One reason that many Christians refuse to accept evolution (evidence and all) is because there's a conflict with the Genesis account. If there isn't an Adam & Eve, then there's no fall of man and no reason for Christ to atone for that original sin.

Well, if you take it extremely literally there are many conflicts (7 day creation, young earth, etc.). Most Christians I know see it as more of a metaphorical origin story though. You can still have an overall fall of man, even if it happens over multiple regions. That even happens a few times in the rest of the Bible. And if the 'out of Africa' theory is correct rather than the 'multiregion' theory, then that fits the Bible even better. (I assume they haven't completely agreed on a theory yet but it's not something I particularly follow)

It's not so much the Genesis account as it is the Bishop Usher theory that man was created at 9:30am on September 24. 4004 BC or thereabouts.

#42, I agree on the metaphorical point of view. The bible explains the creation of earth as 7 time periods, not days. I myself am a Christian, but I also study/research evolution, as that is my job. I honestly think that they work perfectly together. There are plenty of facts (not even to mention the bones...) of past human life, a lot longer ago than most Christians think. Not to mention the (newly) discovered pre-Clovis civilization. Some say that carbon-dating is off, or in some cases a 'theory' (really..?), this cannot be farther from wrong, it might not be exact, but it can be between around 50-100 years.

Problem--The Hebrew word "yom" means a literal 24 hour day. Apologists can try and twist the meaning all they like. Doesn't change what was written.

Actually, the Hebrew word 'yom' can be used as time period also. In the translation of the King James Version of the bible (translated from Greek), they used the word 'day', as anything above that description was inconceivable.

But even from a strict Christian point of view, you must accept that the Bible is written by mere humans, not only interpreting the words of a far more powerful and knowledgeable God who knows more than they can possibly understand, but looking back on a time when days literally didn't exist. So even if the word means day, I'd say it's still up for interpretation.

@131--Your mileage may vary. There are varying theories on how Christians should interpret the Bible. Three main theories: 1) It is the literal word of God verbatim. The men were just tools. 2) God directly inspired the men. It is written in their words, though directly guided by God. 3) These men are witnesses on some level to what God said and did. They perceived God's revelation through their own senses and experiences, or those of others they spoke to, and wrote as a sort of witness account, subject to the same subjective biases. This is, of course, glossing over many finer points.

But that contradicts creation???

Only really for public schools. Private schools can have their own agenda and aren't evaluated on this subject much if at all. Plus 'religious freedom' somehow still protects this sort of thing.

Religious schools are held to a different caliber in order to keep America from being called anti-religious. Most schools include religious beliefs in some way, but religious schools can teach almost whatever they want.

I know in Canada, any non catholic, or other religious schools, are banned from acknowledging religion, or teaching anything about it. technically, we're not allowed to celebrate any holidays, Christian or otherwise, and teachers aren't legally allowed to instruct us (with examples) to make any craft or art related to a holiday. at my school, we always did it anyway, but honestly I think its awful, and I don't even practice any religion.

You clearly haven't seen drawn together God loves the gays haha. Yes many religious folk have such closed minds. Religion says God created all which then technically means God created gay people. Maybe gay people is natures natural human population control?

You sir have just voiced all my frustrations.

Hey now, it's frustrating when religion goes way over the top like this, but there's no reason religious schools as a concept can't work. I've worked in religious primary schools and it was pretty much the same as regular ones except with a really strong community feel and more singing. And I like singing.

I can tell you have mainly been around the Christians that make a bad name for the rest.

This isn't always true. I go to a private religious school (I'm agnostic) and they still teach us about the theory of evolution, how we should be accepting of people who are homosexual, etc. The main complaint about my school is that we haven't been taught about sex education, really. The extent of education we've gotten on that matter was during biology class and we learned about the rhythmic method; no other forms of contraceptives. The schools you're talking about are the private schools that follow the ruling of a diocese in the Catholic Church.

according the the bible, he also hates anyonr.who isn't married, who is married, or who has sex, and who doesn't have sex and procreate. and hates women who sleep with more than one man, but says man has a.right to take as many wives and sexual partners as he desires. in other words, my grandma and half my friends worship a really ****** up son of a bitch. no offense, just the only.words that sounded right.