Science and religion have seemingly always been at odds with each other. From the theories posed by Galileo to arguments regarding medical ethics today, science and religion have taken two opposing sides. The debate on whether or not creationism and intelligent design should be taught in schools is one such example. These theories with no basis in reality are being forced onto schools as a strategy of “teaching the controversy.” In this essay, it will be demonstrated that creationist thought runs not only counter to scientific theory, but also to the legal and educational standards of the public school system.

Many creationists and evolutionists alike argue for “teaching the...

Click here to read the entire article

Well i doubt anybody leans on the theory of evolution to deny the existence of God. Generally that type of scepticism comes from other sources like your parents, upbringing, life circumstances or perhaps bad experiences with organized religion.

Evolution is never used as "proof" of the absence of God, quite simply because it is NOT a proof of any such thing. It is merely a proof that religious dogma is in all likelihood incorrect. So, as mentioned before, evolution challenges the righteousness and accuracy of religious doctrine, not of the existence of God.

Mind you, to deny religious doctrine is NOT to deny God. Though you will probably not be able to find any clergyman who would agree with that. Since their religious doctrine is to them "proof" of god's existence, to deny is considered tantamount to denying God. Whereas that is not the case.

Anyhow you have not yet explained to me why the theory of evolution cannot be the process by which God created man.

I read of an interesting experiment undertaken once where a scientist created basic proteins ( the building blocks of life) under controlled circumstances from the right combination of earthen chemicals and atmospheric conditions.

This particular experiment actually does not even invalidate the biblical reference to man being created from clay. Mankind's genesis was when the first proteins were created from the right mix of earth and atmospherc conditions. Only mankind's genesis was not in his final form, but rather in the form of the first proteins that laid the foundation for all life, from which mankind was derived through millions of years of evolution.

And there ya go. In this particular interpretation ONLY the concept that man was created as a complete unit is challenged. In fact this is the only aspect of religious doctrine that evolution challenges.

I find it to make more sense that the clergy in Darwin's time felt personally offended and decided to term his theory heresy.. whereas it actually is not.

Frankly, I find it to be very empowering. Each and every organism on earth is here because we are in a very lucky spot in the universe. Air, water, a suitable climate, and what's more, each human has completely defied the odds by actually existing as a sentient being. Compared to the sheer number of lifeforms, we won the statistical lottery by being born as humans.

Though it was by no means accidental. All of it was a product of many millions of years of gradual sculpting, like a block of clay being molded into the Venus de Milo.

And I never denied evolution. Neither do many religious figures. Even the Vatican admitted that it was a good idea in 1950 and stands by the claim. The pope today seems just as pious as anybody before 1950. According to John Paul II...

He seemed faithful enough to me.

Well, "when I (like Darwin) view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian [geological] system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."


(Quoted From "The Origin of Species")

Correction: John Paull II isn't the current pope. Just a brain fart, I suppose.

Still, he supported evolution, and Benedict XIV continues John Paul II's legacy by admitting to the near certain factuality of evolution while not taking it as a diminishment of faith. After all, does it matter more how we got here than that we are here?

Define "Intelligent Design" without using any reference to diety. Therein lies the problem.