[ianch99]

Originally Posted by passingbat

I find it interesting that some people who support Evolution are quite determined to prove people who believe Creation, wrong. They will claim Evolution as a fact, when it is actually a theory, granted, the predominant theory. Creation, from the scientific standpoint, is also a theory. For Christians, it is only by applying faith in The word of God that makes creation a 'faith-fact' i.e., not as we generally understand the word 'fact'.

I don't see that determination to disprove Evolution coming from the Creation side. Is it because they currently don't have as much scientific evidence as the Evolution people have? Maybe; I haven't totted up the evidence on either side. Is it because they are afraid of being ridiculed because they are standing against the 'world' view? Or is it more to do Bible Believing Christians having such confidence in the Word of God and a complete peace in what it teaches, that they don't need to defend it. That is certainly where I'm coming from. It's maybe a combination of all three.

Evolution is certainly a more 'convenient' stance. There is no creator God, and therefore no one to be accountable to when you die. Providing you obey the law, you can do whatever you want. On a human level, a pretty attractive proposition

If you acknowledge a Creator, and therefore creation, that whole scenario becomes a whole lot different. Decisions need to be made both for the way we live today and also with regard to eternity. Not such an attractive prospect on the human level.

It's easy to see on a non scientific level why Evolution is so attractive. And of course the devil loves Evolution; it negates the need of people to come to faith in Jesus.

As someone reportedly said, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"

I think that the primary issue is when someone presents opinion as scientific fact. I personally can't see anyone objecting to people having whatever opinions as they like.

The problem lies when they take this opinion and try, using the credibility of science, and change processes & practices that affect others.

An example being the teaching of Creationism in public school in (some) US States:

Intelligent Design and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the separation of church and state. The scope of the ruling affected state schools and did not include independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools, all of whom remained free to teach creationism.

Within two years of the Edwards ruling a creationist textbook was produced: Of Pandas and People (1989), which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer." Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.[9] This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism, was developed in the early 1990s.

This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005, and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005, in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design (ID) be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover Area School Board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed only when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief

I don't see this as intolerance just common sense ..