That's because it's usually the fanatic Christians who are so damned determined to prove their fairy tales to be true.

A rose is a rose by any other name.

To what 'answer' are you referring? I couldn't find one posted by you.

You realize that its not just some Christians who believe the Genesis creation myth right? Some Jews and Muslims also follow it. In the U.S. it's only the Christians who are fighting science to get their myth taught in schools--although Muslims in Turkey are fighting equally hard there. It seems that most of the other theists that have creation myths are intelligent enough to recognize them for what they are. Honestly though, "Turtles all the way down" is as believable as talking snakes and missing ribs.

Calling a creation myth a "theory" doesn't change the fact that it's a myth you know. I don't care if it's Yahweh breathing life into clay, Kamui resting the world on the back of an enormous trout, or Ptah masturbating the universe into existence. Creation myths may be beautiful, allegorical, poetic and great, moving drama. But they are not fact. And to put them up against scientific theory (not hypothesis. . .theory. . .look up the difference) as though they were fact does disservice to both science AND religion. The meaning and importance of myth are not to be found in their literalness. They are to be found in your soul.

The Christians are the loudest about it.

The following is taken from Starhawk's The Earth Path: Grounding your Spirit in the Rhythms of Nature (p. 41-44). I recommend reading the book yourself for she continues the story for many more pages or you could find some of it in a preview of the book at this site - http://books.google.com/books?id=vvm-_NkorskC&dq=Starhawk&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA41,M1 Here is the excerpt: "I managed to slide through something like nineteen years of formal education learning remarkably little science. In part, I was discouraged by a ninth-grade physics teacher whose experiments never worked. If she tried to demonstrate gravity, toy cars would refuse to roll down ramps and objects would float up. In later years, I majored in art, then film and psychology (which is science of a sort but didn’t demand much grounding in biology or chemistry). Now that I’m a Witch, I regret my ignorance and am taking steps to remedy it, mostly through reading and observation. The Goddess is embodied in the natural world, and science in its truest sense is about knowing nature. Thus our theology needs to be empirical as well as mystical. Our understanding of our origins – cosmic and human – shapes our relationship to world in subtle and profound ways. So hang on to your hats as we take a journey through the wonderful world of evolution, a topic that has always had profound religious and spiritual implications. Most of us were raised on either the biblical creation myth or Darwin’s theory – or perhaps both. From the Pagan perspective, neither of these stories is wholly satisfying or “true” (in the sense of best describing the reality around us). The biblical creation story has a (presumed) male God making the world essentially by fiat, by word alone. The process is disembodied, entirely removed from the sweaty, bloody processes by which females create life. God’s law is something imposed on nature, and God’s rules are imposed on us to follow. Humans are made in God’s image, and a great spiritual and existential gulf separates us from the animals. Plants, animals, and human beings were created in their finished and final forms, and have remained essentially unchanged since. Of course, this view does not do justice to the breadth and diversity of Bible-based theology. There are strands within Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all the major religions that celebrate and honors creation and preach a relational view of the world. See, for example, the work of Matthew Fox in developing creation-centered spirituality, or Arthur Waskow’s work on earth-centered Jewish ritual. Evolution of course, was in Darwin’s day a shattering and heretical challenge to the simplistic, literalistic biblical view. First, the theory of evolution holds that the world is much, much older than the Bible says. Second, humans, animals, plants, bacteria, and all other creatures are a single continuum of life. Humans are not something set apart. we are animals, and we emerged from the same natural processes by which other life-forms evolved. From the perspective of earth-based spirituality, those insights were a vast improvement over literalistic interpretations of the Bible. Evolution restored dynamism to the universe, brought it alive as a growing, changing, interacting web of relationships. Darwin himself was a great observer, embodying the permacultural principle of “thoughtful and protracted observation” more than a century before permaculture was formulated. He looked at the plants and animals and birds around him in the far-flung places of the world as he traveled, and he let himself ask, “I wonder…”: “I wonder how that tortoise got to be the way it is, how differences between those similar plants arose, what forces produced the beak on that bird.” He theorized that environmental pressures and constraints select the individuals most fitted to a given environment from a range of genetic variations. Those individuals succeed best in the competition for food and scarce resources. They are also most likely to reproduce, and so they pass on their adaptations. His theory of evolution and natural selection was brilliant example of relational thinking, focusing not just on individuals or species as separate, isolated elements, but on the whole pattern of interactions, exchanges, and effects of living communities as a whole. But as the same time that Darwin was researching and writing, industrial capitalism was growing and consolidating its power, and looking for an ideology to justify ruthless exploitation of the poor by the rich. “Social Darwinism,” a simplistic reformulation of Darwin’s theory, turned natural selection into “survival of the fittest.” The best win out and, by extension, the “winners” must be the best – and therefore deserving of their rewards. “Losers” are by definition inferior, maladapted, and deserving of their demise. To suggest that the winners owe anything to the losers is to interfere with nature and risk weakening the race. This misinterpretation of Darwin’s theory was a secular reformulation of earlier religious doctrines of the “elect.” It was also a perfect rationale for cut-throat capitalism, in both the nineteenth century and the Reagan/Bush era. Competition is the driving force fop regress in nature and, by extension, human society. The more worthy win out in time, and this, in the long run, is good for the species and for the whole. Success is its own justification, and what’s good for transnationals is good for the U.S.A. There is a different view of evolution, one that better serves the world-view of earth-based spirituality. We might call it Gaian evolution, after the Gaia theory developed by James Lovelock and Lynn Marfulis. Gaian evolution is not so much a counter do Darwin as a shift in focus from the individual to the ecosystem, the whole. The earth functions like a living being, and the biosphere, the world community of life-forms, changes its environment as it is changed by it. The redwood tree does not evolve as a separate species; rather the forest as a whole evolves, the interwoven lives of redwood and tanoak, huckleberry and salal, the mycorrhizal fungi in the soil below and the lichens in the canopy where the marbled murrelets nest. None of these creatures adapts alone, in isolation from each other – they co-evolve as Forest-Being, in an interdependent dance that balances competition and cooperation. Individuals and species survive when their activities benefit the whole as well as the parts. Evolution becomes the story of how the planet herself comes alive. Of course, scientists are very careful not to imply that this living planet has consciousness of self-awareness. Consciousness is not necessary to explain this process of life and evolution, and this becomes a messy and unnecessary part of the theory. With or without attributing consciousness or awareness to Gaia, we can still approach her life story with wonder and aw. For Witches, Pagans, and the like, however, having already removed ourselves from the realms of academic respectability, there are no reputations to protect, and thus we are free to experience Gaia as more than mechanistically alive – as a conscious being, a vast ocean of awareness in which we swim, always communicating, always present. What follows is my synthesis of the story of Gaia coming alive, with thanks to James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, and Elisabet Sahtouris’s lovely book Earthdance: Living Systems in Evolution. Genesis Before the Beginning… In a swirling spiral of gas, heat, and light, a tiny grain of dust that was Gaia’s seed danced and swirled. Throbbing and pulsing with an electric passion, she drew to her other grains, other seeds, until together they formed a ball, spinning and dancing in the lens of radiance that was to become the sun. The dancers flung out their arms, swirled their skirts, bumped up against each other, and fused. Growing larger and larger, spinning and dancing faster and faster, they were drawn toward each other by the passionate pull of gravity, at times colliding in a fiery death, at other times in a mating union, until at last the planets congealed into their orbits, circling a fiery sun. Gaia was hot, her surface erupting in plumes and rivers of fire, her face bombarded by missiles of rock that left her pockmarked with craters and seeded with ice and the chemical prototypes of life. Slowly, slowly, she cooled down. On her surface, packets of energy frozen into form combined and recombined. Ice melted to primordial seas that washed a rocky shore. Lightning struck. Waves rolled to shore and retreated; the soup of energy was boiled and cooled, dried and immersed, again and again. Bubbles formed thin skins that enclosed crystalline strands of frozen energy, organized ina radically new way: a way that conveyed information, that communicated instructions for reproducing itself. The double helix of DNA was life’s first great creative leap, the one that allowed all others to follow. Life was born."

It does not matter how many creation theories there are unless there is evidence for them. Evolutionary theory is evidence based. And, incidentally, is not a theory of creation but of development, As it is, from what I can understand, you are not actually wanting to contradict standard Darwinian theory at all, just draw a different lesson from it. One which most modern evolutionists would not argue with in principle - see, for example, Dawkin's "The Extended Phenotype". It is a banal commonplace nowadays to say that all species have been affected in their development by other species.

Yep. Saw the film on Youtube. Seems like we are not alone afterall :)

They do know that there is more than one form of the creation theory. They don't always discredit the Christian theory (Which makes me very happy), its just a large argument thats been going on for years. I just learned to ignored it, its not like Christians don't do the same thing. Most of the time actually we try to discredit Evolution over any other religion. Isn't that strange?

1) "Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent and descent of species, as well as their change, multiplication and diversity over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology So there are scientists, who develop evolutionary biology, and there are the rest of us, who want to learn about this. And there are also some religious fundamentalists, who still believe in the inerrancy of their sacred texts on scientific matters. Some of them try to give this a scientific touch, but actually, it has nothing to do with science. As the Christian fundamentalists are more common in the US, usually it is their arguments which are discredited. Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy 2) The initial form of the Gaia hypothesis has also been sharply attacked: "James Lovelock defined Gaia as: a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet. His initial hypothesis was that the biomass modifies the conditions on the planet to make conditions on the planet more hospitable – the Gaia Hypothesis properly defined this "hospitality" as a full homeostasis. Lovelock's initial hypothesis, accused of being teleological by his critics, was that the atmosphere is kept in homeostasis by and for the biosphere." "Lovelock, especially in his older texts, indulged in language that has later caused fiery debates. For instance many of his biological critics such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins attacked his statement in the first paragraph of his first Gaia book (1979), that "the quest for Gaia is an attempt to find the largest living creature on Earth." Lynn Margulis, the coauthor of Gaia hypotheses, is more careful to avoid controversial figures of speech than is Lovelock. In 1979 she wrote, in particular, that only homeorhetic and not homeostatic balances are involved: that is, the composition of Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in homeostasis, but those set points change with time. Also she wrote that there is no special tendency of biospheres to preserve their current inhabitants, and certainly not to make them comfortable. Accordingly, the Earth is a kind of community of trust which can exist at many discrete levels of integration. This is true for all multicellular organisms which do not live or die all at once: not all cells in the body die instantaneously, nor are homeostatic "set points" constant through the life of an organism." "After initially being largely ignored by most scientists, (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period, the initial Gaia hypothesis was ridiculed by a number of scientists, like Ford Doolittle, Dawkins and Gould. Lovelock has spoken how that by naming his theory after a Greek goddess, championed by many non scientists, the Gaia hypothesis was derided as some kind of neo-Pagan New Age religion. Many scientists in particular also criticised the approach taken in his popular book "Gaia, a New look at Life on Earth" for being teleological; a belief that all things have a predetermined purpose. Lovelock seems to have accepted this criticism of some of his statements, and has worked hard to remove the taint of teleological thinking from his theories, stating "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota." – (Lovelock, J. E. 1990). In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the CoEvolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that there was nothing in the genome of individual organisms which could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and that therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism. In 1982 Richard Dawkins in his book The Extended Phenotype argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. Like Doolittle he rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale". Stephen Jay Gould criticised Gaia as merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes. He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was regulated. Lovelock argues that no one mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course, and that specific hostility is reserved for his own theory for political reasons." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

There are too many gaps and holes for Evolution to be a viable alternative to Creation. The idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science. There is no publication in the scientific liturature, in journals, or books----that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either occured or even might have occured. There are "asserions" that such evolution occured, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that the assertion of Darwinian evolution is merely bluster, assumptions and leaps of faith. The feeble attempts by Darwinists to deal with irreducible complexity reveal the magnitude of the problem with their "theory." Darwinists say that what we are today happened by natural selection but that is a misnomer. Since the process of evolution is, by definition, without intelligence, there is no "selection" at all going on. It's a blind process. The term "natural selection" simply means that the fittest creatures survive. So what?? That's true by definition---the fittest survive (this is called tautology----a circular argument that doesn't prove anything). Logically, these are the creatures that are best equipped genetically or structrually to deal with changing enviromental conditions (that's why they survive). Another land mine that many Darwinists step on is the failure to make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution and thus use the evidence of micro to prove macro. By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves that all life has evolved from the first one-celled creature. So if someone ever asks you, "Do you believe in evolution?", you should ask that person, "What do you mean by evolution? Do you mean micro---or macroevolution?" Microevolution has been observed; but cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution, which has never been observed. I know that I will get negative ratings from Darwinists for my answer but I would like to see the reason for it and the proof to prove me wrong.