I have to agree with Hypergraph here, Smitty. The Constitution was influenced by many different sources. I'm sure it includes the Bible, but many, many other sources were referenced as well. The very idea of Democracy was Classical Greek in origin. Roman law worked its way into much of Europe as well, and the idea of a Representative Republic was pretty darn Roman. Then later, a lot of political ideas which came out of the Enlightenment, which was a clear move away from religious law, towards rational thinking and logic, worked there way into the Constitution. I realize that these are historical tidbits, but it's pretty well documented. I learned about it in High School, so I'm sure anyone could find out more with a simple Google search.

Yes, this thread was about whether creationism should be taught in schools. The reason I think we keep going into the argument about whether evolution is proven, or whether creationism is disproven etc... is because both sides are claiming that the other is not proven, in order to support their point i.e. that creationism should/shouldn't be taught in schools.

I have tried to explain that there is another option, one which is scientific, meaning it is arrived at through observation, logic and reason, and it is called Intelligent Design. Many scientists have concluded that it is not, as Darwinists have claimed, completely irrational to believe that an intelligent designer may have had a hand in the creation of life as we know it. Intelligent Design does not use the Bible as its source of scientific observaton, as do Creationists.

I have a question for each party, which I hope will help them understand that they are not infallible in their understanding.

First to the Creationists: If the Bible is the complete, unaltered, and perfect Word of God, as you claim, why does the geneology of Jesus as presented in Matthew 1:1-17 completely contradict the geneology of Jesus as presented in Luke 3:23-38? To be more specific, how can you claim that the whole Bible is true, when Luke says that Heli was Joseph's father, while Matthew maintains that Jacob was Joseph's father. Okay, Heli was Jacob's nickname... fine. Now go down the list, and explain why Matthew lists nine (9) fewer generations between Zerubbabel and Jesus than Luke? Keep going, it does not end there. Anyone who looks at these two geneologies can see the contradiction. It's obvious and no amount of explaining can make it go away. Just for the record, I actually believe in much of the Bible's teachings, but claiming that it is 100% God's Word, is making God look like a fool. Furthermore, the geneologies are presented as those of Jesus, whereas neither mention Mary, his biological mother, but somehow assume he came through Joseph, who was not supposed to be his biological father. Please explain this.

Now for the evolutionists: You often site Stanley Miller's experiment in 1953 as having succesfully demonstrated that life could have emerged by chance from some sort of primordial soup. Whereas, what he did was to form a few amino acids, from chemicals which he know were required to form amino acids. He did not have any reason to believe that amonia would have existed in the alleged primordial soup, yet he used it in his experiment anyway. Moreover, an amino acid is not alive, or even close to being alive. An average protein consists of about 500 amino acids, which must be strung together in a very specific way in order to be useful for a living organism, i.e. inside a cell. Today we know that the cells themselves have mechanisms which assemble these proteins. The chances of such a protein being assembled by chance is about 1 in 10 to the 950th power, that's basically zero. Mind you, a protein is not alive either, it's just a type of molecule which occurs in living organisms. Probability states that it's more likely for a 747 to be formed by a tornado racing through a junk-yard. My question to you is that with the complexity of a single cell, isn't it more likely to assume that something intelligent put it together? If you found a wrist-watch, would you spend your life trying to prove that it assembled itself by chance? A cell is millions of times more complex that a watch, is there any logic in assuming that it formed randomly?