Creationism, or intelligent design, is the umbrella term coined by those that want the accounts of the Earth's beginnings given in Genesis taught in schools. They teach that the biblical flood occurred, that the world was repopulated through driftwood, that dinosaurs coexisted with humans and that evolution was not the primary method for the current diversity of life.
Answers in Genesis bases itself on a literal interpretation of the Bible, which they believe is "divinely inspired and inerrant throughout ... It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches."
This fundamentalist interpretation leads to things like the "Creation Museum," whose exhibits ignore the sum total of our scientific knowledge and encourage visitors to replace fact with faith. This mindset has helped foster a culture in our country that is opposite to scientific knowledge and is steadily losing its edge on scientific literacy in the world.
To echo Bill Nye, to not teach evolution to our young people is wrong. Yet, across the U.S., legislatures seek to overturn the precedent set by the Scopes trial. A New Hampshire bill seeks to teach the religious viewpoints of evolution's proponents. Rep. Jerry Bergevin, the author of the bill, said this of evolution:
"It's a worldview and it's godless. Atheism has been tried in various societies, and they've been pretty criminal domestically and internationally. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, China today: They don't respect human rights."
A liberal interpretation of the Bible, while it allows for the teaching of truth in science, presents its own problem: What parts of the Bible are meant to be literally followed, and which are not? On what basis are the tales of Genesis meant to be allegorical and those of Solomon, Jesus, or Revelation, not? If God didn't know about creation, how does he know what's best for your life?
In this respect, I find more in common with those who tend to ignore more scripture. Those who do not see homosexuality as a sin, those who do not think of hell as literal, those who believe that Jesus' message was one of love and peace, and ignore his message of "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew, 10:34). Why not be rid of the whole of religion, instead of just much of it, especially when you're a better person for ignoring the parts you disagree with anyway?
