[Tired of Taxes]

I have yet to find any scientific evidence that shows that woman was created from a man's rib, that it was possible to load at least two of all of the land-dwelling creatures on a large boat, that Adam & Eve were the first two humans, that the universe was created in 6 days, etc, etc.

And that's the whole point, right there. In science, one can bring forth evidence to dispute a theory, thus creating a new theory. In religion, you "just have to believe." A scientist may still subscribe to religious beliefs, but, without evidence, those beliefs alone don't really dispute any scientific theory, not within the laws of logic, anyway. I have heard that Stephen Jay Gould makes a good argument, but I've never read "The Panda's Thumb" (though it's right here on our bookshelf), so I cannot comment further.

[r9etb]

I have heard that Stephen Jay Gould makes a good argument...

I distrust Gould's writings for the simple reason that he often put his politics ahead of his science. For a good example of this, read Mismeasure of Man.

[stryker]

No, you don't "just have to believe" when it comes to Christianity. If you have the guts and stamina, try getting off of your overstuffed couch, secluding yourself away from all human contact for six weeks and reading the Bible and fasting and praying for proof of His existence and love, and I will guarantee you that you will get the shock of your life and more proof than you ever wanted that God exists, listens, and loves. But then you will be in the same position as Jodie Foster in Contact--you'll be the only one that got the vision, and only those willing to believe you, that is, have faith, will know the truth from you. The problem is that very few people are willing to suffer enough to actually hear from God, so they have to proceed on faith. But if you have the guts, you can touch the wounds; and when you do, you find yourself on your knees in awe of all that you haven't believed.