Given all the information based on factual, scientific studies, isn't it a bit convenient that some people would choose NOT to beleive what is irrefutable, proven scienctific fact? The problem with fundamentalism is that it fails to understand one of the tenants of science: lack of evidence leads to 1 choices: 1. failure to reject a hypothesis. Using this method, many scientists simply choose #1: meaning they can't reject that there may be a supreme being, but they can't confirm it either, there's simply a lack of scientific evidence to support it. People interpret this incorrectly.
Here are my thougts: Let's say there is a God,( and I think there is one) and 2000+ years ago you decide to reveal yourself to your creation. Are you going to start explaining how you created atoms & molecules and such? No, because people wouldn't understand it at the time, and most wouldn't now either. So God decides to put creation in terms that people can understand. It's quite logical if you think about it. The only problem was that the human race is slow to change and that's evident in the fact that in 2005, some people still beleive in the garden of eden story.
