Throughout history, religion has not only been used to fulfill people spiritually but also to explain the 'Un- explainable'...

For example, What is lightening? lightening was sent from a god named Zeus because he's angry.

As science shed light on the reasons behind nature and how things worked...people IN ALL CULTURES AND FAITHS began to lose their sense (or need) for faith.

Religion, by definition, is a belief based on some form of aphysical, faith; pretty much believing in something that can't wholly be seen, or heard, or held but something that just is.

Human Evolution has 3 components that cause religious people to question:

1.The first is the sense (even fear or belief) that if the scientific basis of Evolution becomes the accepted norm, people will discount The Bible version of creation...(which according to many people of faith is in direct contrast with one another) and lead people to abandon god.

2. The second cause is this; It's hard to see Macroevolution, and microevolution never makes the cut.

You can talk about the fossil record all you want, or dinosaurs, or how Finches beaks change and adapt over time, or how a set of green eyed drosphilia fruit flies can be manipulated genetically into becoming red eyed over the course of 6 generations- The science is there.

BUT Huge evolutionary changes take hundreds of thousands/millions of years; there is no way for the Science side to show one organism change into a completely different being . Hard to see is hard to prove.

3. The THEORY of Evolution is just that. It is not a Law of science. Although science can prove many aspects, there is no way to bring back a trilobite or snap your fingers and fill gaps in the fossil record. Evolution is scientific and factual...but there is also an element of assumption and questions still exist.

The reason is that evolution is a theory, and not a very good one because it is man's attempt to take God out of creation. It is man's way of slapping God in the face. Even Darwin said at the last, "Those fools have turned a theory into a fact.' That should tell you something. It is when mankind doesn't want to come to God in the way He wants us to that mankind looks for ways such as evolution to circumvent what they should be doing.

Religious groups are not the only ones who deny human evolution. Scientists do as well since it is not actually a scientific fact at all. Religious groups deny it since it is not a fact, nor is it even implied in the Bible anyway and so there is no need either way to 'bend the Bible' to make it fit with the fallible theories of men.

So, religious groups are not in denial, they are in reality. In fact creationist groups are keen not to use fallacious argumentation and actively discourage it. They want to deal with, as Francis Schaeffer put it,' the world that is,' not a made up fairy tale, dressed up in scientific language.

The more evidence that comes to light the more problems are uncovered with the the theory of evolution. More than that, arguments found to be scientifically fallacious, even fraudulent, are still used to support it.

Christian believers also have problems, not with the data but with the way it is interpreted. Hence two people loooking over the rim of the Grand Canyon for example will say two different things. The evolutionist will say 'a little water over lots of time.' The creationist will say 'lots of water over a little time.' Evolutionists have specifically linked evolution to an agenda which is deliberately and militantly anti-christian. Thus it is not science as science that requires evolution to be true, but a philosophy. Not a few leading evolutionists have plainly stated it so.

Christians involved in scientific endeavour do not find the fact of evolution to speak for themselves. They see that evolution contradicts known scientific facts and even more so than in Darwin's day. So it is not really religious groups who are in denial. Proven laws of science, not theories, are against evolution so there is no denial.

theory

scientific

"Evolution is a fact; grab some bacteria and a microscope, and you can even do it yourself. There's a reason why 99.9% of scientists use it and why the whole of biology is based on it too. "It could be argued, and quite fairly, that many religious people actually believe (rather than deny) evolution. That is, as far as the theory goes. The question seems to make the supposition that evolutionary theory is complete as well as being scientific fact. It is scientific, but it isn't complete, and it isn't fact. It's theof evolution. Another "answer" to the question was that the theory of evolution is "not a very good one." Nothing could be more wrong. There is a mountain of evidence to support it. Oh, and that'sevidence, by the way. Not just rhetoric or philosophical argument.

In addition:

"Man's attempt to take Go out of creation" is a label. Something that has been spray painted on the theory of evolution like so much graffiti. Who are the taggers who would do such a thing? Myopic fundamentalists would as they run around to rally other like (narrow) minds to the idea that man and/or science is out to prove that God does not exist. Science isn't in the business of proving that God does not exist. Why don't the Chicken Littles see that the faithful hold the trump card? God can do anything. He is omnipotent. Theory can't compete with that. And it does not try.

With each turn of the spade or stroke of the dust brush, new evidence comes to light. It's happening right now. Somewhere in the world a crew is on a dig, and the next revelation is a millimeter away. Does this new find fill in a gap? No wonder zealots are in panic mode. What are they afraid of? Of what will be uncovered next? The rational person, the thinking person (be he a non-believer or a Christian) is excited about what that next find will be! Aren't you?

Man uses the power of his God-given intellect to see the world and everything in it for what it really is. And in so doing, he honors the One who gave him the gifts he applies to that endeavor. He neither deceives himself nor others, and neither does he bear false witness by distorting what science is saying to prop up his own ideas.