Like I said, only someone who wants to take the Bible literally word-for-word would have a problem with what science understands and teaches, because that's when you get a direct conflict between the two. If you feel your religious precepts are under threat then I can understand why you would go to such lengths to deny reality and tell yourself that it's actually a bunch of lies. You can say that anything is a hoax if you want. You could even deny that what you are seeing with your eyes is real, because sometimes our eyes deceive us. You could also say that because there are some big lies and cover-ups in the world, e.g. use of amalgams, that there are others too, one conspiracy after another. Concrete facts please?

Any takers for my challenge to find me a non-religious evolutionist who became a non-religious creationist? No? I can't say I'm surprised. Even if the evolutionist started out as being non-religious, then by its very definition of there being a creator-God, creationism requires theism. When you then feel that your science and your religion are in conflict, one has to win. Sometimes religion wins and people unfortunately decide to blank out what they thought they knew and fill their minds with ignorant superstition. Many scientists have found a way to marry religion with science, so it's obviously not impossible. Evolution and the bible are only mutually exclusive if you take the Bible as literal truth, which most people don't. This is an example of black-and-white thinking if I've ever seen one.

I watched a lot of that Ken Hovind vid, as painful as it was. I take it no one here wants to return the gesture by finding anything out about Joseph Campbell. Not even to turn around and tell me he's blasphemous, ignorant, etc? OK. Well I haven't read anything of his in years so if nothing else, I've inspired myself to crack out the old books again, or for that matter do some searching on the web.