My two cents:
Reading this article made me realize that the subject of Mississippi vs. Scopes is still very much an issue here in the ‘States. It also sadly demonstrates the lack of knowledge in what religion and science each are, and their roles in our world.
I know this will provoke ire, but it should be noted that arguments of “intelligent design” and “scientific creationism” tend to do a disservice to both the sciences and religions.
The focus of science is to discover empirical truths; i.e. that which can be quantified or otherwise measured by scientific means (the scientific method). It is a tool for the gathering of knowledge, despite any consequences or moral implications. Religion, on the other hand, is based in faith. Most religions are tools for the moral or ethical path of life and thus are based on philosophies not based in science. Though these esoteric concepts of ethics, love, and good and evil clearly exist, they are best defined by nonscientific means. Boiling the concept down to its base components, faith is about in what one believes and cannot prove. Religion is faith in action.
Certain creation-vs.-evolution-based religious arguments say that science says that there is no creator, or god. Such statements are ridiculous. By its very definition science cannot make that statement because the existence of the metaphysical cannot be proven by scientific means, and therefore it falls outside the realm of science. And it should be noted that science cannot prove nor disprove the validity of religious beliefs, so the realm of “scientifically based atheism” is, in an interesting twist of fate, a belief system. In the end it’s a faith to believe that a given religion or religions are wrong.
Oh, and out the octopus eye thing? It’s just the way things are. Similar needs, similar tools. Believe what you will, but keep in mind that certain “designs” are favored whether by evolution, God, or both.
Sushi and Sake (proof of the divine Inari)
John
(
post above, I do believe that science should always be presented as providing (or attempting to provide) the best available interpretation of nature, given the input data. Evolution, for example, should not simply be presented as an unqualified fact. Dogmata of any sort should not be nurtured. So, not only should I be tolerant of creationism, I should welcome its challenges. Healthy science needs its exercise.
... But if you don't understand it, I'm not gonna bother... 
