On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Patricia W. Cash wrote:
> Maybe I am underestimating the ability of people to twist the term
> "scientific evidence", but if scientific evidence must be presented; I
> don't see how religion will enter into the teaching.
I think where I have trouble with this whole debate is that the question
seems to be divided in such a way to have two and only two possible answers:
Either
1. Evolution is correct
or
2.The Genesis verion of creation is correct
(or as some have pointed out both could be correct).
This becomes a religous issue because it totally ignores the possibility
that any other creation story could be correct. In other words, if the
creationists can disprove the theory of evolution by scientific evidence
(including, as you pointed out, evidence that the earth might not be as
old as required for evolution, which, I agree should be evaluated for
its own merit), then the Genesis version wins.
This neglects literally thousands of other creation stories from
non-Judeo-Christian sources as well as other possible explanations. In
this sense it is very much about religion, particularly for those of us
practicing minority religions not based on the Bible.
This is a really interesting thread, and I am enjoying the discussion.
Linnea
