Actually, evolution is a creation myth only for Conservatives. Other know it's a theory of descent and adaption irrespective of any creation method. Ann's ignorance of the subject isn't unexpected in a lawyer.
Oh, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that all the pro-evolution/pro-science folks who post on the "Crevo" threads here at Free Republic are conservatives. I know "I" am.
Make that "some" Conservatives, and you'll be right.
I guess you haven't noticed that the sociological use of the word 'myth', unlike the popular usaged, does *not* imply falsehood, rather denotes a story fundamental to a world-view irrespective of its truth or falsehood.
Also don't confuse creation per se with creation ex nihilo. The Hindus have a creation myth, but their cyclic cosmology only allows for the creation of the present state of the present cycle from the detritus of the previous cycle. So, the present state of the world, human beings included, has been created by something. The question (with all the heat created by folks on both sides defending their respective creation myths removed) is how much of that is explained by various dynamical mechanisms governing the changes of allele frequency, and how much of it is due to something (whether material or immaterial) prior (if not temporally, then logically) to that dynamics beginning.
*ROTFLMAO*
The only thing bigger than a typical lawyer's ego, is, well, another lawyer's ego....