I agree completely...

>Tracy, in an internet world we can find any information we want to support any idea we like. I understand this :) I only posted the NG article simply because it was topical to a thread being discussed here and the magazine arrived in my mail!
>
>I think the bottom line difference between the two sides, imo, is that the scientific method (in this case evolutionists) accepts that new information can make current theories change or even obsolete. In fact peer review makes this testing of all scientific theories a very integral part of the process. Creationists accept their view, which cannot be changed as it is the word of God, on faith which by definition requires no proof.
>
>The one side attempts to explain what they see in the world and the other side chooses to believe what they read in a chosen holy book. They really are completely different approaches.
>
>For the record, I don't mind what someone believes in so long as I am also free to believe what I like and neither side bother the other :)
>
>
>
>
>
>>And the debate continues...
>>
>>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp
>>
>>More NG debates:
>>
>>http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-09-04.html
>>http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
>>
>>
>>>In the November 2004 issue of National Geographic the main article is about the theory of evolution. Considering the recent monster thread about the same topic I thought I would post the opening paragraph from this article for those who are interested. The entire article is worth reading.
>>>
>>>
>>>Was Darwin Wrong? No, the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming.
>>>by David Quammen
>>>National Geographic, Nov 2004.
>>>
>>>Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life’s work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It’s a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earths living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it’s “just” a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is “just” a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept is as a fact. That’s what scientists mean when
>>>they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence confidently but provisionally – taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.
>>>
>>>
>>>Also very interesting is the results of polls taken in the US and discussed in a few subsequent paragraphs of the article:
>>>
>>>No less than 45 percent of responding US adults believe in creationism and that evolution played no role in shaping us at all. 37 percent allowed for a divine initiative to get things started and evolution as the creative means. Only 12 percent believe that humans evolved from other life forms without involvement of a God.
>>>
>>>
>>>That’s interesting …