I ask this because Americans actually have a better understanding of the principles of both science and evolution than almost anyone else in the world (I believe the Swiss or Swedish have us beat, that's about it). I was surprised to hear this, but it's been explained by our broad requirements in college education. As opposed to many other countries, where education becomes very specialized by the time a person is applying to university, our college-educated must fulfill both science and humanity requirements.

Ask an American about yearly flu vaccines, the bird flu virus, AIDS, endangered species, extinction, mules, border collies and chihuahuas, and they'll give an explanation that calls upon the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Ask that same American if humans evolved from another species, and they'll flatly deny the possibility.

I think the real issue isn't belief in evolution, but it's the belief that evolution applies to humans. It seems that the majority of Americans consider the human existence to lie outside of the natural realm, and reject evolution because it takes humans off of their pedestal.

In the end, scientists take the rational approach to the problem, and that is where we fail. The issue is purely emotional. Take for example the comments from James Collins. Scientists have nearly passed his test, with cloning as just one example. However, there is no amount of proof that will ever convince a true fundamentalist. Eventually, scientists will accomplish the "simple" task of reconstructing DNA and a functioning organism from scratch and James will simply redefine his criteria and continue to refute the entire theory. Why? Because to consider humans in the same context as chimpanzees and bacteria is to call into question our inherent morality.

I would love to know how science can address this emotional tie to a religious origin of human life. Maybe we should try to convince some of those national church leaders that fundamentalists so admire?

To condense all of that into a single lab experiment would be amazing and incredibly difficult. Setting that up as the standard that proves or disproves evolution is a bit unfair and ignores all of the other evidence.

Out of curiosity, let's say an intelligent designer created the first single celled life form (I am not saying that it did–this is just conjecture). Would you find the evidence compelling that life has changed over the past hundreds of millions of years? That species have come and gone over that time?

Popularizers of science do a disservice when they equate the process of science with a search for truth. "Truth" implies a final explanation. This denies the essence of science, which is a never-ending process for finding better explanations for observed facts. Also, "truth" is a word that has deep meaning in the context of religion; using it in the context of science may be interpreted as an attempt to usurp the place of religion in our society.

With regards to "belief" and "faith", these are also inappropriate for describing science. A better term would be "confidence", used with "high", "low" or other qualifiers. This usage implies the readiness to entertain contradictory evidence that is so important to the process of science.

This may be a simplistic prescription, but I always cringe when I hear science described with words of faith.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago, 'according to the evolutionists,' and having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!