Replies

The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts...
The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists.

It starts right here, becoming a Liar for the Lord. It's so obviously about what church you attend, but creationists can't admit that. Oh, no! It's about the science, really!

Like hell!

Oh, no! It's about the science, really!

Except when a Creationist student is denied a letter of recommendation to bio-science grad school by a professor.

THEN it becomes religious "bigotry" and "discrimination."

Reminds me of the epic Miller Lite Beer ads: "Tastes great!" "No! Less filling!" "Tastes great!" "Less filling!"......

The difference, of course, is that Lite beer is more nutritious and intellectually honest than Creationism.

The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts...

This always reminds me of a joke -- A man asks God, "what's a thousand years to you?" God replays, "a day." The man asks, "what's a million dollars to you?" God answers, "a penny." "God, can I have a penny?" asks the man. God answers, "yes, in a day."

What impresses me is that the order of creation in both the Bible and science is the same. I love the way the creation story reads in the New King James version (the old too). It is very powerful to me, "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..." It seems charged with energy and expectancy -- and then God says, "Let there be light, and there was light".

I have never seen the conflict between the Biblical and scientific, unless Christains want to deny process and scientists want to deny God.

You are assuming that the science of evolution has already been proved which is a danger in itself. Quite the opposite, each year we hear more and more about evolution science that has been proven false which has to make us rethink the theories themselves. There are real scientists studying the competing theories from both angles and every year we learn more. The key is to remove the bias from which both sides. One side believes the very word of the Bible, no death before sin, therefore evolution could not have occured. The other side, in general, rejects a devine creator, therefore evolution has to be the answer. Finally, you have a group in the middle, trying to bind faith with an evolution theory that has been taught over the last 50 years.

The more we learn about science taught as fact, not supported by evidence, the more we reject true science. Look at carbon dating, once thought to be the perfect dating mech. and now proved to be inaccurate past 5,000 years. Look at Mt Saint Helens, in several hours geological theories that stood as fact fell as events thought to have taken millions of years happened in a few hours. That should make is all rethink our theories because fact has now proved theory wrong. It should make us wonder what else we have wrong.

It does not matter if one believes evolution as Asimov presents it; or in creationism as all christians believe. What matters is neither concept should be taught in schools - it serves no purpose other than to cause derision.

When schools teach evolution, they are denying religious freedom to the children of christian families. (Americans have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion)

Evolution is not hard science - no "missing link" has been found, therfore it should not be taught as fact in public schools either.

Maybe someone should remind Asimov fans that he is a SCIENCE FICTION/FANTASY WRITER. So, who wants to trust their soul to what some fantasy writer believes?