I'll have to check into that.
Meanwhile, let's consider the effects of each belief system on our lives--
With evolution, we came about by accident, evolved from lower life forms, and are responsible to no one.
With creationism, we were created with a purpose by a higher life form and are responsible to the creator.
Creationism in my opinion lends us more human dignity, hope, and purpose. So, as long as neither position is provable, I say creationism is the more optimistic stance to take--not the sinister one.
On the face of it that might seem to be a reasonable and pragmatic stance to adopt, as far as it goes; where I cannot help but part company with it, however, is in its inherent pessimism that appears to embrace the notion that greater "human dignity, hope and purpose" are possible only as a consequence of creationism itself and a belief therein - this sounds to me to be a rather jaded view of those things of which humanity is capable and to which it can seek to aspire.
So do I therefore accept ada's stance instead? Well, not quite. To put about the notion that creationism is "sinister and dangerous" itself strikes me as lending to it a kind of credibility it does not and cannot realistically deserve. I agree that, until we know and can prove everything about the origins of life, the universe and everything (sorry!), we will not be in a position to determine that one belief is shown to be correct and others shown to be incorrect, but our knowledge is already sufficient to undermine a substantial proportion of the tenets of creationism. I would accordingly say of the notion of creationism that it has many substantial and demonstrable shortcomings, rather than that it is "sinister and dangerous" and that it risks becoming discredited entirely as a consequence of future scientific discoveries.
That said, I do entirely agree with ada that it is deplorable - OK, perhaps even potentially "sinister and dangerous" - to teach creationism to unsuspecting children (are there any of these left, though?!) in schools as some kind of incontrovertible and inviolable truth rather than merely drawing attention in the classroom to its existence as a belief system that happens to attract some people and exposing its fundamental flaws according to current scientific understanding.
Whatever anyone might say about evolutionism, there is nothing inherent in it of which I am aware that specifically determines that all creatures "are responsible to no one". I assume that, when referring to such responsibility, you had humans in mind more than any other life form, since what you say about creationism appears to centre on humankind (if I read you correctly); why would humans who have "evolved" be somehow inferior in nature to those whose existence emerged from creationism? Surely the very idea of "evolving" can reasonably be seen as analogous to a desire and a capability for greater "human dignity, hope, and purpose"?
OK - I therefore award ada 8 out of 10; sorry, Thalbergsane!
Whether remarks such as those I have just made are likely to encourage pianistimo to return or to stay away or neither, I have less than no idea...
Best,
Alistair
Topic: the return of pianistimo; the battle for middle earth rages on