ERIC B I thought this would especially be of concern to Helen: Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2 This struck me at a magazine stand. Some of these things I find hard to answer, as this debate was never my strong point. (I was reared in it and it was very hard to come to faith). But right away I can see: These two rely on "natural selection" which strives to "desirability"/"adaptability" and "benefits". But this presupposes a higher cosmic principle that lies outside of the evolving matter itself guiding it to what WE now experience as "useful". Who says that light was made to be "seen", for instance? They also discusse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which was supposed to be one of our strongest cases. This one they're right on. Too many of us do not understand the theory and make assumptions like one animal "turning into" another. I just was shocked at this blunt statement in the title. While creationists have done a lot of ranting and casting into Hell the evolutionists (Like Henry Morris and other ol-line creationists), the evolutionists themselves have usually responded more passively.