Evolution has failed to explain logically where all this could possibly have arrived from and I dont accept promordial soup or big bang theories with no scientific evidence to back them up.. how can this be proven, tested or observed today?. They were not there. So to me, it remains what it is a "theory".

They have a mantra mesmerisation "Evolution is fact" "Creation is religion". But dont give us a slogan, give us proof. It is built into the science curriculum, but they were not there in the beginning to even KNOW what happened, or when, or how or why. ....though more students are catching on and are starting to question their teachers (which apparently in some areas is becoming alarming to them)..Some of the teachers have become so baffled that they avoid the "E" word like the plague. So they are in a sense being forced to teach science as fact without a bias because kids are starting to think for themselves and are not willing to regurgitate mindless mantras. One guy I know is a science teacher, not necessarily religious either. Does not go to church but he said to me once, I do not even teach evolution, I just teach science. Even he knew that it was based on a lot of guess work and faith. He preferred to allow the students to form their own opinions based on factual science that he felt was fairer to them. No creationism was taught, if it had been? He would have been removed.

One does not have to be a Christian by the way to believe in creation..think about it) They may believe in intelligent design, but not all believe in Jesus Christ as God. So far from your idea of Christian Fundamentalism, creationist scientists are often ex evolutionists.

. Surely you don't believe that evolutionists have the patent on the origins of life? or that they own science? and that the only reason for advancing technology is evolution? Much science is agreed and shared by both Creationists and evolutionists alike and does not have to involve the theory of evolution at all.

Even Kent Hovind, says that most of the science is great, but just get the lies out of the textbooks. How does leaving these things in advance science? That does nothing for honest science or learning, but rather frustrates it and causes confusion Thus, in a sense, keeping them in the dark. So you speak of christians/creationists pushing us back into the dark ages, but have you considered the other? As I've said, they've be no need for all the hoaxes of the past if they felt it was a sure thing. So why was that done?

Some of the creation scientists are some of the most brilliant and advanced guys you could meet. Far from going back into the dark ages, they are right up there with the latest...they did not start out fundamentalist christians but if they were.... how on earth does that suddenly cancel out someone's knowledge of science or ability to advance? You wrongly assume that if someone believes in creation and the events of the bible, this means we go back into the dark ages and won't advance anymore. But this is only your opinion. I dont attribute medical and technical advancement exclusively to evolution. But the problem is, the name evolution has been soiled by them because the word itself is not a bad word at all, but it is how they have used it.

Yes, Kent Hovind is a fundamentalist and yes he gets up some people's noses, you are not the only one. And I am sure that not everything he states is necessariy without bias either. BUT, in saying this, I admire the guy for exposing the lies still in the textbooks to this day that should have been removed a LONG time ago. Though I dont not agree wth every statement he makes, he makes many VERY important points and he can't be that much of a moron Linda, he challenges many evolutionists to debates and many refuse the challenge. They should be able to make mince meat out of him. Hovind will put himself in the firing line, he's not afraid and he will be a one man band with a load of evolutionists firing at him at once in the same room. Safety in numbers for these guys. He must know his stuff Linda, he wouldn't have a dog show against them if he didn't. This does not mean every bit of info he speaks of is entirely accurate either, but much of it is sound when he exposes some of the deception/tactics and hoaxes.

But there are far more creationists than him around on videos that I admit I take in more. And so often they are ex evolutionists. Gary Parker for example I find wonderful. Brilliant guy. Taught as a science teacher for many years, taught evolution and was one of the best. Reduced a child to tears in his class after teaching evolution. The student lost his faith from that point on. Gary took a long time to get honest with himself on his findings and rather than continue covering up or putting blinkers up to what appeared to be signs of design rather than evolution, he began slowly but surely to come to terms that there were holes in the evolution theory that he could not contine to deny. Took him 3 years I think to come over to creationism, it was not a conversion or had anything to do with Christianity, but rather a slow process.

I am not convinced of the evolution theory to explain our origins. Certainly the evolutionists who became creationists did not change to creationism because of "christianity" at all. Roger Oakland was an atheist/evolutionist and the last thing on his mind was God. scientific testing and observations lead them to intelligent design NOT prior beliefs.

I do not think the rest of the world would read this in disbelief Linda as you would have us believe....believe it or not, there is a turning of the tides towards the idea of intelligent design.

But whatever the belief, it is about teaching science and sticking to the facts and where the evidence leads a person? that is the key.