It appears that Laura is very, very confident about what she knows. So confident that she doesn’t need to listen to any contradictory sources, *especially* those sources that are willing to comment *directly* on her beliefs.

Every so often, I do a sort of meta-analysis: Does one side understand what the other side claims? Does one side respond to arguments effectively?

In the case of evolution vs. Christian creationism, I see that very, very few creationists actually understand what evolution is, or claims to be. That is a bad sign. Refuting a straw-man version of your opponent is not very impressive.

I do this because I’m not a biologist. I can’t truly evaluate the claims. However, since the vast majority of creationists haven’t passed stage 1, understanding the claim they wish to refute, I can at least be confident that I’m working off the best information that I can: The science may be wrong, but nobody’s figured out how it’s wrong. That’s the best I can hope for.

Laura, if you read this, I’d be really interested in why you dropped the discussion. Not to restart the debate, necessarily, but I’d really like to know where you’re coming from.

If you are really serious about teaching your children both evolution and creationism, you should read “The Greatest Show on Earth,” by Richard Dawkins. Although, as I’m sure you know, Dawkins is an atheist, he scrupulously avoids discussing his beliefs about religion in this particular book. Instead he discusses the evidence for evolution at a very basic, accessible level. For instance, Dawkins explains the work of Richard Lenski, who has experimentally proved evolution in the laboratory. (This is one of the reasons scientists call evolution a fact.)

Another source you might use to answer specific questions is Talkorigins on the Web. (I hope someone here with fewer computer glitches than I have will provide a link.)

If you are using sources such as the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, or the Institute for Creation Research, you should know that they have repeatedly used very dishonest tactics. These notably include “quotemining” or the quoting of legitimate scientists to make it appear they said something they never did.

They also repeat statements that they have been repeatedly told are not true. For instance, you may have heard from these sources that evolution is “just a theory” because “evolutionists” can’t prove how life began. In fact, the study of how life began is called abiogenesis. Evolution is only concerned with how life changed over time. If your sources conflate abiogenesis and evolution, they are guilty of deliberate dishonesty; this point has been brought home to them over and over again.

If you want a discussion here, you might start by stating your reasons for not accepting evolution, along with your sources of information. That will give other posters something specific to respond to.

I would love to have a mature discussion. However, the first challenge here will be your lack of comprehension of science, and even the basic definitions of words like theory. You have confused theory and hypothesis. Please look them up in a scientific context.

I have no problem with teaching alternate theories as long as there is evidence for them. Christianity is not the only religion with beliefs about the formation of the universe. There are not two sides here, there are many.

This is not the forum for a deep debate, so I will ask you two questions.

1: what is your single best piece of evidence for Creation?
2. What is, in your opinion, the part of evolutionary theory that is least supported?

Perhaps this is an inherited condition.