I was raised in a very Christian home, but not a fundamentalist, Evangelical, or creationist one. The party-line was that the Bible is "spiritually inerrant" (don't ask me exactly what this means as I never could get a really coherent answer) not "factually" inerrant. And that religion answered the "why" questions (meaning moral and meaning of life questions) and science the "how" questions.
That view of religion is certainly meshes better with science. However, as modern mores have gotten more liberal about premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, pornography, etc., Mom's gotten more and more anti-evolution. She wants to shoehorn in proof of god's involvement and that leads a number of nutty places. I don't think she's alone in this. Unfortunately people, including Christians, who feel themselves threatened tend to entrench. And in the case of Christians, entrenching often means denying evolution or the big bang.
That view of religion is certainly meshes better with science. However, as modern mores have gotten more liberal about premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, pornography, etc., Mom's gotten more and more anti-evolution. She wants to shoehorn in proof of god's involvement and that leads a number of nutty places. I don't think she's alone in this. Unfortunately people, including Christians, who feel themselves threatened tend to entrench. And in the case of Christians, entrenching often means denying evolution or the big bang.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
