In the interest of full-disclosure, the source of the chart in Elsie's post is the New Orleans Geological Society. They published two articles written by Clifford Cuffey, and copies of these articles are hosted with permission on the website of the Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. They're a small professional organization under the The Society for Sedimentary Geology.
Here is their introduction to the article:
The American educational system has been under attack for some time as doing a poor job of educating students; many of the criticisms are very justified. However, parts of the cure are worse than disease. One of the cures that religous Christian fundamentalists propose is the teaching of creationism as a viable alternative to evolution. Creationists generally state that they do not deny the tenets of science, just that evolution did not occur. Unfortunately, this comment is generally not true: if you are a true Creationist, you also deny some fundamental principles of physics. Once this is accepted, science becomes witchcraft.
Many creationists wrap themselves in the robe of rightousness claiming their belief in the name of God. Several years ago, the Pope declared that the Catholic Church accepts the fact that religion must agree with science. I can not think of any single fact which shows more clearly that one has nothing to do with the other.
Evolution is Not Anti-Religous. The hostility of creationists toward the sciences that deal with human and cosmic origins stems from fundamentalist conviction that evolution threatens religion. This is not true.
The sciences concerned with the past can discover much of what happened long agol how, where, and when events occurred. But they can not discover the purpose or destiny of human existence. Such ideas lie within the mind of each individual and are the domain of religion, mortality, and philosophy. Science can not, and does not, pretend that it will ever be able to answer all the questions of life.
The great philosopheers and scientists who illuminated the 17th and 18th centuries- so called Age of Reason- taught that science was a way of learning about God by studying His creation, and this view is still held by many religous Americans today. To attack science in the name of religious orthodoxy is detrimental to both science and religion.
Because of the seriousness of the situation, the New Orleans Geological Society has published two articles on the subject written by Clifford Cuffey. We salute their foresight and courage. We are pleased to reproduce the articles here with their permission.
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )