[El Cid]

Despite movements across the nation to teach creationism in public schools, a science historian said Monday that Christians haven't always used a literal interpretation of the Bible to explain the world's origins.

Yeah, because it was a non-issue. God created the Heaven and Earth ... It wasn't until the 'Enlightenment's' deification of man and post 'Enlightment' Darwinism, that this became a point of dispute.

"For them, the Bible is mostly to teach a religious lesson," said Ernan McMullin of the earliest Christian scholars.

The Bible is the Word of God, and is true. We learn about God, and our hope for Salvation (only through Jesus Christ). And the framework of Creation is witness to an Almighty, Infinite God, and the Fall as to our need for a Saviour.

Christian fundamentalists have long pushed the nation's public schools to teach creationism as an alternative, which in its strictest form claims that the world was created in six days, as stated in the Bible's Old Testament Book of Genesis.

Actually, I think their primary push has been to get the government schools to own up to the fact that 'evolution' is an unprovable hypothesis - and at least to point out some of its major flaws (e.g., no fossil evidence of any 'missing links'; no evidence of 'positive' mutations; no evidence of increasing genetic information in anything - a prerequisite for a simpler organism morphing into a more complex organism; difficulty to reconcile with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- other than waving hands about open/closed/controlled systems - as if undirected sunlight would've reduced entropy; etc.).

But McMullin said creationism largely is an American phenomenon. Other countries simply don't have major creationist movements, leading him to ask: "What makes it in the U.S. ... such an issue (over) evolution and Christian belief?"

Because we aren't godless commies ...yet.

[supercat]

Actually, I think their primary push has been to get the government schools to own up to the fact that 'evolution' is an unprovable hypothesis

The term "evolution" is often used to describe two hypotheses:

1. That plant and animal populations can change through the process of variation and selection.
2. That such changes are the source of all biodiversity on this planet.

The first is a sound theory which is amply supported by evidence. Indeed, certain types of evolution can be shown to have occurred within history; among micro-organisms, certain types can be shown to occur within days.

The second theory is much more speculative. It is unlikely that there could ever be evidence to completely support or debunk it, though there is little or no reason to regard it as anything other than an interesting theory which has enough inconsistencies with evidence to, at minimum, need refineemnt.

I think understanding the former type of evolution theory is important; it is a useful scientific theory which can be demonstrated through experiment, and has certain practical uses. The latter theory might be interesting to ponder, and should probably be taught as a theory, but students should be told that it is largely speculative.

[Dimensio]

The Bible is the Word of God, and is true.

I'm sure that you have evidence to support this assertion.

Actually, I think their primary push has been to get the government schools to own up to the fact that 'evolution' is an unprovable hypothesis

Actually, it's an unprovable theory -- of course, all theories in science are unprovable. That's the nature of science.

and at least to point out some of its major flaws (e.g., no fossil evidence of any 'missing links'; no evidence of 'positive' mutations; no evidence of increasing genetic information in anything - a prerequisite for a simpler organism morphing into a more complex organism

Given that just about all (if not all) of that has been observed, I'm not sure why you're calling them major flaws. To claim that none of them have happened would be lying. You don't want to lie to children, do you?

difficulty to reconcile with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

How do heat transfer equations create difficulties with the theory of evolution? So few people who claim that the 2nd law provides problems for evolution seem to really understand what it means. Next thing I know, you'll be claiming that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle plays into it.

if undirected sunlight would've reduced entropy; etc.

Well, undirected sunlight seems to be maintaining life on this planet. Honestly, if the 2nd law worked the way that Creationists who use it as an argument claim, life itself would be impossible because going from a state of a sperm cell and an egg cell to a fully developed human being is a MASSIVE increase in relative complexity!

Because we aren't godless commies ...yet.

What does 'godless communism' have to do with evolution?