First, read this blog entry from Pharyngula:
Can you bear yet another poll today? The initial results of this one, before all of you readers get to work and use your magic clicky fingers, is mildly interesting. The readership of Christianity Today consists primarily of scientific illiterates and wishful dreamers, split between people who seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old, those who think the Bible is a science text and are willing to stretch a metaphor, and fuzzy thinkers who want a god to have guided natural processes.
I imagine the readership here can rock their little world.
Young-earth creationism 29%
Old-earth creationism 28%
Theistic evolution 26%
Naturalistic evolution 4%
I don’t know 7%
None of the above 6%
Several hours later, the loyal readers of Pharyngula had totally changed the poll results:
What best describes your view of the origins of creation?
Naturalistic evolution 62%
Total Votes: 4153
The reason that evolution won the poll was becuase of the Christianophobes at pharyngula, a far left anti-Christian, anti-family atheist website had a hand in it. TheThe owner of the blog often tries to skew polls and mkae Christians look bad or ignorant. He is very intolerant becuase when Christians challenge his minions on his own site theyr are often banned. Yep, that’s liberal tolerance for you! Take a look at thier disgusting site and evil plans: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/christianity_today_is_ full_of.php
The Pharyngula readers responded to that:
I noticed Christians get all their science information filtered by professional liars. This way they can keep their childish everything-is-magic fantasies.
Rob: Please explain how Pharyngula is anti-family. And the power of reason does tend to make fundamentalist positions look awfully ignorant. Can’t get around that one. Sorry.
And even one of the Christians themselves smacked down the concept of Young Earth Creationism:
The Bible, Rocks, and Time is an excellent book. Young and Stearley are committed to the Bible (even Biblical inerrancy) and the historic Christian faith, and also present a devastating critique of young-Earth creationism. Ross critiques the book by saying that it fails to address issues such as the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the extent of the Flood. But The Bible, Rocks and Time is not an attempt to be comprehensive. It addresses issues of geology, such as the age of the Earth and the nature of the rock record. And it does so very well. Those whose comments suggest that Young and Stearley must not be Christians have a serious theological problem. We are not saved by belief in young-Earth creationism, but by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
And to that I say, “Amen!”