Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Sarah Palin

[PulpExposure]

Her experience may be the same but her knowledge of the issues or anything valid is far more inferior.

How do you know? All I have heard from Obama are platitudes.

Well...she believes that mankind walked with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago...NOT exactly the open mind towards science and history you'd hope for.

Young Earth creationism?:

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

Seriously...for someone who has a strong science background, this is about as close to an instant no as you'll get from me.

I normally despise the one-issue voting...but this is SUCH a huge issue for potential science funding, science policy, and executive appointments to run the NIH, FDA, CDC, that could completely alter the way that research is conducted.

I really think that if he had nominated someone like Joe Lieberman, who he wanted originally, the race would have been a hell of a lot closer. Though the religious right doesn't like Lieberman (at all), it's not as if they would have voted for Obama. But a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have represented a very attractive moderate ticket. I would have voted for it.

In my opinion, Palin (the basic embodiment of the religious right) completely drove the moderate republicans and independants away from McCain.

[Countertrey]

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

You are a lawyer. Would you take this into court as evidence? An un-named music teacher, whom you know nothing about? And, do you deliberately leave that unsourced?

I find that, most often, when an intelligent person leaves a quote unsourced, there is a reason.

I am agnostic, and I could not care less what her religious beliefs are. It doesn't seem to have effected her decisions in AK in any way that disturbs me.

[Countertrey]

There are those on the religious right who would be put off by Lieberman's very liberal social agenda... however, just as many see his very conservative stance on the military and the middle east as a good reason to support him.

My only problem with Lieberman is his lapse in judgement in accepting Gore's offer to be his running mate. Joe... what were you thinking? You are a principled man (which is why your Dem buddies threw you under the bus 2 years ago)... Gore is ... well, he's something other than that. What were you thinking?

I actually thought that McCain was going to ask him, and thought it was an error when he didn't... though Sarah Palin is still my kind of woman... She will be back, and she will surprise people with her acumen. She will be the Republican Obama in 2012.

[PulpExposure]

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

You are a lawyer. Would you take this into court as evidence? An un-named music teacher, whom you know nothing about? And, do you deliberately leave that unsourced?

You didn't click the link I provided, did you? The source was named..guy named Philip Munger. Here's the link, again SOURCE.

It's also been widely reported elsewhere she's a creationist. Since you missed my link earlier, for ease of your review, I'll call out this one for you: SOURCE: (I can pull the original source (Alaskan newspaper), but the guy who presents this does a reasonable job arguing why holding creationism and evolution as equal is intellectually dishonest...it's worth a read)

reports her response to a question during a debate about teaching creationism. Here is the full quote:

“Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

And Irn-Bru, I've heard the religious right were against Lieberman's selection because Lieberman is pro-choice. For CT's benefit (grin), I'll highlight my source again: SOURCE=International Herald Tribune

For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored.

By the way, that's a hell of a good article to read about how McCain chose Palin.

[Countertrey]

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

You are a lawyer. Would you take this into court as evidence? An un-named music teacher, whom you know nothing about? And, do you deliberately leave that unsourced?

You didn't click the link I provided, did you? The source was named..guy named Philip Munger. Here's the link, again SOURCE.

It's also been widely reported elsewhere she's a creationist. Since you missed my link earlier, for ease of your review, I'll call out this one for you: SOURCE: (I can pull the original source (Alaskan newspaper), but the guy who presents this does a reasonable job arguing why holding creationism and evolution as equal is intellectually dishonest...it's worth a read)

reports her response to a question during a debate about teaching creationism. Here is the full quote:

“Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

And Irn-Bru, I've heard the religious right were against Lieberman's selection because Lieberman is pro-choice. For CT's benefit (grin), I'll highlight my source again: SOURCE=International Herald Tribune

For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored.

By the way, that's a hell of a good article to read about how McCain chose Palin.

Thank you for that wonderful source (I really can't believe I didn't see it), quoting a man with a clear agenda, from a paper that is a fraction to the right of "The People's Daily".

On the other hand, the article clearly notes:

Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

As governor and in her formative role as mayor of Wasilla, Palin has trod carefully between her evangelical faith and public policy on issues such as abortion and library books. At times she has retreated when her moves have sparked controversy or proved politically impractical.

She has harnessed the political muscle of social conservatives and antiabortion groups, yet she did not push hard for a special legislative session on abortion, and she did not challenge a court ruling that allowed health insurance for same-sex partners of state workers.

Palin has attended a number of prayer sessions with pastors and has quietly sought their guidance, but she is often mum on matters of faith in high-profile public forums.

Yeah... I can see how her religious beliefs have been imposed upon the poor people of Alaska. Did you even read the article yourself? It soundly disputes your stated disqualifier (that her religious beliefs would interfere with her governmental decisions). She sounds, instead, like an astute and pragmatic politician. "Save your ammo for the fights you can (or must) win".

It doesn't matter if you agree with me... I'm certainly not going to judge her on her religious beliefs... though I think they are pretty silly. I happen to agree with far more of her value system than I disagree with. She strikes me as a little raw, but much like Obama was 4 years ago. More national exposure will season her, and will moderate her politics. She, unlike Obama, will have an actual record of executive experience to measure performance by.

You believe that Obama can attend a church that is led by a hate spewing, race baiting minister, yet be untouched by his teachings over 20 years, because he says so.

Yet, you hold Palin's views as disqualifiers, even though she has demonstrated that she does not bring them into the business of governing.

Hmmmm....

[PulpExposure]

Yeah... I can see how her religious beliefs have been imposed upon the poor people of Alaska. Did you even read the article yourself? It soundly disputes your stated disqualifier (that her religious beliefs would interfere with her governmental decisions). She sounds, instead, like an astute and pragmatic politician. "Save your ammo for the fights you can (or must) win".

CT, I don't care that she's religious at all, that's not my issue. It's that she's so misguided to believe in creationism, which is just a method by the ultrareligious to discredit evolution completely. People can believe in both god and evolution (i.e., there's evolution, but there is a guiding hand behind that evolutionary force), and indeed, many scientists do just that.

However, creationism is a different bird. Creationism (as you can read more about in this ok wiki article) attempts to discredit evolution completely, and state that every being was created by God...not a product of evolution. There IS no evolution...every creature was created by God exactly as they are/were, despite all of the scientific evidence we have of evolution (and therefore, they believe that the field of genetics is a total fraud). Where it gets really intellectually dishonest is that creationists want to teach this theory alongside evolution; one is a testable hypothesis, and has been proven true...and the other is a completely untestable theory. Evolution, and scientific theories, can be proven true or false; but a completely faith based theory can not...and to hold a science and a faith based theory as equal and to teach that they are, is utterly disingenious.

Young earth creationism is even worse because it mixes the dishonesty of creationism with ignorance. People that follow this theory believe the earth is only 6000 years old...despite all of the evidence to the contrary. This shows evidence that the person is completely closed minded, and despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, will not change their mind. While it's great that she hasn't (to date) pushed creationism in the classroom, this belief structure speaks of someone with incredibly poor judgment, and someone who fundamentally doesn't believe in science (i.e., carbon dating, paleontology, geology, biology, genetics...all things wrapped up in discrediting evolution and dating the earth). It's as bad as those "historians" who claim the Holocaust never happened to the extent it did (or it was fabricated for photos by Jews or the West), despite the evidence to the contrary. It's complete looney-tunes.

If this person doesn't fundamentally believe in science...do you really think they're going to listen to their science advisors when making budgetary decision, or heck, even value science/research at all?

I mean, she already made a statement that she finds "fruit-fly research" a total waste of money...but as you and I know, research on drosophila melanogaster is critical because: (1) it was the first genome we cracked, and is the ideal vehicle for genetic research today (since the fast replication time and the mapped genome); and (2) the genome has 75% similarity to the human genome and is used to model human neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's...and interestingly enough, autism, a subject Palin has great interest in (as she has an autistic nephew).

"You guys have heard some of the examples of where those dollars go," the fun Alaska governor said to the guys in the audience, acknowledging their media savvy about Congress members, who sometimes acquire public money for frivolous projects. "You've heard about the bridges. And some of these pet projects. They really don't make a whole lot of sense."

A troubled look crossed her face. "And sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good, things like ..." she grinned, shaking her head side to side, her voice rising to a facetious pitch "... fruit fly research in Paris, France." Feeling in tune with the guys in her audience, she added, "I kid you not."

Yes, there's little or nothing to do with the public good with fruit-fly research.

Seriously...is that the type of person you feel comfortable with (potentially) running the country?

It's similar to Huckabee and despite seeming like a nice guy, it's why I found him a terrifying candidate. In his bid for a Senate seat in 1992, he espoused isolating HIV positive people from the general population, referring to HIV as a "plague." Despite it being widespread knowledge since 1986 that HIV was not spread through casual contact, but through contact with blood/comprised membrane surfaces (as you know).

It takes a special kind of ignorance, almost willful ignorance, to not know even the most basic facts about the biggest public health crises since the swine flu epidemic of the 1930's.

Oh, and in 2007, he refused to retract his statements. Someone who is that uninterested in learning about health or science is not someone who should have the power to make budgetary decisions involving research, healthcare, and science.

You believe that Obama can attend a church that is led by a hate spewing, race baiting minister, yet be untouched by his teachings over 20 years, because he says so.

Where have I posted about Obama anywhere? My posts relate solely to Palin. FYI, there is much I dislike about Obama.

[PulpExposure]

Oh and apparently Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country.

If true, that's hilarious.

There's just so much more to Sarah Palin to dislike, really, than just her views on science...but that's my primary issue.

For example, her view on the 1st Amendment:

ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Uh...what?

[Redskin in Canada]

Oh and apparently Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country.

If true, that's hilarious.

She is a self-acknowledged expert in Foreign Policy, with a particularly good insight on Russiaan politics. She can see Russia from Alaska.

And she is the future of the Republican Party in the future according to McCain.

The price that has to be paid in the Republican Party to appease the radical religious Right.

[Sir_Monk]

Oh and apparently Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country.

How about that she could not name a country in NAFTA....

[Countertrey]

However, creationism is a different bird. Creationism (as you can read more about in this ok wiki article) attempts to discredit evolution completely

Stop it, please. The attempt at condescension is insulting. I have said that I am Agnostic. That does not equate to an admission of stupidity. Beyond that, I was once a "believer"... until it was apparent to me that you had to suspend contact with adult beliefs in order to remain so. What that should suggest to you is that I have some awareness of fundamentalist's beliefs (though, clearly, not as much as others here...).

You stated that your fear was for how her decisions would be affected by her beliefs, and deliniated a number of specific areas you held concern for.

When you say

It's that she's so misguided to believe in creationism, which is just a method by the ultrareligious to discredit evolution completely.

it completely denies that Creationism predates Darwin by almost 3 millinia. You do know that, don't you? All it is is a literal belief in the story of Genesis. It is not a conspiracy to defy Evolution, but a concrete view of the bible... and, as with "Young Earth Creationism", it requires that you not step into the world of adult thought regarding the topic of "where did we come from?"

On the other hand, the theory called "Intelligent Design" IS set up by the religious right as an attempt to undermine Darwin's theories... and, which you seem to actually advocate when you say...

People can believe in both god and evolution (i.e., there's evolution, but there is a guiding hand behind that evolutionary force), and indeed, many scientists do just that.

Intelligent design has been deliberately formulated to "appear" to have scientific value, to make it marketable and appealing as an option in the fundamentalist effort to invoke their beliefs on school systems around the country. Now, I can't seriously believe that you are advocating Fundamentalist Christian propaganda... What's with that???

[Countertrey]

It's similar to Huckabee and despite seeming like a nice guy

Ummm... Why should I care? Are we discussing him? Am I supposed to jump to his defense? What?

[PulpExposure]

On the other hand, the theory called "Intelligent Design" IS set up by the religious right as an attempt to undermine Darwin's theories... and, which you seem to actually advocate when you say...

People can believe in both god and evolution (i.e., there's evolution, but there is a guiding hand behind that evolutionary force), and indeed, many scientists do just that.

Intelligent design has been deliberately formulated to "appear" to have scientific value, to make it marketable and appealing as an option in the fundamentalist effort to invoke their beliefs on school systems around the country. Now, I can't seriously believe that you are advocating Fundamentalist Christian propaganda... What's with that???

Apologies for any condescenscion, but it's probably me reacting to your earlier and incorrect snarky comments to me over not including a cite.

You do know that Intelligent Design is just the vehicle that creationists have used to teach creationism, correct? Intelligent Design was fabricated specifically by the creationists at the Discovery Institute to introduce "creationism" as science after the Supreme Court ruled that creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard could not be taught alongside evolution in classrooms as it advanced a particular religious viewpoint.

The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction". In drafts of the creation science textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivatives of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design". The book was published in 1989, followed by a "grass-roots" campaign promoting the use of the book to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes

As for my point about scientists reconciling religion with science, it's fundamentally different. In one, there's a something present that guides evolution. In the other, creatures are created...and do not evolve. One embraces evolution, the other fundamentally disallows it.

Note, I'm agnostic myself. I believe in evolution in it's purest form. But even I can see a difference between the two, though I'm sure I'm farthest from the person who can advance that argument any better, nor will I attempt to.

[PulpExposure]

It's similar to Huckabee and despite seeming like a nice guy

Ummm... Why should I care? Are we discussing him? Am I supposed to jump to his defense? What?

He's an example of someone who has similar beliefs, and is just as far off the reservation. Nothing more.

And why aren't you jumping to Palin's defense (if that is what you're doing) over her interpretation of the 1st Amendment? Or her remarks on genetic research?

[Countertrey]

But even I can see a difference between the two

Do you even read anything I post before you respond?

What does this mean to you?

On the other hand, the theory called "Intelligent Design" IS set up by the religious right as an attempt to undermine Darwin's theories

[PulpExposure]

But even I can see a difference between the two

Do you even read anything I post before you respond?

What does this mean to you?

On the other hand, the theory called "Intelligent Design" IS set up by the religious right as an attempt to undermine Darwin's theories

Of course I read it CT. Perhaps I read it incorrectly, but by using "On the other hand" i read it as you were saying Creationism and ID were separate, when in fact, they're not. The way I read the following:

Creationism predates Darwin by almost 3 millinia. You do know that, don't you? All it is is a literal belief in the story of Genesis. It is not a conspiracy to defy Evolution, but a concrete view of the bible... and, as with "Young Earth Creationism", it requires that you not step into the world of adult thought regarding the topic of "where did we come from?"

On the other hand, the theory called "Intelligent Design" IS set up by the religious right as an attempt to undermine Darwin's theories

Is that Creationism is a literal belief in the story of genesis, but on the other hand, ID IS set up to undermine evolution.

ID is a subset of Creationism. A rebranding, really. There is no other hand.

[Countertrey]

ID is a subset of Creationism.

You are wrong. Creationism is the belief that Genesis is literal, and accurate. In other words, "It happened exactly as the bible says it did."

Intelligent Design concedes that the fossil record is real... it concedes that animal and plant lines arose and died out. However, it replaces Natural Selection with the deliberate and calculated acts of a Supreme Being. That, sir, is definitively NOT creationism. It is different. It's a sales job by morally dishonest zealots.

It is calculated to undermine the teaching of Evolution by falsely claiming to be an equally valid "scientific theory" by using the same evidence and attributing magical mechanisms.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design

[PulpExposure]

ID is a subset of Creationism.

You are wrong. Creationism is the belief that Genesis is literal, and accurate. In other words, "It happened exactly as the bible says it did."

Intelligent Design concedes that the fossil record is real... it concedes that animal and plant lines arose and died out. However, it replaces Natural Selection with the deliberate and calculated acts of a Supreme Being. That, sir, is definitively NOT creationism. It is different. It's a sales job by morally dishonest zealots.

It is calculated to undermine the teaching of Evolution by falsely claiming to be an equally valid "scientific theory" by using the same evidence and attributing magical mechanisms.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design

Did you even bother reading the links I supplied? You're exactly right in that ID was created by morally dishonest zealots...but where you missed the point is that ID was created to push creationism after the Supreme Court found creationism pushed one particular religious view. ID was a way for those zealots to slide around the court's language, by neutralizing the language to minimize mention of the bible (since the court's language stated creationism could not be taught as it pushed a particular religious viewpoint in Edwards v. Aguillard).

Link.

Stemming straight from the Edwards v. Aguillard decision:

The ruling had great effect on the creationist movement. It only affected state schools, with independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools free to still teach creationism. Within two years a creationist textbook had been produced: Of Pandas and People which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer". Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism started in the early 1990s.

FYI, I'd never heard of newworldencyclopedia.org before you linked it, so I did a little digging. Their article on Evolution is written in such a way that makes me wonder about their sources/bias.

In recent years, the intelligent design (ID) movement has gained momentum in the United States. ID essentially holds that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. This movement seeks to present in educational institutions a scientific critique of evolutionary theory and offer the possibility of living organisms being designed. Technically it is not considered a religious perspective according to many of its advocates, since it presents its views without reference to whom or what that designer may be.

That's their descriptor of ID...that it's not technically a religious viewpoint (despite courts saying it is), and that it's a "scientific critique of evolutionary theory." Makes my antennae twitch big-time.

And hell, in the link you provided, look at the language below:

Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have figured most prominently in U. S. education controversies. When the Kansas State Board of Education revised its science standards in 1999, several members wanted to include some acknowledgment of the scientific controversy over macroevolution (the origin of new species, organs, and body plans), but pro-Darwin board members refused. The resulting compromise increased the space devoted to evolution but included only microevolution (changes within existing species). Darwinists then claimed that Kansas had prohibited the teaching of evolution or mandated the teaching of creationism; intelligent design was not an issue. In the next school board election, pro-Darwin candidates won a majority of seats on the Kansas Board and revised the state standards in 2001 to include macroevolution—with no mention of the scientific controversy over it.

Pro-Darwin? Darwinists? Look at the bolded sentence; it makes the "pro-Darwin board members" sound completely ridiculous because they would not allow "some acknowledgement of the scientific controversy over macroevolution." I.e., creationism.

[Deadskins]

I think this thread has gone a little off topic. Will one of you two staff members cut this portion of the discussion into another thread, so I can weigh in on this subject?

[PulpExposure]

I think this thread has gone a little off topic. Will one of you two staff members cut this portion of the discussion into another thread, so I can weigh in on this subject?

Apologies. If we continue this discussion, we'll do it offline. Weigh in away.

[Deadskins]

I think this thread has gone a little off topic. Will one of you two staff members cut this portion of the discussion into another thread, so I can weigh in on this subject?

Apologies. If we continue this discussion, we'll do it offline. Weigh in away.

I want to weigh in on the Evolution Vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design discussion.

[JansenFan]

Have at it, big fella.

[Countertrey]

Did you even bother reading the links I supplied? You're exactly right in that ID was created by morally dishonest zealots...but where you missed the point is that ID was created to push creationism after the Supreme Court found creationism pushed one particular religious view.

Yes, I read them. They are not relevant, because they don't address what ID actually says, only the motivation for creating the concept, which, you already know, I don't dispute.

It is precisely because the creators of ID are intellectually dishonest, that rather than creating a "science" of creationism, they created something entirely different. I suggest that your lack of experience in the world of fundamental christianity, that you don't get this point... though it really is not that nuanced.

They will acknowledge the timeline authored by geologists, paleiontologists and other scientists... YOU CAN'T DO THAT AND CALL IT CREATIONISM, because creationism says the world as it exists today was built in 7 days. No matter how you argue ID and Creationism to be the same thing, you can't resolve that.

The theory of Evolution is built on the strong evidence for Natural Selection... Creationism says that all things were created as they appear today, and have been static since. ID says that the time lines of Evolution are correct, that plants and creatures have come and gone, that some have changed, but it was the hand of God that deliberately caused the changes, not chance, not happenstance, not species competition, not environmental change, not necessity, not... natural selection.

Yes, the people who created ID sought to introduce a religious fantasy into education as science... but in doing so, they lied to themselves as well, because what they are selling (ID) is not what they once claimed to believe (Creationism). You can do that when you are morally and intellectually dishonest.

Creationism and ID are not the same. It doesn't matter that the motivation for creating ID is to validate fundamentalist religious belief that God created the world, in a planned and calculated manner, as it exists today. It is not Creationism, because it does not have a 7 day time-line. It is not Creationism because it concedes that life forms have changed. It is not Creationism because there is no Adam and Eve. It is not Creationism because... it's different.

[Deadskins]

What gets me about this debate is how closed-minded the two sides can be. Why do evolution and the belief in a creator have to be mutually exclusive? I made up bumper sticker slogan to reflect my beliefs: "Darwin discovered evolution. God created it."

Darwin, himself, was a very religious person, and even contemplated becoming a clergyman. The Church has a long history of repressing scientific discovery, but the Church is a creation of Man, not God. Many scientists are men (and women) of faith. Einstein is famous for his quip about quantum physics, "God does not play dice with the universe." If you know anything about Big Bang theory, the first few verses of Genesis fits right in with that description of the beginnings of the universe.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Who's to say what a day is for God? Creationists take this to be a literal, 24 hour period, and from all the "begats" that follow in later chapters, have fixed the Earth's age at around 6000 years. How egocentric to presume to understand God.

[PulpExposure]

It is precisely because the creators of ID are intellectually dishonest, that rather than creating a "science" of creationism, they created something entirely different. I suggest that your lack of experience in the world of fundamental christianity, that you don't get this point... though it really is not that nuanced.

They will acknowledge the timeline authored by geologists, paleiontologists and other scientists... YOU CAN'T DO THAT AND CALL IT CREATIONISM, because creationism says the world as it exists today was built in 7 days.

Yeah, now I'm confused. I thought the literal version of creationism (which you mention as the earth being built in 7 days) was the young earth creationist viewpoint, and that Old Earth Creationism doesn't reject modern science dating of the Earth:

Old Earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including Gap creationism and Progressive creationism. As hypotheses of origins they are typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to Young Earth creationism

Also...on a side note, earlier we discussed scientists and religion...I ran across this:Theistic evolution which probably articulates my earlier point better than I could ever (as I fundamentally don't believe in it):

Theistic evolutionists argue that it is inappropriate to use Genesis as a scientific text, since it was written in a pre-scientific age and originally intended for religious instruction; as such, seemingly chronological aspects of the creation accounts should be thought of in terms of a literary framework. Theistic evolutionists may believe that creation is not literally a week long process but a process beginning in the time of Genesis and continuing through all of time, including today. This view affirms that God created the world and was the primary causation of our being, while scientific changes such as evolution are part of "creatia continua" or continuing creation which is still occurring in the never ending process of creation. Changes such as these caused by science are part of a secondary causation that changes us within the framework of the world God has created with primary causation. This is one possible way of interpreting biblical scriptures, such as Genesis, that seem to be in opposition to scientific theories, such as evolution.

The list of scientists who follow this theory is impressive, and includes the director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, about as hard-core a genetics position as you'll find.