I haven't read this article completely (http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/creationmythl.htm) but it tries to answer the common athiest question and looks interesting. Debate certain aspects of it. If you hate me for posting this here and not IFIOTW, well, sorry Lost.

Article:

1. The author's attitude: We see this... ...and "devil take the hindmost." That would frighten me, too.

What I've noticed quite commonly is that many people have experience a particular haughtiness and resistance to debate among some Christians (although, of course, one can say this of all men) and after a point, these people just transpose this attitude to the whole lot of 'em. As such, they will immediately take a tone of anger against even the mention of Christian dogma.

2. The reference to the creation stories: mythology fascinates me. It is a... ...in the world. Genesis needs to be looked at very seriously.

I cannot really say much either way; it's mostly just author's opinion here.

3. Electricity: lights do not turn on... ...scratched the surface of knowledge concerning this.

Either the author deliberately misinterpreted the question, or he is an idiot. The question was not literally "Who turned on the lights," but rather, "Did Someone create the properties of existence to allow for electric lights, or did they come into being with no intelligent design?"

In essence, this boils down to the same point addressed in (2.) asked in a slightly different way.

4. Logic and Reason: I don't suppose... ...from generation to generation. (By the way, it was known that the earth was round thousands of years before Columbus. Suggest checking history.)

Yes, science has had flawed theories over time; however, when they don't stand up, we work something new out to explain the world. If we judge an age based on the wrong things done in that age, the Church itself has been evil by its own standards at various times. The author has many internal contradictions in (4.) which I am too lazy to point out.

5. The place of science: Within its proper bounds... ...and have a direction in his life.

As the author himself states, "Science can only discover what already is..."--that is, science can only discover things that exist. By his own statements, the author has said that that which science cannot discover, does not exist. I believe that he wasn't intending to convey this point, so I'll just assume that it's another flawed argument.

6. And now, evolution: The writer, I am sure, is referring to the kind of evolution... ...the kind of ignorance which has resulted in such low test scores for United States students, much to our embarrassment.

Helen Fryman

I am in agreement; evolution is a theory, and should not be taken as fact. I hope that humans survive a good long time, so that we can answer this silly question of evolution once and for all.