That's horrible logic, just so you know. One does not imply the other in any sense[footnote]Let's put it plainly: HOW does a model explaining how populations change over the course of generations have anything to do with the idea of the ultimate fate of consciousness after death? That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to hummingbirds[/footnote], and indeed the position itself is fairly uncommon in theistic circles. Heck, most of creationism's press comes from Christian circles, and it's a minority position across that faith's denominations. Most faiths have little trouble reconciling their beliefs with scientific study, which - as Augustine of Hippo's writings show us - is hardly a new concept. To give you an idea of the folly of such a connection: four centuries ago, a heliocentric model of the solar system was considered incompatible with christianity, as it - apparently - directly contradicted passages of the Bible. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find a christian who insists on the geocentric model that the church of the time had insisted upon. Heck, most creationists I've pointed this out to have been outright offended at the implicit comparison, because as they saw it, heliocentrism is utterly irrelevant to matters of faith. Ironically, that's exactly my point. Religion doesn't deal with the physical universe, so the idea that a model describing that physical universe somehow cotrandicts a religion's spiritual model simply doesn't follow.Desmond Gregory said:
And ultimately, let's be honest - even ignoring all that - the logic you described ulitmately holds no weight unless we also espouse the idea that reality is determined by what we WANT to be true, which isn't the way things work. Reality exists independently of our desires and we do ourselves a disservice when we refuse to seek/accept answers because we don't like the implications we see as following from them.
