Shirwany

Oh and by the by, I think Biochemist is entirely correct. "Agnostic" is a more valid position. Since empirical rules cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God, having no knowledge of God (AGNOSIS) is the more consistent description.

Since I am not particularly articulate, I recommend a look at the AAAS letter that politely declines the Kansas invitation. It is a model of succinct prose and one of the most elegantly worded declarations of the larger position of the scientific community. The letter can be viewed at http://www.aaas.org Cheers

Greetings folks: I am not sure if the lead statement reflects sociological data. I have always thought that dogmatic belief is easier to acquire for our species. In other words, seeking "patterns" in nature are what humans a very good at doing. That ability, most likely hardwired in our brains, must have given us a significant survival advantage. Today, that hardwiring gets in the way and we "see" patterns where there are none. The training of science, in part, is the deconditioning from our "pattern seeking" proclivity. The better questions might be: "How do we accept the many complex lines of evidence supporting evolutionary biology and reject the seductive allure of Creationism/Intelligent Design etc.?"