Evolution=random, natural processes=no god involved
The description of biblical creation as outlined in Genesis is the historical account of how the world came to be. It simply is, regardless of your belief otherwise.
And no I don’t find it disparaging to call a myth a myth. However, I do find it disparaging to call the truth a myth. I also find it disparaging to single out Christianity to be labelled a myth. Why go to all the trouble to discredit Christianity? It is because they can’t let the truth get in the way of their belief.
Natural processes aren't random. As for the involvement of a deity, it simply isn't addressed, any more than describing the nuclear fusion in the heart of a star needs the invocation of The Gods to explain it.
The description of biblical creation as outlined in Genesis is the historical account of how the world came to be. It simply is, regardless of your belief otherwise.
You're free to believe that. Scientific evidence says otherwise.
And no I don’t find it disparaging to call a myth a myth. However, I do find it disparaging to call the truth a myth. I also find it disparaging to single out Christianity to be labelled a myth.
Please note that I've already mentioned mythical elements of Hinduism and Islam in this conversation.
Why go to all the trouble to discredit Christianity? It is because they can’t let the truth get in the way of their belief.
Or (more realistically), it's because there is a strong movement in this country to promote Christian mythology in the public schools in place of sound science, while at the same time there is a decided lack of groups pushing for science to be replaced by Greek (or Hindu, etc.) creation myths.
I would note that you have an ally in your fight against Evil Science, however: Islamic Creationists!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism
Birds of feather?
Understanding how science works also is critical to understanding the seemingly never-ending debate between those who support evolution and those who support creationism. The debate typically devolves (no pun intended!) into the argument by creationists that scientists cannot prove that evolution has occurred; therefore, their hypotheses of creationism are equally valid. Hypotheses regarding numerous aspects of evolution have been posed and tested. As testing has winnowed out incorrect ones, our understanding has become ever more clear. As with electrons, knowledge of the precise nature of evolution will undergo constant refinement, but the total current weight of scientific evidence supports the existence of evolution. As scientists, we do not arrive at that conclusion out of capriciousness or because of a “leap of faith,” but rather because of the systematic process for understanding physical reality called the scientific method. In fact, anyone who supports evolution because of faith or belief is not using scientific rationality.
Several arguments posed by creationists do constitute hypotheses and therefore are falsifiable. The hypothesis that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old has been proposed numerous times, but refuted in many ways. Conversely, alternative hypotheses that the Earth is much older have been repeatedly supported. Indeed, today the weight of evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is billions of years old. Unfortunately, many other arguments posed by creationists are not falsifiable and therefore cannot be addressed using scientific inquiry. How can we falsify the hypothesis that God or an Intelligent Designer created the major forms of life on Earth? Creationist theories that cannot be refuted represent a particular world view, but they are not science. These theories can be taught in schools as philosophy or religion, but they must not be taught as science, unless the instructor uses them to demonstrate to the class what is and what is not science.
http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml