It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.

The theory of evolution and science itself has been attacked by the religion since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Throughout history religious zealots have harassed, hindered, or outright suppressed the likes of Galieo, Copernicus, and Charles Darwin. It's never on the merits of the work itself. It always has to do with certain groups just not liking that the stories in their favorite religous texts being disproved in the real world. It's not about their claims being valid. It's about vindicating thier own beliefs and rallying around something that seems so counter-intuitive to their illogical thinking.

Sadly enough, the assault on science continues to this day. The church has long since lost it's power, but the attack can come from a myriad of sources. Some even come from former teenage idols. Kirk Cameron, a former child star from the sitcom Growing Pains, has taken up the mantle of overzealous religious dogma. In a recent interview with People, he discussed plans to distribute 'edited' versions of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 19th across college campuses.

Kirk Cameron Defends attacks on Darwin

By edited, of course, that means mixed with irrational creationist dogma that has long since been disproved and has no merit in modern science. Yet he makes no apologies. He describes the edited text as a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." But this is a complete oxymoron.

When it comes to the debate between creationism and science, there is no balance. Science uses reason, evidence, and logic. Creationism uses belief, superstition, and dogma. To people like Cameron, a firm belief in his particular supernatural deity is all it takes to disprove a theory that is accepted by over 95 percent of scientists and has mountains of evidence across varying fields like palentology, zoology, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, chemistry, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't supported by anything other than dogmatic believers who know next to nothing about science, what it is or how it works. They don't even understand what the word 'theory' means. To people like Cameron, it means a guess. But if he just opened any legitimate dictionary, he would see that's completely wrong. Yet this doesn't bother him. He and his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, continue to state and restate the same false statements again and again, never changing their message or the merits that support it. They either aren't that concerned with the truth or simply do not care.

What Kirk is doing has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with promoting his agenda and that of his creationist buddies. By disturbing these perverse texts across college campuses, he hopes to gain followers. In his mind he's saving their souls, but in reality he's dooming them to ignorance. Creationism is one of the most perverted flaws of religion. It makes people mix belief with truth, causing them to abandon any semblance of reason or questioning in any objective manner. It's all about propagating the faith. Anything that gets the believer to think in any way that deviates from accepted dogma must somehow be bad, even if it is backed up by evidence and logic. This isn't just immoral. It's downright inhumane, attempting to rob people of their natrual capacity for reason and knowledge.

On November 21st, 2009, it will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origins of Species." It is sad that after all this time, there are still people like Kirk Cameron who spew their Bronze Age worldviews and call it moral. People like them would have society march backwards into the dark ages, negating all the progress that religion and zealous preachers have fought tirelessly to hinder. To them, saving souls is worth all the countless lives that would be lost by abandoning this powerful tool for human progress.

That in essence is the ultimate tragedy. What if centuries ago there was an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkings who had insight into the world that could have advanced mankind out of the Dark Ages faster? Yet they were never able to contribute because zealous religious officials felt threatened by their work and had them silenced or even killed? There's no telling how many lives could have been spared, but that doesn't matter to these people. Any amount of death is worth it if it gains them favor of their invisible god. That, in every sense, is evil in it's purest form.

For a rebuttal of Kirk Cameron's many erroneous views, please check out the video below.

It's remarkable how often religious zealots play the victim. And who could blame them? It's easy to play the victim. It saves people the trouble of actually having to defend their position with rational arguments. Whenever some other group comes along, secular or religious, and says something they don't like, they rush to classify it as an issue of religious bigotry. As if any opposing viewpoint or differing opinion is somehow an insult to their way of thinking. It isn't just irrational. It's downright childish.

But that doesn't stop men like Ken Conner from writing articles that accuse scientists of all people of religious bigotry.

Science Theists Need Not Apply

The cores of Conner's article centers around Dr. Francis Collins, who President Obama picked to head the National Institutes of Health. Collins is a controversial figure because he's not just a scientist, he's a devout evangelical Christian who often tries to integrate his work as a scientist with his beliefs as a Christian. He's written various books such as "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." He was also featured in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" which presented a dubious case that the scientific community was anti-god and anti-Christian.

This notion is not only completely false, it's rediculous. Collins isn't criticized for his religious beliefs. Nor is he criticized for his work. He is a target because he is violating one of the most important aspects of science. He is trying to thrust the supernatural world of god, satan, angels, and miracles into the strictly rational process that is science. It is a major fallacy that any rational minded scientist is quick to point out. It's called 'violation of the philosophy of science.' It is a tenant as old as science itself. One cannot appeal to the supernatural or the spiritual when making a scientific claim. That is because science is inherently rational. It requires evidence, testable hyopothesis, and logic to prove points. To put any kind of god into the mix be it the Christian god or the Aztec god is to negate the very tenants of what makes science work.

Conner doesn't understand this and neither does Collins. They rely on emotional appeals that pain the scientists as cold, uncaring, and prejudice. They will gladly point out that some of the greatest minds of all time like Plato, Aristotle, and Newton were all devout believers. This is true, but never at any point did these men use the supernatural in their work. They never appealed to god or spirits of any kind to present justification for their claims. In science, one's personal beliefs are completely irrelevant. It does not matter of a scientist is a devout believer in god or is a worshipper of the sun. What matters is the claims they make and the evidence they use to back it up. It is the evidence that trumps personal beliefs. It doesn't matter where it came from or who it came from. If it can be verified and vindicated, it is worth just as much as any work from a devout believer.

Conner will also argue without god, science lacks ethics. But this is a completely false assumption. It assumes people need god to make good moral decisions. This is a complete misnomer considering people have had god for years and used it to justify violence, prejudice, racisim, slavery, murder, and genocide. Conner and Collins try and make it seem as though without religion, science is somehow evil. But science is not evil. It can't be evil. Only people can be evil. Science by it's own definition is objective and unbias. It is the human beings who use it.

When it comes to the debate between religion and science, the issue is clear. Science is inherently rational and based on evidence, logic, and reason. Religion is inherently irrational and based on faith, superstition, and the supernatural. One cannot be used in the context of the other without destroying the premise of the other. Men like Conner and Collins are destroying their credibility by trying to have their cake and eat it to. There's nothing bioted, prejudice, or bias about it. It's irrational, illogical, and flat out wrong. Plain and simple.

When discussing the debate over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, many misguided moral crusaders will cry fowl by claiming schools and universities are not hearing out alternative views. The most common alternative view they push is creationism/intelligent design (they're really the same thing). But these religiously motivated theories had been disproven long ago because they could never hold up under peer review and could not explain anywhere near the phenomenon that evolution explained. Since it is drawn from the annuls of bronze age mythology, it can't be tested or verified. It can't even be taken seriously. Only evolution has been able to explain the vast biodiversity of life on Earth. That is why no alternative is taught. But that doesn't mean there weren't any.

One alternative that most religious zealots never even mention is the evolutionary theory of Jean Baptiste Lemarck. His theory, which is similar to Darwin's, hypothesized that individuals of a species could gain attributes in their lifetime that would favor their survivability and hence pass them to their offspring. He called this 'aquired characteristics.' For example, if a man worked as a blacksmith most of his life and developed big, strong arms then under Lemarck's theory he would pass the trait of big strong arms to his offspring.

History of Jean Baptiste Lemarck (1744-1829)

This theory, which came before Darwin, was tested by science and eventually disproven by Mendal genetics. Darwin later got it right when he hypothesized that populations evolved, but not individuals. Lemarck was discredited, which is part of why he is rarely mentioned in science today. But what also goes unnoticed is how his work would later influence the debate over evolution.

One of the major arguments anti-evolution crusaders often make is that evolution is a slippery slope. Teaching it leads to some kind of degradation of morality. Their favorite tactics is to associate it with the likes of Hitler and Stalin, claiming they were fervent evolutionary supporters. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Stalin, who used many cruel reasons to justify his slaughter, was NOT a supporter of evolution. He and many others in the communist party believed in Lemarck. Soviet psuedo-scientist Tromfim Lysenko denounced evolution and Mendelian genetics as a capitalist myth. Stalin took this and in his propaganda promoted Lemarck, believing that using acquired characteristics and the proper conditioning of individuals in their totalitarian state they could create a new race he called homo soviticus (the ideal communist). Those that actually pushed evolution or 'Darwinism' as they called it were sent to the gulags. These ideas were later adopted by another Lemarck supporter, Mao Zedong for the same reason. So those that say they were ardent Darwinists do not check their facts.

Lemarck and Communism

Lysenkoism and Stalinist Russia

Hitler was another tyrant who liked the appeal of Lemarck's work. It fell much more in line with his radical ideology on racial superiority. Many erroneously say he favored Social Darwinism (a perversion of real evolution anyhow), but his ideas of conditioning his people and exterminating undesireables is much more in line with Lemarck.

Hitler and Lemarck

Now just because these tyrants favored Lemarck does not mean Lemarck deserves to be associated with them. It just shows that those attempting to discredit Darwin and evolution are not checking their facts. Even if evolution were used as justification by madmen and despots, that wouldn't make it any less true. But it isn't and it's ridiculuous to assert otherwise by linking it to undesirable figures in history. Lemarck like creationism/intelligent design have both been disproven by science. That is why evolution is accepted.

In the age of the internet, it's possible to get information from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately, in an environment of free speech and open dialogue, it's easy for bias, skewed, and irrational sources to propagate and spread irrational messages to gullible minds. In a previous post, I highlighted the importance of objectivity and the issues surrounding bias. The internet is ripe with instances of irrational bias that spew propaganda as if it were objective. One of the most egregious and overt examples is the website Conservapedia.

Conservapedia was founded in 2006 by Andy Schlafy, son of famed conservative activist Phyllis Schlafy. He modeled his site after Wikipedia, the most well-known online encyclopedia of it's kind, only he structured it with a clear conservative bias. They make the bold claim in their about page that all other sources have been corrupted by liberal bias. It is even overtly stated:

"No other encyclopedia resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths."

Immediately, the message is clear. Conservapedia is bias and appeals to conspiracy to convince vistors of it's message. It unapologetically denounces atheism, homosexuality, evolution, and champions Christianity as if it has any more authority than other faiths. It does so in a way that is so laughably and reprehensibly arrogant that it destroys any credibility it may have to real conservatism. Real conservatism is founded on individual freedom and liberty. But that seems to be lost on conservapedia as every entry is not only heavily edited, they're also completely frozen to prevent further tampering. This means that if an entry is every disproved, it can't be corrected. Wikipedia and reason aren't like that. And it shows in various areas.

Take for instance their atheism page. As of June 7 2008 they changed the page a total of 115 times, but after that date the page was locked to prevent further editing. On this page they make a huge link between atheism and evolution, which if anybody had done even the most basic of research would have found to be bogtus. Evolution isn't linked to atheism anymore than it's linked to Christianity. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it makes absolutely no statement on the supernatural, including god. It can neither prove nor disprove any religion. Then there's the section that links atheism and mass murder. They will gladly point out the mass murders of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot as instances of atheism, but they don't even acknowledge that Christianity is also responsible for mass murder (which is completely untrue). The crusades, the inquisition, and the witch hunts have caused millions upon millions of deaths both directly and indirectly over the centuries. But do they mention this? Of course not.

Then there's the evolution page, which coincidently has a section on mass murder as well. Again, Conservapedia tries to link Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to evolution as it does atheism. But again, they present no direct evidence to it. They even ignore the fact that Hitler was a Catholic and a creationist. All these despots despised evolution. They prefered the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a pre-cursor to Darwin who believed in the concept of acquired traits (ie a blacksmith developing a small arm in his lifetime passing that trait along to his son). They found this far more favorable because it supported their ideas of creating a new race to dominate those they deemed inferior, which has everything to do with racism and nothing to do with evolution. But Conservapedia doens't make this distinction. Why would they? It doesn't support their agenda to stand against liberals, atheists, and anybody who doesn't believe as they do. If anybody even did the most basic of fact checking, they would see how wrong their positions are.

Then there's the way they try to refute evolution. First they say it's a controversial theory in science. That's wrong. Over 95 percent of scientists accept it. Only about half the population in America accepts it, but that has no bearing on its validity. Nearly all those who reject evolution do so because they do not understand it or the scientific method. They do what Conservapedia does and accept pre-assumed conclusions. That cannot be done in science. Evidence must be followed to a conclusion. Then they say no clear transitional forms have been found. This is completely false. There have been countless transitional forms found documenting dinosaurs to bird evolution, primate to human evolution, and fish to tetrapod evolution. But Conservapedia doesn't give this any creedence. They brush it off only as 'microevolution' and not 'macroevolution,' two terms which are utterly arbitrary. They basically say it's possible to walk 20 feet, but not 20 miles.

Other sections involving abortion, homosexuality, liberalism, science, the enlightenment, the bible, history, Islam, poltics, feminism, media, and pretty much any other hot-button issue all share the same story. They are utterly skewed to push a conservative Christian viewpoint. They offer no counter arguments. They accept no criticism. Pages have been locked to disallow people from correcting mistakes or updating information. It is completley contrarian to true conservatism, which advocates free speech and individual liberty. But to them the only liberty that matters is the liberty they take to make their point.

What makes Conservapedia so egregeous is the overt nature in which it presents itself. The site is clear. It presents only information from the conservative Christian perspective. Yet it still presents itself as the 'true source' unbiased by liberalism. But it is propoganda, pure and simple. People who get their information there will only get a bias perspective and the danger of this is that it will only reinforce the views of like-minded people and make them even more closed off from dissenting opinions. It is a dangerous tactic in any society, skewing information to further reinforce stereotypes and bigotry.

In the end Conserapedia is not an expression of true conservatism. It is a perversion.

Recently, a group of youtube enthusiasts who specialize in making videos that counter bogus claims made by creationists and religious fundementalists banded together to stop what has been a disturbing trend from the side of religious groups. In the last year groups like Answers in Genesis, Illustria Media, Eternal Media, ande Creation Science Evangilism have been harassing users who make videos that counter their bogus claims about creationism, science, and religion in general. Their main tool is to use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a law passed in 1998 meant to protect copyrighted material on the internet. Youtube enforces this law by banning users who wrongly post copyrighted material without permission and do not adhere to the fair use policies. And they were making false claims that video makers, many of whom were just individuals who did these videos in their spare time, were illegally using their material. But in reality they weren't. They were only using clips and parodies, which are perfectly acceptable for fair use. But to them it wasn't about saving copyrighted material. It was about silencing those who disagreed with them.

This phenomenon epitomized the dangers of religious dogma and why it is a threat to the free society. Groups like Answers in Genesis and Eternal Media are so ridged in their beliefs that they don't wish to counter or debate them, they want to silence any criticism that may threaten them. And they're willing to go so far as to use dishonest tactics to do it. Time and again, they show a blatant disregard for free speech and criticism. Many of these groups censor their comments on youtube so people cannot comment or point out mistakes. They also rarely respond to any counter claim. In contrast those who dedicate themselves to debunking these claims do not censor the comments. They freely allow people to criticize and ask questions about their claims and they do their best to respond them. And when they don't know, they're honest about it.

It is the value of free speech and free inquery that allows people to question dogma. As religious a country as this is, dogmatic claims often fall apart in the face of valid criticism that is allowed to present evidence and debate the merits of any claim. Many radical religious officials fear this and actively work to silence any criticism. They go so far as to try and get the government on their side to legislate their beliefs so they will have political protection, which helps immunize them from inquery. It is something the founding fathers, many of who were religoius themselves, understood. They knew that if one brand of religion was favored or endorsed by the state, it could threaten the merits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People had to be free to believe or not believe whatever they wanted. But when some radical gropus (and it is a minority) actively try to subvert free speech to promote their own agenda it crosses a fundemental line.

In a free society, people are free to believe and worship however they please. But when one group tries to subvert another, that is just plain tyranny and regardless of anyone's religious convictions they have no place in a free society.

Please see the video below for more information on this issue:

A 2006 poll conducted by CBS revealed that 55 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form without any evolutionary processes while 27 percent said God guided the evolutionary process and just 13 percent said God was not involved at all. No other Western nation with the possible exception of Turkey has so many people believing in something that has been repeatedly proven time again to be dead wrong on every level. While the public may be split, over 95 percent of scientists agree that evolution is true and no god or goddess or spirit was involved. But that doesn't stop vocal fundementalist Christians from pushing their views on others as a way to promote their agenda and since science doesn't support creationism or its close relative intelligent design they lobby for state support in classrooms.

Thankfully, though, some church leaders are trying to move away from this pointless debate. Times Online, a UK news service, reported recently that leaders of the Church of England are planning to unveil a new website that promotes evolution over creationism. The launch of the site will culminate on the 150th anniversary of the day when Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection to the scientific community. It stands in stark contrast to established Christian conservatives who interpret the Bible literally and push a Christian centered agenda on politicians and communities. But Anglican leaders feel the creationist movement, which has much stronger roots in America, is having a negative impact on Christianity worldwide. Because of how vocal creationists like Ken Ham, Duane Gish, and the late Henry Morris are they paint an image of Christians that shows them as irrational, stubborn, ignorant, and intolerant. In the article Rev. Malcolm Brown summerized it best with his quote:

“Christian attitudes don't have to be either a complete swallowing of Darwin and everything that has been done in his name, on the one hand, and, on the other, the complete rejection of scientific method with a literal interpretation of the Bible."

Religion has always been a touchy subject and many are quick to defend their faith against what they percieve as attacks. But by defending creationism they do a disservice to their faith by promoting a narrow worldview that may alienate those of different beliefs and even those of the Christian faith. It makes dialogue between those of differing beliefs very difficult and causes people to reject ideas on the basis of holding onto their cherished beliefs because they simply cannot accept that they are just stories.

As an atheist, I've come across many who refuse to hear any arguments that may disprove their beliefs. They'll cite any number of unscientific references as proof, but they flat out reject all notions of inquery and investigation in favor of a set and defined worldview where there is no gray area and there is no uncertainty. I was once a Christian, but I didn't become an atheist because of a scientific theory. I became an atheist because through my experiences I learned that along with the idea that there is no Santa Claus, there is no Easter Bunny, and there are no unicorns, fairies, or dragons there is also no god. Evolution played no part in it.

There's nothing wrong with being a Christian. There's nothing wrong with being a pagan, a Raelien, or a Satanist. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe. But creationists go too far in trying to prove that their mythos is scientifically proven while others are all wrong even though no good science accepts their positions. They are no different than those who believed the Earth was the center of the universise and disease was caused by evil spirits. And the fact they try to use science to prove the existance of god, who is by default a supernatural being, violates the fundemntal philosophies of science which state it can make no statement on the supernatural. Science does not stop anybody from believing in whatever they want to believe and hopefully more church leaders will step up and fight to save their faith from creationist nonsense.

See the full article at this link