[reasonisfaith]

If you walk outside and take a look at the dirt and the rocks, there’s no way to discern how old things are.

If you put a lot of faith in what people write in books and in the people themselves, it’s easy to believe the world is billions of years old.

If you read the Bible, you know God created heaven and earth, and that our experience with time is not God’s.

[Leaning Right]

When it comes to science (evolution, global warming, etc.) all sides must be presented all of the time. And that’s because there is no such thing as “settled science”. Anyone who tries to limit or restrict scientific debate is nothing more than a fascist.

[LouieFisk]

“A lot of Americans are otherwise bible-believing Christians who just understand the opening chapters of Genesis to be metaphorical.”
—
Those “Christians” have painted themselves into quite the corner, since Jesus did not believe the “opening chapters to be metaphorical”. In fact, if they were metaphorical, there would be no need for Jesus. As I said, such “Christians” have really got themselves one doozy of a catch-22.

[JimSEA]

Creationism is based on faith whereas evolution is a testable scientific theory which has been born out repeatedly without being falsified. Believe what you will.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

I don’t like these articles because he never failed to differentiate between Darwin’s evolution and micro or macro evolution.

[DivineMomentsOfTruth]

They should also teach the 'Ancient Aliens' version of Human /Space Alien 👽 hybrids and use Pelosi as a shining example.

[dartuser]

A lot of Americans are otherwise bible-believing Christians who just understand the opening chapters of Genesis to be metaphorical.

I wonder how many of those same Christians take the 10 commandments metaphorically too? I bet none ...

If you take Genesis 1-3 metaphorically, then you must take Exodus 20 the same way.

Go read it ... you cannot have it both ways ...

[DennisR]

Hm...I have never seen anything just come into being miraculously. As in I have never looked out in my driveway and, without explanation, a new car is sitting there.

As far as we know, absolutely nothing happens without some type of force. The creative force behind the universe is none other than God Himself. If not, from where did the universe come?

[Persevero]

Proud creationist and taught all five kids to be.

I’d like to see the demographics in that poll.

Regardless, even if it’s 1 percent, Persevero contra mundum.

God does not lie.

[trebb]

I always considered “Evolution” to be one of those elective liberal arts type sciences. Kind of like the idiots on TV talking about how they “discovered their real culture” and are oh-so-happy because they had their DNA tested and now know all the places their ancestors came from - what real good does that sort of “knowledge” do one when it comes to every day life?

[Mikey_1962]

I was taught Evolution in Catholic School.

I remember asking the Jesuit priest if God spoke to Neanderthals. He said he didn’t think so. I asked why. He said they hadn’t evolved enough to understand.

THAT is a Jesuit answer.

[Poison Pill]

Hmm. Will they be teaching that the sky is a metal disk?

[WatchungEagle]

Creationism has done nothing but hurt conservatives.

[DungeonMaster]

The simplest life form is a bacterium. Imagine a bacterium the size of the largest NFL(spit) stadium and nearly spherical instead of nearly flat. Imagine the whole thing made of Legos.

The Legos represent atoms within a bacterium. Each one has a purpose and has been combined with other atoms to make molecules, those molecules are combined to make proteins. Each one has a specific job. Their complexity is unimaginable making a 747 look like a tinker toy.

There is no known provable process building such things or improving such things. It is an imagined wish/hope/religion of the idolater that life came into existence by itself.

[BroJoeK]

From the article:

1. "Confusing the Evolution debate"
   
2. "Confusing the debate is what exactly is meant by evolution. To scientists, what is usually meant is..."
   
3. "...the true believers at opposing ends of the debate, unfortunately, allow for no dissent."
   
4. "proponents of Intelligent Design recommend confining their debate tactics to appeals to logic (Go to 16:55 in the video), while avoiding reference to the Bible altogether."
   
5. "Paul himself, when dealing with the Greek pagans in Athens, started the debate with an appeal to Greek pagan understanding, not Jewish Scripture."
   
6. "In a scientific debate, some can lead with Genesis, not science."
   
7. "American students should be exposed to the debate and allowed to make their own minds up. Whether they accept atheistic evolution, Intelligent Design, theistic evolution, six-day creationism, or whatever, should be their own choice after being exposed to the arguments of all sides."
   
8. "scripture, which is dear to six-day creationists, can be appealed to outside the school; and only after the initial debate with atheistic evolutionists has been won in the classroom."

Please note that word, "debate", used over & over again, and please remember that regardless of how often an author may say "debate", "debate", "debate", there is no "debate" -- none, zero, nada debate -- within science or within religious teachings regarding creation or evolution.

No debate.

Within science, scientists do not debate evolution except in strict scientific terms as, for example, when new discoveries lead to new questions about how & when.
Science does not debate Intelligent Design or alien panspermia because there's no obvious evidence for it and no confirmed theory explaining it.
Most important, because by definition of the word "science", it can only consider natural explanations for natural processes.
Anything else (i.e., creationism) is simply non-scientific and that's why there's no debate.

And within our religious teachings there is also no debate on the basics because, again by definition, to be religious you must believe that God created everything we see & perceive even if we have no idea of how He did it.
The only discussion within religion is whether natural-science can contribute anything of value to our understandings of God's creative actions.
Many say, "no" because science by definition can only deal in the natural realm, so science is therefore unalterably opposed to crediting God's supernatural creations.
Others are not so certain that better understanding natural processes necessarily reduces the power & omniscience of nature's Creator.

Of course the "debate" this author fantasizes is between science & religion, or evolution & Creation, but such debates are impossible because science cannot acknowledge the supernatural and much of religion cannot accept natural explanations for Creation.
So they simply talk past each other with one side saying, in effect, "yes it is," and the other side, "no it's not".

That's no debate.

So if a religious person claims, "science can't answer this and science can't answer that and science can't answer the other thing either!" of course that's correct, in part because science by definition was never intended to answer every question, only to find natural explanations for natural processes, where those are even possible.

Yes, it's still true: there's much more science cannot explain than what it can explain, and even where we find natural explanations these should in no way be seen as denying the Hand of God in planning, forming & shaping the natural realm as we perceive it.

So, again, there's no "debate" and the question from a religious perspective is: how can we see the Hand of God in the natural realm?
My answer is: how could we not see His works?

[RegulatorCountry]

Nor would they take suggestions from the Pope.

LOL! "'Die Protestant heretic!,' he suggested."