among them, because all creation myths have the same truth value: zero. They were made up by individuals who had no idea why the world came to be the way it is, and they were just taking a shot in the dark, perhaps fueled by some hallucinogenic substance.

I try to be compassionate. I try to be empathetic. I try to understand why people who are otherwise completely rational would advance, as reality, what I know -- and what a very large a number of smart and thoughtful people know -- to be the folkloric writings of a very few ancient priestly figures, perhaps taking down what had been orally recited before there was any literacy.

And I think I do understand. There are very powerful reasons for maintaining religious belief on grounds of faith alone: group solidarity, indoctrination at an early age, tradition, a way to understand chaos and injustice (God’s plan), the fear of death, the sense that Someone is in charge, a lifetime invested in it, and others besides.

The scientific point of view is true by virtue of reason. The creationist point of view is true by reason of faith. It’s your mind. How do you choose to believe?

________________________

Alan M. Perlman is a secular humanist speaker and author -- most recently, of An Atheist Reads the Torah: Secular Humanistic Perspectives on the Five Books of Moses. For information, go to www.trafford.com/06-0056.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men. The fool says in his heart there is no GOD. Enjoy April Fools day.

D Laurier said...

Good post, Addressing the threat posed by ALL forms of religious fundamentalism.

The creationist lobby is a dangerous force of religio/political evil, it needs to be stoped befor it takes over completely.

Anonymous
"The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men. The fool says in his heart there is no GOD. Enjoy April Fools day."

This has what to do with anything??
april fools day is the other side of the calender you dolt, ITS NOVEMBER.

boomSLANG said...

One apt clarifying question is, if someone tells lies about you, does that negate you or make you a liar or a lie?

No, but if I don't exist, I'm negated no matter what they say about "me".

Considering the possibility that this universe is not by chance leaves the door open to how it arose, which leads us to seek what could have created and maintained it. Since neither religion nor science has yet adequately answered that question, it is safe to conclude that those who argue about the Creator based on either are most certainly wrong on one or more aspects. Thereby, another point of view and additional knowledge are required.(bold added without permission)

Sure, but by the looks of things, it appears you've already "answered" this question, by presupposing "the Creator" as the default position, until science aquires absolute knowledge. True?

Elder Norm said...

Wow, Lots of words. Glad you had a chance to get them out.

And for the most part, I think your right. But. Yep, I have a but. (Yea, one of those too :-) but right now I am talking about the other kind. LOL )

It seems to me that there are two sides to an arguement, My side and your side!! Religion and science, my religion and your religion. And I think that is the problem.

I see two sides at war with each other. Both trying to claim to be right. Perhaps there is another way to think of things, not so much as another "right" belief, just another way of looking at things that is closer to the way things really are.

JMHO. :-)

Elder Norm

silverseale said...

Science is not a religion. Science relies on observation of what is.

Religion relies on the unproven existence of the unseen.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men. The fool says in his heart there is no GOD. Enjoy April Fools day."

And my reply -

Mat 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Hmmm Hoisted on your own petard.

Welcome to hellfire.

Harlequin said...

@silverseale
" Science is not a religion. Science relies on observation of what is."

Actually, that is a fallacy. While ever there are humans involved in science there will be an element of veneration of 'The Truth' as it is perceived to be. There are sacred Cows, articles of faith and the bones of saints in science just as much as there is organised religion. Take a look at set theory... which is established on articles which are as unprovable as God...
One of the major problems for me is that both Religion and Science regard the universe as an artefact, not a system.

And don't get me started on medical 'science' half of the procedures we use and rely on are impossible to double blind. So, they're not 'scientifically proved'. they simply kill fewer people than not doing anything... And just because findings are in French or German or Chinese or Korean means that the research doesn't exist... talk about narrow views!

The problem is, we get seduced by our models and start mistaking the toy for the real thing. As anyone who's ever been on a hike can tell you, to mistake the map for the territory is a bad, possibly fatal, move.

Love

Grandpa

Anonymous said...

Have you ever built a tiny habitat in school, where you have to take an animal and put in the animal exactly what it needs to survive. If you put in a frog, you might also put in water, a few lily pads, some rocks for it to sit on, some sort of food like flies, etc.. When you make the habitat, you don't put in a frog egg with some dirt and plant seeds so they can grow or put in maggots so they can grow into flies. You put in a full grow frog, or maybe tadpole, with full grown plants, and actual flies, and whatever else the frog needs. That's what God did. He made a full grown man and woman, with a full grown planet of trees and animals for them to eat. He gave us exactly what we needed to live. Just because you can't fathum reality doesn't mean you can come up with a lie to think as true.

cholebear said...

Oh, please. Do not get me started with the concept of Adam and Eve. There are so many problems with that story, like if God made everyone from Adam and Eve, why were some destined to be slaves (darker skinned) than others? I mean, when you have children, do you allow one child to make a slave of the other? That's just ridiculous.

I want to thank the author for submitting his piece. I do not know why there are so many 'believers' blogging in. This is a site for recovering Christians. It's like alcoholics showing up at an AA meeting to justify that drinking irresponsibly is good for you. The same lure of escapism exists in religion as it does in the ale.

Anonymous said...

Dude! Too many Words! You can make your point in 3 paragraphs, methinks.

Neither Science nor Religion has adequate answers at this time. The religious dogma is beyond reason and is, therefore, hopeless. Way too many holes in Darwin at the moment, but Science will keep looking for the truth assuming we don't blow ourselves up fighting "religious wars"! Energy Independence should be a National Priority and could mightily help with this.

I trust we will eventually find the answers to these and other great questions. It’s a lot of fun trying! I only hope that we will remain free to pursue them!

I very much like Valerie Tarico's summation (The Dark Side of Faith): "If God is Love and Truth, then in truth and love, we will find Him. Whether we are His creation or He is ours, does not change the nature of the quest!

Lighten Up Ex-Christians!
Scientists Unite!
Let Reason Reign!
Very Good Site!

boomSLANG said...

In response to Anonymous Christian 10:33 AM:

If you are an intelligent human being, and you were "designing" a habitat specifically for a "frog"---an amphibian---yes, you would put in about equal parts water and dry "land".

Question: Since the implication is that the Earth and 125 billion gallaxies were specifically "designed" for Adam and Eve and their trillions of "great grandchildren"; and since the Earth is 2/3rds water---most of which is not even potable---then it begs the question: Why didn't our "intelligent designer" give us gills, webbed feet, and lily pads buoyant enough to support a 200 lb grown man?

My apologies in advance if that came across as "condescending". I think it's an honest question, however.

(How'm I doin' Steven?... Good?)

King Spirula said...

"can't fathum reality"

For some reason, I feel compelled to point out that this comment strengthens my belief that I have FATHOMED reality quite well.

"too many holes in Darwin"

I agree. He's been dead for over 100 years. Holes probably define him.

Now as for the Theory of Evolution, the data continue to confirm and broaden it. The following is exactly what The Theory of Evolution would predict but "Creation Science" cannot.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031120074728.htm

Leonard said...

Hey, anonymous, why don´t you use an actual name? That might help your credibility along a little.

Anonymous people are almost always cowards. I mean, fuck, this is the internet. What do you think we´ll too - teepee your house? Put a banana in your exhaust pipe?

Incidentally, your points were just pathetic. I mean really. Really pathetic.

jfraysse said...

Operator Error - Sorry! I don't know why my post showed up Anonymous!?

So let's start again..

Howdy, I'm jfraysse as in John Fraysse.

My post starts out: "Dude! Too Many Words!"

Cheers! Later...

Leonard said...

Jfraysse: That´s fixed, but I did not mean you. :)
Your comment is neither pathetic nor cowardous, even if I do not agree with your Darwin remark.

jfraysse said...

Hey Leonard!

What I meant by "Holes in Darwin", not withstanding King Spirula's astute observation (LOL!), is that the evolution principle is, itself, evolving and simply doesn't (yet) explain some things about the tremendous diversity and richness of life on earth – plant and animal. I trust we will discover a more refined understanding as time passes, things like DNA technology - fascinating! Incredible scientific advances, almost monthly!

We should always remain open to new thoughts and technologies, if we are truly looking for the right answers, not just a simple defense of our own beliefs. We must have the “courage to be wrong” or at least admit that it is a possibility. It is refreshing to hearing the phrase "we just don't know" from time to time, otherwise, some of us sound a bit like those Dogmatic Fundamentalists that many here rail against on a regular basis. As a physicist and Engineer, I don't like sounding like that – we must be cautious!

Perhaps you have some "required" reading/surfing for me?

BTW: It would be fun to see you try to TP my house – it’s on a hill and has 4 levels.

Later, Mon!

Dano said...

When you think about it everything going on today like Muslims blowing themselves up, and killing Christians every chance they get is nothing more or less than "Natural selection" at work. Stupid gullible people killing them selves and other stupid gullible people who believe in a different version of their illogical pagan mythological concepts.

Those who are smart enough to separate themselves from all the religious nonsense will survive, and those who don't have enough intelligence to reject the ridiculous heaven, hell, devil, human sacrifice, shit will go to that great imaginary place in the sky, and thus take themselves out of the "reproduction" competition.
Dano "Non believer of anything mystical, magical, or impossible)

Dr X said...

The meaning of narrative is always an interpretation of meaning, whether the interpreter recognizes it as such or not. There simply is no such thing as unitary meaning to narrative. The belief in a unitary meaning is the fundamentalist’s fallacy, whether the fundamentalist is discussing biblical exegesis or the so-called “strict constructionist” approach to the constitution.

Interpretation relies, in part, upon context. Words are not reality itself. Rather, they are symbolic representations of reality. Moreover, even as symbolic representations, words and language are not analog mappings of reality. The meanings of words, sentences and narratives are extremely fluid, multi-layered dynamic and, most of all, context dependent.

In the simplest case of a single word, for example, we can examine the word 'open,' the meaning of which can change as the context is altered. If the word ‘open’ appears on a sign in the front door of a shop, it usually means that the shop is opened for business. If, instead, it appears on a button in an elevator, it is usually understood to mean 'push this button to open the elevator doors.'

Even when fundamentalists speak of strict constructionist approaches to narratives or texts, whether biblical or constitutional, they rely upon context for interpretation, whether or not they acknowledge that this is exactly what they are doing. For example, when the strict constructionist argues for a particular view of the constitution, they will often hearken back to the ‘intentions of the founders.’ In essence, they say that the intentions of the founders are the context for interpreting the words of the constitution. But because they fail to fully appreciate that they are engaged interpretation base upon context, they assume there is something very primary and concretely real and self-evident about their particular notions of the ‘correct’ context for their interpretations of text.

Thus, they treat the intentions of the founders as if there was one single intention shared by all of the founders that yielded up a particular part of the text that was approved by the founders. There is no notion of disagreement among the founders, of different beliefs that may have made a particular part of the text agreeable to one founder versus another. There is no notion that the founders were engaged in a process that entailed compromises or that beliefs changed over the period of time that the constitution was developed and ratified as a compromise agreement.

While I can no more get directly into the minds or intentions of those many individuals who created and transmitted the Genesis narrative over the course of many generations, what I find remarkable is that if we take the scientific evidence itself and the theory of evolution as a context for interpreting the Genesis accounts of creation, keeping in mind that the Genesis narratives emerged from primitive story tellers who had no ‘science,’ the Genesis stories are striking for their representation of a creation that can be seen as an evolving and unfolding of creation.

I have posted more extensively on this at:

http://tinyurl.com/ybl6nz

(This is an entirely non-commercial link to a non-commercial blog)

boomSLANG said...

...what I find remarkable is that if we take the scientific evidence itself and the theory of evolution as a context for interpreting the Genesis accounts of creation, keeping in mind that the Genesis narratives emerged from primitive story tellers who had no ‘science,’ the Genesis stories are striking for their representation of a creation that can be seen as an evolving and unfolding of creation. (Emphasis added)

I respectfully disagree. Either, A) the biblical account of Genesis was so-so, considering it came from the minds of uneducated "primative story tellers"...or B), the biblical account of Genesis is a joke, considering an omniscent, omnipotent, and perfect being had every opportunity AND all the wherewithal to "inspired" perfectly, via some "primative story tellers", a perfect and accurate "Truth".

It's hardly objective to one minute sit there and reference one book or verse of the bible against the fact that they were merely "primative story tellers", and thus, it shouldn't be expected to coincide with modern science or reality....and then the next minute, reference another book or verse of the bible saying "hey, there's wisdom in that, therefore absolutely True, because the bible is the inspired word of God".

Which is it?

Dano said...

I think it is fairly obvious that all of the archeological evidence and scientific findings collected over the last 100 years or so showing the evolution of Homo Sapiens man is a hoax, because the bible states clearly that the very same God who loves us and protects us today, created man about 5,000 years ago out of dirt.

The very same God who has been busy punishing humans for not believing that he impregnated a mortal woman, one of his children, so he could have a half human son that he could arrange to have sacrificed to himself, in order that he could forgive us for our sinful nature that he mistakenly instilled into us.

As soon as he decides what he is going to do about the several genocide's going on right now, he is going to give some thought to the billions of prayer requests that have come in, asking for relief from horrible diseases and heinous injustices taking place all over, this one and only place where his children reside.

Our heavenly father disclosed this information to me in a dream, and I am taking MONETARY donations, that I will apply to certain endeavors that will strengthen me, and enable me to receive further disclosures from the omniscient, omnipotent one himself!
Dano (The chosen one)

Jesse said...

The original thread seems to be a bit lost in all the comments. Creation and Evolution, I subscribe to both. Can't deny evolution, you have to be biased to a literal reading of the creation story in order to so, in which case your science is screwy. The creation story wasn't meant to be taken literally or metaphorically, it is just a story. A story describing a real relationship between God and his creation. Why does the story have to be literal to be meaningful? It doesn't.

Anonymous said...

I will not judge you for not receiving the gift of recieving Christ.But listen and embed this in your heart..God will judge you. Just remember that you have been told.

boomSLANG said...

Anonymous 9:37 PM, embed this in your memory bank: The threats and scare tactics used by you and your anonymous ilk, mean jack-shit around here.' Got it? There's no evidence for the existance of your Jesus, your Satan, your heaven, or your hell. You are making these threats, not because you are lovingly concerned for complete stranger's "souls", but because you are shaken by the fact that people exist who don't buy into your "I get to live forever" myth, thinking that if you threaten us and we go back, it will make your belief more of a reality. Wrong.

See ya in dark, cold ground.

God 'less.

imaginary sky daddy said...

boomSLANG wrote:

Anonymous 9:37 PM, embed this in your memory bank: The threats and scare tactics used by you and your anonymous ilk, mean jack-shit around here.' Got it? There's no evidence for the existance of your Jesus, your Satan, your heaven, or your hell. You are making these threats, not because you are lovingly concerned for complete stranger's "souls", but because you are shaken by the fact that people exist who don't buy into your "I get to live forever" myth, thinking that if you threaten us and we go back, it will make your belief more of a reality. Wrong.

See ya in dark, cold ground.

God 'less.
***********************************

BRAVO!!

LMAO

Its Me said...

I keep on hearing science against religion well to any evolutionist out there got news for you, it is religion against religion there is no proof for evolution so you have to have faith that it happened, on the other hand creationism is another religion, all creationist are willing to admit that so the only diferance between creation and evolution is evolution is TAX supported.

Its Me said...

Jesse said,

The original thread seems to be a bit lost in all the comments. Creation and Evolution, I subscribe to both. Can't deny evolution, you have to be biased to a literal reading of the creation story in order to so, in which case your science is screwy. The creation story wasn't meant to be taken literally or metaphorically, it is just a story. A story describing a real relationship between God and his creation. Why does the story have to be literal to be meaningful? It doesn't.



Its ME : YES it does need to be taken litteraly the bible is all
God breathed. Why would God tell us this is how it happened if it wasn't?

Jim Arvo said...

Hi there "Its Me",

We hear the claim that evolution is a religion all the time. Let me attempt to disabuse you of that notion. First, while you correctly point out that there is no (absolute) "proof" of evolution, you neglected to mention several relevant facts:

1) There is no absolute "proof" of any theory. Even atomic theory and the theory of digestion may ultimately prove incorrect in the light of new evidence. However, many theories have withstood falsification and made many verifiable predictions, thereby attaining a status of "fact" in any practical sense.

2) There is an enormous amount of evidence that supports the theory of evolution from many independent scientific disciplines, such as paleontology, comparative anatomy, population genetics, and molecular biology. It makes thousands of falsifiable predictions, such as the presence of pseudo-genes that played a vital role for distant ancestors but not for the animal in its current form. (Example: dolphin DNA contains hundreds of pseudo-genes that code for olfactory receptors, which are currently useless to the animal and are "turned off".)

3) A scientific theory, such as evolution, does not demand or require adherence from anyone; it stands on the strength of its evidence alone, which may be inspected by anyone with the inclination to do so. Any scientist who found a better theory (i.e. one that made better predictions) would be lauded for such a discovery.

4) If solid evidence were to one day surface that cast extreme doubt on the theory of evolution, such as finding the skeleton of a mammal in the Cambrian strata, or discovering an animal that is not based on DNA, then the theory would lose its status as a "fact". Nobody wants to cling to a theory that does not fit the facts (at least, not for very long).

5) No idea or person is worshiped within the scientific community. While there are many "pet" ideas, and many historical figures who are venerated, nothing is held to be more important than accord with observable facts. Evidence reigns supreme in science; not authority, not tradition, not emotion, not wishful thinking--just evidence that is open to inspection.

I think that when you take these factors into consideration, you will see that there is an enormous difference between a religious conviction and a scientific theory. Theories get tossed out as soon as they are seen to be erroneous; religions, on the other hand, bifurcate into multiple sects, each of which denigrates the other, if they even acknowledge the existence of other points of view.

Jim Arvo said...

Its Me said "YES it [the creation story of Genesis] does need to be taken litteraly the bible is all God breathed...."

You are missing the point by simply asserting that the Bible is "god breathed". If that were universally accepted, then there would be little point in arguing. By starting with that assumption, you grant yourself the one of the most fantastic premises imaginable. And what, may I ask, is it based on?