Yay, another post by babe neither about science nor creationism.
Trolling is so fun for you.
hogwash.
you simply don't care to admit "why" "evolution" has been raised up out of the primordial muck to take down religion.
I am explaining why this is a vital question of our day, as it represents a crossroads for human civilization. The reason why some "religious" people don't want to accept the science as it is popularly promulgated. . . . and cling to the old biblical story of the creation. . . . is because they want to affirm some of their personal values. The reason "why" some "progressive", or otherwise unhinged folks want to claim the science and misconstrue it to their purposes, is because they don't want to credit the value or truth of a mass of personal values ordinarily taught generally by religions of every kind.
Of course "Science" is not about validating or discrediting personal values or particular moral beliefs. A lot of "evolutionists" want to use it for that purpose, though, and want to drum religious beliefs out of the public discourse. . . . relegating those people's views in regard to morals to the closet, so to speak, and trying to shout these people out of their rights of free speech.
I generally accept the relationships which have been found between various species, and believe that changes do occur. . . . even on the level of bringing forth new species. I don't think this necessarily requires a purposed hand, either, to make it happen. I do think a lot of researchers have a bias in their interpretations, perhaps. . . .either one way or the other.
In my view, there has been a concerted campaign against our traditional values by folks who wish, for whatever purpose, to put their own values forward. Some of it has been in the "Marxist" or "Progressive" line of "change", with a stated intent to destroy religion in society. These folks are open in their eagerness to press every "fact of science" to their service, for the purpose of putting religion out of our society.
OB is interesting to me because, while I do think he is thoroughly committed to a progressive agenda, he is at least willing to "walk the line" as to what is or is not "science". Perhaps some others don't want to give him that credit, but I look for it, and am willing to credit him to that extent.
Pearl, to her credit, is getting more educated about the science and has been able to raise some valid points in the discussion, as well.
For me, personally, the value of religion is not in its interpretations of science or human history so much as in its teachings about how we ought to conduct our personal lives. Some values have stood the test of time and produced some good results on the personal level.
Of course OB's point about the abuse of "religion" by power-craving or other-hating folks are not exemplary nor relevant to the teachings of Jesus about returning good for evil, or about accountability for personal conduct to a righteous Judge at the end of our earthly day. I consider them more to the point of examples of what religions do not teach, but what ignorant and willful people will do when they actually have no true religion or personal values.
The attempt of some statists, such as Lenin or Stalin or Mao, for example, to cleanse the earth of religious beliefs through wholesale slaughter of suspected believers is just as atrocious as anything tyrants have done in the name of religion.