The problem here has to do with the fundamental flaw in any strict dualistic appraisal of things and in faulty definitions. If we are going to talk about science and religion, the first thing that needs to be done is to define them, or at least determine if when we say these words we are meaning the same thing. Communication is about mutual understanding and if the same term has radically different meanings to some or all of the people involved in the conversation, then the conversation fails before it gets started; there is a broken foundation and it is almost like both parties are speaking in different languages. In fact, there are many definitions of science and religion and all other such complex terms and we usually ally ourselves with the one that best fits our preconceived notions or level of consciousness. With regard to science and religion, creationism and evolution, this issue of faulty definitions and mutual misunderstanding is at the heart of the issue, as it almost always is in dualistic conflicts, and subsequentally the argument goes on literally without end and without the hope of resolution. And then arguing comes to be practiced for the sake of arguing and pride rather than any real intention of reaching mutual understanding, and that is a sad and hopeless way to live. What Alison and Mike said have important truths within them. The only solution to dualistic dilemas and conflicts is some form of integration of both or all of the factors involved. This one vs. the other methodology cannot be successful but by stalemate or otherwise through the methods of force or power-over and none of those options is rational or mature. First of all, we have to distinguish between the common perceptions or understanding of a thing (i.e. science, religion, Darwinism, etc.) and what the actual nature of that thing is. Once we do, with an open mind and care, we realize that these two are often not only different, but radically opposed, photographic negatives of oneanother. And herein lies the whole problem. The conflict between creationism and evolution lies not in the things themselves, in their essential nature, but in the common conception of them. The truth is, and the reason why some mode of integrationism between elements of duality makes the most sense, is because when we dig within these seemingly opposed issues/concepts, when we delve deeply enough, we always can find some of the truth and a common thread. It has been overwhelmingly proven now that while Darwin's theory of natural selection is tremendously successful in describing and explaining micro changes in evolution, it fails to adequately explain the macro changes in evolution (i.e. the development of the human central nervous system.) Darwin never intended for his theory to be so overblown and used as a holistic explanation for everything, including social behavior which is perhaps the one of the most ridiculous pursuits of science. But this is what we tend to do: we find something that is partially true, and before we know it, in our incessant hunger for the Big Explanation of Everything, the Theory of Everything, we make it into the whole truth. So, when most people talk about evolution, they are not talking about the change and development of species and/or individuals over time, nor are they even talking about true Darwinian theory which is quite different and not nearly as arrogant as the dogmatic, funhouse mirror version of the theory that passes for science these days. Now, on the other side of the issue is creationism. The reasons that this bothers people needn't be gone into at length but it has alot to do with the unfortunate and suppressive history of religion itself, in its dictatorial forms understand. When people profess creationism, they usually don't mean a priniciple of fundamental directionality, purpose or vitality underlying the fabric of the universe, they don't even usually mean that there is something more than a strictly materialistic explanation can account for, they most often mean a literal interpretation of the Christian Biblical account of the creation is what is true and all that is true. So this isn't a true science vs. a true religion debate and never has been. It is a narrow science and strict materialist-reductionist vs. a Fundamentalist debate and the common ground between them, and please forgive me if this offends anyone, is the narcissism that most characterizes early adolescence. And just to note, what passes for science these days more often fits the definition of dogma than science. It has become a practice to prop up preconceived notions and cling to them so tightly that any evidence or testimony that falls outside its limited scope is rejected prior to consideration. This is the definition of dogma and it is ironic that the Fundamentalist and the materialist-reductionist have this feature in common since they see themselves on opposite sides of the fence. Science in its true form is and always was meant to be about objectivity and observation free, as free as possible, from preconceived notions because it is those very things that it is trying to dispel through experiment. Materialism-reductionism is a tremendous failure, (by failure I mean that while it possesses some truth, a portion of it, and therefore the power to accomplish something, its propping up as a perfect theoretical foundation is faulty, which has also been the primary cause for our environmental crisis and social chaos, including the faulty subject-object metaphysics that we have relied on as our foundation for thousands of years) and this has been known by true scientists and thinkers for a long time. The fact that it has taken so long for the truth about the limitation of materialism-reductionism, the fundamental flaw and failure of subject-object metaphysics and division, quantum physics, and even Relativity, none of which have even filtered down very far yet into even common scientific understanding, much less popular understanding, is a testament to the fact that we are, in a sense, in terms of our understanding and worldspace, living in antiquity. We are living in antiquity scientifically and spiritually. Like I said in response to another thread, without a change, a development, an evolution in consciousness, we have no hope. The only cure for childhood is maturity. There are two components to a habit-form: psychological cause or origins and active conditioning. The first is what is traditionally addressed in psychotherpeutic settings of a variety of methodologies. What distinguishes methodologies usually comes down to what level of being they are operating upon. Some address the emotional level primarily and are therefore focused upon the past, our childhood, since this is the time when emotions first begin to develop and therefore when the fundamental trauma or traumas likely occured. The cause of psychopathology has to do with a failure to integrate a part of ourselves at some given time in our development, or, to state it differently, a dividing of ourselves, a removing of a part of ourselves (i.e. suppression-repression, sublimation, etc.) in a response to trauma. The purpose of delving back to the origin point in therapy is to re-integrate this alienated part of ourselves in a safe environment. Other therapies deal with the client on a rational level and some on the even higher, existential level, and the reason for the distinctions usually, or should, have to do with the type of psychopathology a person has which correlates with different levels of development (i.e. psychosis, neuroses- borderline[the confusion of others' feelings with one's own] and narcissistic[the projection of one's feelings onto others], script pathologies, rational-existential dilemas, etc.) The unifying thread of all of these methodologies is the purpose of developing the awareness to be able to perceive the pathological part of ourselves in its true or pure or undistorted form. That awareness in and of itself is curative; since the underlying nature of psychopathology is self-deception, then honest or authentic perception of oneself is curative. The awareness and perception functions as a cure in its later phases ultimately because that which we see, we must by necessity not be limited to or strictly identified with. If we can see something, it cannot be all that we are because somepart of ourselves must be separate from the object in order to perceive it in the first place. So first we go back to the originating trauma or traumas, we re-integrate the alienated parts of ourselves, and then we perceive our newly integrated self authentically with a newly developed awareness, from a transcendent position. That process is difficult enough and it takes a very skilled and intelligent pratictioner, as well as one who is humble enough to acknowledge the limitations of their methodology and themselves, to guide a person through this process to success. Rarely does it go so well. The second phase in the process of healing has to do with the activity associated with the habit-form and its conditioning. One of the things that makes this part so difficult is because unlike in the previous process, the individual is essentially all of their own. They can be supported or guided, but the active work has to be done and done in the world by their own two feet. Since many psychopathologies produce stagnation for a person, and stagnation is essentially a lack of momentum, the longer the stagnation has endured, the more difficult it is to build momentum at all. The image that I have used for this part of the process is that of a farmer who has been cutting a groove in the soil. At first, his task had a purpose: to plant crop for sustenance (i.e. to keep one safe from real or perceived harm, etc.) But eventually, instead of stopping when the groove is deep enough and proceeding to plant, he continues going over the same ground. Over and over and over again, until the groove is so deep that he can't easily get out anymore. And the longer he cuts, the deeper he gets. Until the groove is so deep that he can't see the light or the sky and instead of relying on his perception to see these things, he must have faith that they exist and must rely on the testimonials of others. He is so deep in the groove that every attempt to climb out is met with a back-sliding failure...and so forth. But the bottom-line of all this is that the pathology, the habit-form, has to be breeched, has to be healed ultimately through action, or not at all. Which means that often times the person in question will have to act, do, or climb even when he believes, he knows, right down to blood and bone, that its all wrong, that it will end badly, that he is incapable. Persisting through rock-hard belief.