A lot of major evidence somewhat questionable from an evolutionary stance
has arisen as well since the 70s. And I'm not afraid really, I just think
it's important for people to get a view of as many aspects of an issue as
possible. For instance, that is why it's interesting to read historical
accounts by either side of a conflict, or for the issue at hand, to read
books written for and against evolution. (again, the writing against isn't
necessarily creationist (your def) and writing for isn't necessarily
anti-creator)
>I think there is a vast difference (this *may* just be my own bias)
> >between people who believe some god is the author of the universe and
> >creationISM. Both are religion. The latter seems to have a need to >prove
>that creation is scientific fact, not just an article of >belief.
However, atheism is also religion. Many who staunchly support evolution
ascribe to atheism or agnosticism as their response to the data from
evolutionary studies. EVERY religion tries to prove their beliefs are
scientifically supported, some more successful than others possibly (I'm not
pointing fingers anywhere) ;-) but if you have no way of reconciling your
beliefs, whatever they may be, with science, you have to conclude that
either science or religion is wrong. My personal stance when I reach those
points is to look at my beliefs first, make sure they're on track, while at
the same time checking to see if the science is pre-biased against the
belief in question, but that's my personal view.
Lunchtime!
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com