Majority of Americans Reject Secular Evolution (Gallup Poll, Sep. 2005)

BP News (Baptist Press) ^ | October 19, 2005 | Michael Foust

[ml1954]

It is a mistake to assume that Christians who misunderstand the science and desperately want the bible to be literally true are trolls.

They have often been told from birth (or from conversion) that the battle must be fought or Christianity is threatened. Belittling them doesn't help. They need to see that science is open minded and that God is not threatened by anything man might learn or explore.

Good luck. Flip your statements and you'll find that they are saying the same thing about you, with one additional statement. The fanatical ones will say you will be condemned to eternal damnation if you don't come around.

I have been condemned many times in just the past few months or so. I've stopped arguing with them unless I'm really in the mood for it and have a lot of time on my hands.

[PatrickHenry]

Excellent. It doesn't quite fit into The List-O-Links, but it's a keeper.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...but nothing you've written in your rant about homosexuals has anything whatsoever to do with the current discussion.

Human biology, religion and reproduction of the species has nothing to do with evolution?

You are really STUPID...

[American in Israel]

I just can't see telling students that "if it can't be explained, it must have been divine intervention."

I can't see why that would even be an issue. The issue is scientific evidence of ID being taught, or -gasp- young earth theory based on the myriads of evidence. The problem here is that evolution is a faith system that takes far more faith than ID, and its followers are far more rabid about it.

Or have you not noticed the dog pack?

While the explanation of how beetles could have adapted stomach parts to create a cannon is very well done, you have to admit that the odds of it are astronomical. The basis of any experiment often comes down to the odds, but to swallow unlimited amounts of long odds things to try and explain away design is illogical. Unless of course you figure in religion. I find it funny, but the thing they most hate is what they practice.

Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples.

That is just the problem here, to have such irreducible complexity, it has to be so gradual that the time scale of the earth has to be stretched to billions of years just to fit in the possibility. But the system is not as easy as this. This irreducible complexity is not a singular event, which could be perhaps explained by evening the odds with limitless time, but it is an event that has to happen for every single bug, flower, tree, bird, fish and not only that, but every single part of every single bug, and every single chemical balance and enzyme reaction. When all the billions of interrelated parts come into the picture it mathematically wipes out the ability to cover the long odds with increased time, now we have to cover literaly trillons of combinations, with only billions of years. You need a thousand benificial mutations every year, ones that are almost mathematically impossible to occur.

While I think, like you it is stupid to say, "we don't understand so it must be God" I also think it is just as ludicrous to say "we don't understand so it must be Evolution".

Perhaps in Darwins day it was ok to come up with this, but at todays level of scientific understanding, it is unforgivable. Knowing that genetic modifications prove to be deleterious to the subject, then the concept of evolution should have produced far more extinct species as bugs discovered dead ends that are harmful. But we figure any bad choices end only the bug itself. Genetic disease is just now becoming understood, so that a TINY modification of a gene that is passed through the family tree causes radical diseases like Parkinson's generations later, but seeds the DNA error, unknown for generations also. Yet generational DNA diseases are very rare. If evolution was in effect, these diseases would be rampant throughout the population. But they are not.

Look at it this way, We know by experimentation and DNA research that mutation's are inherently negative. We only suppose that they can be helpful, as we have not yet been able to create one that isn't. So to be generous set the odds at a million to one. In the known population of the United States there has not been a single positive mutation in the last 100 years, truly a spot in time if the world is a few billon years old. But in that hundred years it has not happened. But just using the ratio of a million to one, hoping that next year is the year, 1 million Americans are going to die of errors for the chance of one? And the genetic error rate would spread, because the errors would be passed down to the next generation. Within a few thousand years, the accumulated DNA errors would wipe out human kind.

The problem is not just the blind approach of DNA mutation, but DESIGN. The wishbone of a bird! The eye, a frog, from pond to land, a mosquito from pond to air, a whale and the sense of humor animal the duck billed platypus. Come on, is that animal practical? Or is it a joke on evolutionists?

That is the problem I have with evolution, it is a faith system. One that does not work in reality. As you can see by the reactions of many here, the teachers of this religion are not nice people, but they control the schools.

Pity that.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Look at it this way, We know by experimentation and DNA research that mutation's are inherently negative."

No, we don't know this. We know the opposite.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

"We only suppose that they can be helpful, as we have not yet been able to create one that isn't."

That's a lie.

"In the known population of the United States there has not been a single positive mutation in the last 100 years, truly a spot in time if the world is a few billon years old. "

Laughably wrong. :)

Before you post, reading some entry level genetics would be helpful.

[American in Israel]

Some examples would be the pigment of ones skin being darker and less absorbent of Vitamin D near the equator while in Northern hemispheres the pigment is paler and absorbs more of the Suns Vitamin D which is crucial to his survival. Another example is of Pigmy Elephants, Pigmy Buffalo and Pigmy Hippos on small islands and the hobbit people bones they found in Indonesia of persons three foot tall. Warm blooded mammals living in environments as islands tend to shrink to use up less resources in order to survive. While reptiles (cold blooded) get larger to make up for the gap left. To say that there is no proof of evolution is a bold statement that can be refuted. If you believe that only man has not evolved through this process you should make it more clear.

These are examples of adaptation, not evolution. Negros are still men. Tall people and short people are still people, small hippos and short hippos are still hippos. Adaptation is quite different from sprouting a gun in your rear to shoot other bugs.

Many theories have holes in them and to completely throw out Darwin's theory would be a loss to scientific advancement. Perhaps his theory is wrong but to stop further testing and teachings of his fundamental ideas by holding it was magic and there may be no way to ever know through science is not why God gave us thought and intrigue.

Theroys are not magic, that is a silly statement, you are talking to me like I am some stupid caveman. Nobody ever in the entire argument to teach intelegent design ever said things like that, if they did they are stupid cavemen. But that is the problem isn't it. Perception is often not observation but projection.

Why would you want to stop teaching Darwinism just because it is a disproven theory? The problem is they are BOTH theory's. How can the class make an intelligent decision if they are only taught one side of a 92 side issue? ALL theory's that have any scientific proof at all should be taught. Perhaps the Darwinists have a problem with competition, but I don't, competition is healthy, it is their dogma classes that are sick.

If you believe as I do that the moon slowly coalesced around our earth and as the moon gathers more mass that it would naturally gain distance from the earth due to inertia then perhaps you could also see the creation of our solar system in the same way.

While that is a neat theory, I do have a problem with it, first each planet has a different makeup of minerals, if they are all made up of the same gas cloud that made up the sun, they would be identical. They would also have the same rotational direction, but some rotate opposite directions. And the moons on multi moon planets would all orbit in the same direction, but some moons orbit. counter to the other moons. So it does not work. Not for evolutionists either for that matter. I figure that there is a God and he has the ability to describe matter into being.

One site I ran across last night pointed out that rotating spirals mix within three rotations, therefore spiral Galaxy's are on their first rotation, all of them. Another pointed out that dust should be collected by the stars near them, so the presence of so much dust in the galaxy speaks of a young galaxy. There are thousands of EXAMPLES in nature, while in Evolution there are hundreds interlocking theory's and no examples.

The difference is quite telling on its own.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness *was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

This is a bit off topic, but...
On the first day we have a planet being lit from a light source. Some say the light source was God himself. The rotational speed was set, the day was one rotation as there was an evening and a morning. No big bang, just a planet with a light source. Is a light source impossible for someone who just made a planet. (Mind you the planet was made pretty fast, it had the rest of the day and night to rotate)

A good question at this point is how many dimensions does God exist in? Is he a two dimensional being, a 4 dimensional being or a 11 dimensional being? (No answers, but it shows the limitations of our perspective, ours is a 3 dimensional being's perspective)

6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Uh, what, heaven is firmament? In what dimension? What then are the waters below and the waters above? Not in this universe is does this make sense to us. Specially with what follows, just in case you think you have a handle on it...

9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

So the waters below was the planet, I can get that.

11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

So here we have the continents created and them being stocked with vegetation, including trees. (Not saplings mind you. On the third day, we have a planet, rotating under a light, with defined continents and vegetation.

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Hmm, the firmament above is the Universe, and now we have a planet floating in it. But if the universe is the firmament, what is the waters above the firmament, and what dimention is it in, because it certainly is not in ours. But, nice change, and quick, because the universe came 4 days after the planet, and it was created in One rotation of the planet because mornings and evenings are the definition of these days. No room for evolution here, sorry. Plants came before the sun, and before the universe for that matter.

20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."
21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Birds were created in the air, not from the water, and is that a hard thing from someone who created a planet and a universe?

You really have to stretch to see big bang in this, it frankly does not fit. While I do not have a problem with a big bang, I figure a universe springing into place in one day would have been a helluva big bang, the Naturalist version is just as wild and hard to believe as this, only more so.

In the beginning there was nothing, and BANG, nothing exploded into billions of somethings, creating order, spiral Galaxy's and balanced solar systems, nuclear power and the periodical table. Nothing was very smart, for having an IQ of zero. This is the end of the first time period, which nobody knows how long it was, just that it was long enough.
Eventually, on the billionth or so day on one of those places nothing created life out of something from nothing, and bugs were then designed by amoebas. Which, if you think a billion trillion gazillion tons of something was built by nothing, you surely can believe that an amoeba can build a bug. After all an amoeba is infinitely smarter than nothing. And the bug ruled the day, but could not count them so...
In other long whiles, man was created by monkeys who you must admit are significantly smarter than the infinitely smarter than nothing amoebas and Man, who for the first time comprehended that there was a whole universe out there but was too stupid to create anything out of nothing, even bugs. He hung around beating other men with various parts of the periodic table and This went on for a long long time...
Till one day some human figured it all just built itself and went out to his front yard to wait for his new car to appear, cause if nothing can build a universe, certainly it can build a car. This man also founded a new religion, as sitting around gave him lots of time to write books on Naturalism, which is founded on a belief structure of observation. It is however written as theory because nobody ever saw nothin anyway. And here we are, with much ado about nothing, surrounded by the most intense interlocking balanced structure imaginable, that will take us a billion years to figure out. We are however comforted that at least there is nothing to answer to, if nothing to live for...

Genesis according to Scientwistic theorem...

(takes a bow with a grin)

Frankly, you have to believe in something in life, you just have to figure out what. It can even be nothing, but one thing that I can promise you. If you cannot make something out of nothing, you also cannot make God into nothing, no matter how hard you try. This is the ultimate failure of Naturalism, not that it fails to describe reality, but that it fails to eliminate the judgement of the Creator on man in the end. No matter how much agnostics believe there is no God, it does not make God go away.

Thank God for that.

[md2576]

If evolution was in effect, these diseases would be rampant throughout the population. But they are not.

That's because the gene is still there it's just not active as it is in some of the branches of the tree. Just cause ones great great great uncle had a disease does not mean their fifth cousin should be just as susceptible to that gene activating in their body. Just because one doesn't have the disease doesn't mean you don't have the same gene.

You need a thousand beneficial mutations every year, ones that are almost mathematically impossible to occur.

In a hostile region like the earth was many years ago perhaps these mutations were more drastic and extreme for them to survive in such a hostile environment. This could also explain the lack of evolution proof  today as they are less in need to drastically change due to less destructive environments.

We know by experimentation and DNA research that mutation's are inherently negative. We only suppose that they can be helpful, as we have not yet been able to create one that isn't. So to be generous set the odds at a million to one. In the known population of the United States there has not been a single positive mutation in the last 100 years, truly a spot in time if the world is a few billon years old.

I believe once they discover more about RNA they will discover how to positively mutate a gene.

The problem is not just the blind approach of DNA mutation, but DESIGN. The wishbone of a bird! The eye, a frog, from pond to land, a mosquito from pond to air, a whale and the sense of humor animal the duck billed platypus. Come on, is that animal practical? Or is it a joke on evolutionists?

I would think that if it was designed that way and nature, it's surroundings and environment had nothing to do with a mutation of the animal would be a blind approach. One would only need to discover why the platypus has a bill and a flat tail, what it's needed for and how could it have evolved to better it's life through breeding better offspring to overcome deadly obstacles in nature.

[md2576]

On the first day we have a planet being lit from a light source. Some say the light source was God himself. The rotational speed was set, the day was one rotation as there was an evening and a morning. No big bang, just a planet with a light source. Is a light source impossible for someone who just made a planet.

So you are saying god was set at a specific point in the sky to light up the earth that would make it night and day only on half the planet? And Darwin's theory is far fetched?!?

(Mind you the planet was made pretty fast, it had the rest of the day and night to rotate)

I could use the same argument you use against Darwin's theory. If this is true then why don't we see other planets created in one day now. Prove this happens now that a planet is formed and sustainable for life in 24 hours. He only made certain planets all in one day and the rest that constantly expand throughout our universe don't?

MD2576 posted: 6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

American in Israel: Uh, what, heaven is firmament? In what dimension? What then are the waters below and the waters above? Not in this universe is does this make sense to us.

fir·ma·ment    (fûrm-mnt) The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky.

waters below = sea, waters above = space. Never heard of the Sea of stars? Ever notice how our galaxy looks like a hurricane churning through space?

Specially with what follows, just in case you think you have a handle on it..

9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

So the waters below was the planet, I can get that

Nope the waters below were seas and the dry land we still today call earth.

A good question at this point is how many dimensions does God exist in? Is he a two dimensional being, a 4 dimensional being or a 11 dimensional being? (No answers, but it shows the limitations of our perspective, ours is a 3 dimensional being's perspective)

If he were the true designer of all dimensions he could be in all dimensions since he would not be bound by any limitations of perspective.

On the third day, we have a planet, rotating under a light, with defined continents and vegetation

On the contrary, He said let the water under the firmament be gather unto one place. This would point to the fact of one super continent that broke up over billions of years as science has proven.

Hmm, the firmament above is the Universe, and now we have a planet floating in it. But if the universe is the firmament, what is the waters above the firmament, and what dimension is it in, because it certainly is not in ours.

The firmament is our atmosphere that allows us the oxygen to breath separating us from the waters of space that we cannot breath in as we cannot breath in our waters of earth.

But, nice change, and quick, because the universe came 4 days after the planet, and it was created in One rotation of the planet because mornings and evenings are the definition of these days.

Without a sun I don't see that we would call a day a day for God called the light day and without light then we would not call it day for it would be night as God called dark night.

No room for evolution here, sorry. Plants came before the sun, and before the universe for that matter.

Many plants live under the ocean void of sunlight. And it was not before the universe. where do you find that?

Birds were created in the air, not from the water, and is that a hard thing from someone who created a planet and a universe?

Where do you get your proof that birds were created in the air? Just "poof" they were there flying? They knew how to fly and everything? Baby birds still need to learn to fly, why are these special creatures able to suddenly appear in the sky and start flying? This doesn't happen in today's world. Show me proof that we can replicate this or show evidence of "poof" it's there. I ask you this because this is the type of evidence you expect of Darwin's theory.

You really have to stretch to see big bang in this, it frankly does not fit. While I do not have a problem with a big bang, I figure a universe springing into place in one day would have been a helluva big bang, the Naturalist version is just as wild and hard to believe as this, only more so.

I don't know if I believe the Big Bang Theory but what does it have to do with Darwin's theory?

This man also founded a new religion, as sitting around gave him lots of time to write books on Naturalism, which is founded on a belief structure of observation. It is however written as theory because nobody ever saw nothing anyway. And here we are, with much ado about nothing, surrounded by the most intense interlocking balanced structure imaginable, that will take us a billion years to figure out. We are however comforted that at least there is nothing to answer to, if nothing to live for.

Only for one that does not believe in his spirit and that God did create the Universe, man and heavens. Darwin does not depute if there is a God. It only deputes whether stories of God intervened somehow after creation. It mostly disputes Genesis and that is why it's a big deal. Until some proof is found that there was definite intervening then Darwin's theory is close enough for now. No one says it's a definite and no one ever will until the missing link is found. Otherwise ID does not help in any way advance science. It does however advance ones belief in a divine being. Many scientists have come to this revelation through science so why force the idea in school when it's already at church.

They do not say everything comes from nothing. This is a religious interpretation and is unfounded. Any Darwin Thumper knows that it came from something but they don't know what yet. To say well it must be an ID is giving up on the search and saying there is no way to prove it. You could never ever ever prove that poof a bird just started flying in the sky.

[American in Israel]

So you are saying god was set at a specific point in the sky to light up the earth that would make it night and day only on half the planet? And Darwin's theory is far fetched?!?

No, I said some think the light came from God Himself, I figure he just set up a source of light, it does not specify, I do not care. How is something from nothing and order from disorder more believable than God setting up a light source?

...If this is true then why don't we see other planets created in one day now. Prove this happens now that a planet is formed and sustainable for life in 24 hours. He only made certain planets all in one day and the rest that constantly expand throughout our universe don't?

Planet formation has never actually been observed in nature. The stars are too far away. We do not have telescopes that can see all the planets around the galaxy, just stars

...If he were the true designer of all dimensions he could be in all dimensions since he would not be bound by any limitations of perspective.

I agree, that was part of my point, the other part was...

The firmament is our atmosphere that allows us the oxygen to breath separating us from the waters of space that we cannot breath in as we cannot breath in our waters of earth.

Nope, the stars are placed in the firmament, not in the waters above. The atmosphere has to be part of the planet. The firmament divides the waters above from the waters below, and with the stars being place in the firmament, the firmament is the Universe. It was the waters below that were divided to create land. So what are the waters above that are outside our universe? The universe is our space time continuum, therefore the waters above must be in a higher dimension than we can reach.

Sorry I did not put that more clearly.

On the contrary, He said let the water under the firmament be gather unto one place. This would point to the fact of one super continent that broke up over billions of years as science has proven.

Proven no, theory yes. In fact if you go for the smaller earth theory the continents fit together better than if you do the same with the present size planet. So I lean towards the smaller earth theory too, but it is all just theory.

That is the problem, unless you can produce the desired results in a laboratory, it is just theroy. Nobody alive today was alive then and saw it, without that we are forced to play dueling theory's.

Without a sun I don't see that we would call a day a day for God called the light day and without light then we would not call it day for it would be night as God called dark night.

The light came before the sun. It says that, if a guy was trying to fake this story he would easily have changed the order a bit to make it more believable. This is either a real careless mistake, or just a description of what was.

Where do you get your proof that birds were created in the air? Just "poof" they were there flying? They knew how to fly and everything? Baby birds still need to learn to fly, why are these special creatures able to suddenly appear in the sky and start flying? This doesn't happen in today's world. Show me proof that we can replicate this or show evidence of "poof" it's there. I ask you this because this is the type of evidence you expect of Darwin's theory.

Hey, Before we get too antagonistic here, you are the one that brought Scriptures into the thread. I do not want Genesis taught in a classroom at all. I want Intelligent Design taught. I pointed out that this particular part of the discussion was off topic. Of course I cannot show you evidence of Genesis in action, Nobody was there!

But if poof a planet was there, poof birds were there, because that is what it says. As a Christian, I believe it as I find poof the whole universe was there in a big bang without a firecracker or a God to create the firecracker harder to believe.

Many plants live under the ocean void of sunlight. And it was not before the universe. where do you find that?

In the sequence as quoted, that is the way it happened. This seems a very moot point, why bring it up? What if plants can live without sunlight (which by definition they cannot, a plant is defined as needing photo synthesis, another moot point), according to the sequence that is where it is in Genesis. I saw that you got the sequence wrong by cut and paste and thought that I could fix that by printing it out, in order without parts missing that were causing you to find fault where there was none.

I do perceive that you are searching for fault with much effort. It is one thing to be mistaken, causing you to find fault, quite another to be trying to create fault. Perhaps you do not really wish to know why what you were told about Genesis was wrong, what you want is Genesis to be wrong? If so, that's ok with me, its a religious point and quite off topic.

The whole point in desiring Intelligent Design to be taught in school is not to teach religion, but to teach whole science. Sure it is obvious that ID requires a superior being, but if you want it to be a UFO or God, or Allah or whatever, that is for you to figure out.

Frankly from a religious viewpoint, the Bible teaches that you cannot lead a man to God with arguments about vain thing that do not matter to the soul. ID is such a thing. Even if you chose to realize from the superior theory and demonstrable science that ID is superior, you can only find God by searching for Him, not be studying yourself to a higher plane.

In fact, I am sure it would not be hard to pin creation on Satan if you really tried. Lies are easy to generate. ID is about Science, NOT religion. The people that want ID know that, the people who hate religion are the ones that keep trying to pin ID into Christianity. According to the bible ID is NOT the path to God.

Until some proof is found that there was definite intervening then Darwin's theory is close enough for now. No one says it's a definite and no one ever will until the missing link is found. Otherwise ID does not help in any way advance science. It does however advance ones belief in a divine being.

ID IS Science. Strictly scientific observation placed side by side with the observations that teach Darwinism. May the best observation win! It is the God allergy of the rebellious that cause the controversy. Science demands this by the very laws of science, it is the Agnostic that scream.

Many scientists have come to this revelation through science so why force the idea in school when it's already at church.

Hello? The many scientists found it in the laboratory, because simply ID is superior science, not because they went to church. After seeing that a billion year old earth is impossible, and that evolution is impossible without a billion year old earth some decide that God is another frontier to conquer, most don't. Some become this, some that, who cares?!

Look don't get me wrong, I wish everyone could find God like I have, it is the best part of my life, everything else pales in comparison. But, that is not going to happen, you know it and I know it. Good luck to you and all the rest. Frankly I just hate this Evl dogma being shoved down kids throat and science bastardized so that they can feel justified in their homosexual lifestyles or what ever else it is that has them so bitter towards God. It's one thing to make your own choices, quite another to make some things illegal to teach in science so your their doctrine is on top.

ID is asking that all science be included. If ID is presented fairly, I believe it will win, you believe Evl will win. Evl does not need to stack the deck. Lets see.

[md2576]

Well good luck.

[American in Israel]

You to and blessings on you and yours. See you around.

[Firestick]

"Now, since nobody really knows the answers, it is only a scientific method that would consider all points of view on the issue in educational settings. To do otherwise would be like students dancing around totems, witch doctors proclaiming intellectual taboos and making sacrifices."

How can you justify the use of terms Creationism and Scientific Method in the same context. That's the whole problem with the religeous fanatic, whatever the stripe, he needs no proof or science to expound. He's convinced. He has faith. By the way there are numberous parts of the human anatomy that are vestiges of a precursor species. The end of the tail bone, the fact the humans have back problems because walking upright is not natural, the fact that we have stereo front facing vison as predators do . . not t0 mention incredible DNA similarities. The missing link BS is simply the inability so far to find evolutionary steps in the fossil record. sure would like to find even one artifact in that record that would lead on to believe of a creation event.
That Poll came out of Nashville from the opinions of a whole one thousand bible belters. Take the poll somewhere else and the results would be far different. For a sampling this small to be touted as "Americans feel or Thinks" certainly does require a leap of faith and is typical of how easily humans can be mislead by "faith".

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

That's the whole problem with the religeous fanatic, whatever the stripe, he needs no proof or science to expound.

I'm not an orthodox or ecumenical atheist; there are no such things...

Just because you have a blind hatred of the Judaic (or any other) creation theory, does not mean you or I have proof it is not so.

Secondly, is it even possible to have an objective scientific investigation with such a bias?

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

...he needs no proof or science to expound. He's convinced. He has faith...

...the inability so far to find evolutionary steps in the fossil record.

You said it yourself... there is no proof... you take it as a matter of belief...

I do not.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

...the fact that we have stereo front facing vison as predators do...

And the fact we cannot see nearly as well at night like most of them can... are they more evolved???

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

...not to mention incredible DNA similarities.

Oh, the singularity, the common thread of all living things on this planet... takes you back to this...

The "origin of species" is rooted in the idea of a singularity: the mechanics of the DNA molecule. All species of Terran life has it. Like the singularity of the "Big Bang" theory, the two are categorically inseparable as immaculate conceptions. It only takes a mere application of logic.

[csense]

... walking upright is not natural

How so

From an evolutionary standpoint, any given state, of any given organism, is (or, would be) by definition, a natural state...without exception.

In fact, anything other would border on a theological (creation) or philosophical (Intelligent Design) argument.

[Coleus]

I like that book.

[GretchenM]

I do too. It's chock full of facts, resources, and references.