n the Aztec creation myth the world is born out of destruction when Huitzilopochtli, son of the goddess Coatlique, murdered his own siblings. The Hopi creation story features a woman with spider-like qualities and early earth is symbolized as a womb from which humans emerge.

A pseudo-scientific rationale could be created for any one of the

Religious groups oppose the teaching of evolution on the grounds that it is a flawed science and undermines creationist theories.They have had a few reverses recently. This week the Kansas Board of Education voted to throw out so-called "scientific standards" introduced by conservatives in their effort to downplay the role of evolution.

In terms of scientific credibility, the theory of evolution is actually rock solid compared to a creation myth that features a conniving serpent, a tree of "good and evil" and the first blind date on record.

There is no scientific evidence to support the view that an anthropomorphic deity created the planet. It would be as hard as trying to assert scientific credibility for Santa Clause or the Ghillie Dhu - Scottish fairies that reputedly guard the trees.

Creationist theories "prove" nothing. They merely extrapolate from scientific fact in an attempt to lend legitimacy to a supernatural hypothesis. There is no basis for creationism to claim scientific credibility because it derives from a myth rooted in scriptural lore. It has more in common with poetic allegory than with the hard proofs of empirical science.

The creationist argument is weakened further by the fact that the Christian version is only one of many such creation myths. Other variants from around the world contradict the Christian version of events. In the Aztec creation myth the world is born out of destruction when Huitzilopochtli, son of the goddess Coatlique, murdered his own siblings. The Hopi creation story features a woman with spider-like qualities and early earth is symbolized as a womb from which humans emerge.

A pseudo-scientific rationale could be created for any one of thes

terms of scientific credibility, the theory of evolution is actually rock solid compared to a creation myth that features a conniving serpent, a tree of "good and evil" and the first blind date on record.

There is no scientific evidence to support the view that an anthropomorphic deity created the planet. It would be as hard as trying to assert scientific credibility for Santa Clause or the Ghillie Dhu - Scottish fairies that reputedly guard the trees.

Creationist theories "prove" nothing. They merely extrapolate from scientific fact in an attempt to lend legitimacy to a supernatural hypothesis. There is no basis for creationism to claim scientific credibility because it derives from a myth rooted in scriptural lore. It has more in common with poetic allegory than with the hard proofs of empirical science.

The creationist argument is weakened further by the fact that the Christian version is only one of many such creation myths. Other variants from around the world contradict the Christian version of events. In the Aztec creation myth the world is born out of destruction when Huitzilopochtli, son of the goddess Coatlique, murdered his own siblings. The Hopi creation story features a woman with spider-like qualities and early earth is symbolized as a womb from which humans emerge.

A pseudo-scientific rationale could be created for any one of the

ssert scientific credibility for Santa Clause or the Ghillie Dhu - Scottish fairies that reputedly guard the trees.

Creationist theories "prove" nothing. They merely extrapolate from scientific fact in an attempt to lend legitimacy to a supernatural hypothesis. There is no basis for creationism to claim scientific credibility because it derives from a myth rooted in scriptural lore. It has more in common with poetic allegory than with the hard proofs of empirical science.

The creationist argument is weakened further by the fact that the Christian version is only one of many such creation myths. Other variants from around the world contradict the Christian version of events. In the Aztec creation myth the world is born out of destruction when Huitzilopochtli, son of the goddess Coatlique, murdered his own siblings. The Hopi creation story features a woman with spider-like qualities and early earth is symbolized as a womb from which humans emerge.

A pseudo-scientific rationale could be created for any one of the

ives from a myth rooted in scriptural lore. It has more in common with poetic allegory than with the hard proofs of empirical science.

The creationist argument is weakened further by the fact that the Christian version is only one of many such creation myths. Other variants from around the world contradict the Christian version of events. In the Aztec creation myth the world is born out of destruction when Huitzilopochtli, son of the goddess Coatlique, murdered his own siblings. The Hopi creation story features a woman with spider-like qualities and early earth is symbolized as a womb from which humans emerge.

A pseudo-scientific rationale could be created for any one of the

n the Aztec creation myth the world is born out of destruction when Huitzilopochtli, son of the goddess Coatlique, murdered his own siblings. The Hopi creation story features a woman with spider-like qualities and early earth is symbolized as a womb from which humans emerge.

A pseudo-scientific rationale could be created for any one of these myths, but that still wouldn't place any of them them in the same playing field as a scientific method that provides evidence backed up with advanced techniques such as molecular genetics - in particular as it relates to DNA sequencing.

Attempting to suppress scientific inquiry and knowledge in order to promote the Genesis myth, is a place some fundamentalist Christians would like to go and they have to be strenuously resisted. Dressing up their "back to the garden" agenda with high sounding terms such as the ironically named Intelligent Design won't help either.

Fact is ID is simply religious conjecture, because the proponents have no positive proof they can bring to the table - no Edenic rib cage or skeletal remains of a talking serpent, not even a half eaten apple, carbon dated to the appropriate period. Of course I'm being facetious, but in truth they simply do not have a fraction of the evidence that has been assembled by researchers in the area of evolutionary theory.

ID has established its shaky credentials mainly by attacking the theory of evolution. Pointing out areas of apparent contradiction and gaps in the fossil record. It's primarily a reactionary philosophy, that has made its name by opposing the work of evolutionary theorists.

With the recent decision to bolster the teaching of evolutionary theory, the Kansas Board of Education