Steve, thanks for the link to that book. Interesting that all the reviews that said it was a good, unbiased review were well written. All the ones that said it was biased against Christianity were, well . . . not.

Rkz, keep in mind what you'll be doing battle against:

"God said it, I believe it, that's the end of it".

You will note that nowhere does this statement contain anything regarding critical thinking, examination of existing evidence, nor allowing for free thinking where anything concerning God is concerned. I will assume that this includes Creation.

yuppers, good luck. personally I'm a firm believer in the church of f.o.w.i.d. and using logic against raw belief/faith is for the most part a losing battle.

Remember rk that Christians' theories on the origins of the universe, earth, humans, etc. are as wide and varied as fish in the dang sea. I just shake my head at some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths here at my Christian college.
One argument is not going to cover everything a creationist may throw at you. They're like the AIDs virus, it just keeps popping up in new forms and it is doubtful that you'll ever kill it off.

Here's a repository of creationist arguments. They even have a list of creationist arguments that are too stupid even for them to support, which can be helpful when you run into someone who thinks that if we really evolved, then apes would no longer exist.

And here's a good source for all sides of the debate.

You might also want to check on the evolution of religeon.

I remember when eating meat on a Friday was a sin.

Also, watch the film "Inherit The Wind". The courtroom scene
when Spencer Tracy is arguing about the length of time a day was when the world was supposed to have been created is great stuff.

having banged my head against this wall several times recently I agree. But I'd like to point out that belief isn't supposed to be rational. Worship, spirituality, and connection with mystery are all beneficial to mankind. I personally don't care what form people choose to participate in.

Just don't mix that stuff into biology class. Science IS supposed to be rational.

The mysteries of the Universe are profound and spiritual enough without making stuff up... :)

In support of ID although I don't necessarily believe in it as a fact, only a theory; if you have an ant farm, it isn't static. It will change over time. If you left it for long enough, there'd be evidence of evolution in some form or another (in my opinion because I do believe that evolution is a fact) which suggests to me that just because evolution is a fact, it doesn't discount ID theory.

Also, another thought. If God is the creator, maybe he is simply our Intelligent Designer. That is, he's the higher power because if he decides to flush us down the toilet because it's too much of a mess, then that's what he'll do.

Hmmm...sounds a bit like revelation. Maybe his dog's going to get off his chain and wreak havoc in 'God's' sandbox. ;)

The problem with ID isn't that it's impossible; it's that it's impossible to test. No matter what evidence comes up, you can always say "God did it that way. So there." But they try to pretend that they have scientific support, in order to shove their way into public schools and claim that they should get equal time to evolution in a science class.

Philosophically, you can always, for anything, no matter what, say "it's magic!" But that has no place in a science class.

I agree HM. I see the difficulty of this subject in the school system. I just think it's stupid to try and create a situation where it can't even be discussed for it's pros or it's cons as far as the theory goes.

It's not a scientific theory. And I don't think that each science class should end with "...but it could all be done by magic, and just seem to work like that."

Because that's what ID is. There's no reason that it would apply only to evolution. If you say that alternate magic explanations are OK for biology, why not everything else?

ID is poor theology because it reduces the deity to the role of a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than our current scientific level.

ID is not a theory because it has no predictive power and cannot be falsified.

ID argues through poor analogies. Placing the parts of a watch into a box and shaking the box is not the way watches are made. If you place the parts of an animal into a box and shake the box, you won't get a working animal.

The dogma of "Irreducible Complexity" is flawed. Eyes are commonly cited as an example of a body part that cannot have evolved. Yet nature is full of examples of creatures that have simple eyes. The eye of a sea urchin is nothing more than a pit of light-sensitive cells. The eye of a nautilus is nothing more than a pinhole camera. Yet ID proponents often ignore these and other examples because they weaken their arguments.

Most important of all, ID proponents cannot argue rationally. I once saw an ID troll asking for evidence of evolution on a forum, but then making a rule that said antibiotic resistance in bacteria was not evidence. Well, it IS evidence. To paraphrase Galileo: And yet they change.

It's not even worth debating these crackpots on theological grounds because they cannot understand that a religious holy text can have errors and omissions in it.

• The Bible has been translated from one language into another several times, and to some extent the original meaning is lost. "Fiat lux" does not mean "Let there be light", but "Let light be made".
• Leviathan and behemoth are not generic terms for big animals, but had very specific meanings like "elephant" or "hippopotamus". Yet the meaning has been lost over time.
• 1 Kings 7:23 incorrectly gives the value of pi as being equal to 3.

And what of creation myths? Should creation myths other than Genesis be taught in Sunday school? If not, then one would do well to read up on what Jesus had to say about hypocrisy.

Finally, if you meet an ID proponent who states that God created life on earth, you can have a bit of fun with them. Insist that Satan created life on earth. If they ask why you say this, just point to the evidence of suffering in nature. Parasites. Predation. Nature red in tooth and claw. These are not the hallmarks of a benevolent deity but a malevolent one. So, logically, Satan must have created life on earth and God had nothing to do with it.

Mostly everyone here has mentioned everything I know on the subject, pretty big compliment since I am a big fan of evolution, so I will just give you these sites and hopefully it will interest and help you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...ationists.html