Your comment about contempt is right on. As soon as someone decides there can be no dialogue, only monologue [0], you've given up on convincing anyone and are

Your comment about contempt is right on. As soon as someone decides there can be no dialogue, only monologue [0], you've given up on convincing anyone and are now "preaching to the choir". There's actually a much simpler Christian solution to the intellectual tensions between the creation account and science: Recognize that the Genesis creation account (traditionally said to be written by Moses, to an audience that lived in Egypt) strongly parallels the Egyptian creation account. It's not a recipe to create a world, nor is it primarily a story about the world. It's a story about how this One God is different from those gods [1]. Some modern Christians have a problem with this response because they view it as a modern watering down of the Bible. Yet some highly respected early Christians, like Origen [2] and Augustine [3], expressed these views. The literalist/creationist view has only been in favor for the last century or so. Prior to that, it was common understanding among many Christians (as well as many Jews) that the creation account was about God's position as sovereign creator of the physical universe, not about the details of the universe itself. It's not literal history; it's a poetic description meant to highlight specific details. [0] "sophisticated argument requires as an essential condition that you have the good manners to understand before you criticize" - from http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/GainesCenter/Letter%20To%20Jerry%20Coyne.pdf http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/GainesCenter/Letter%20To%20Jerr... (the "only monologue" line comes from the debate he is responding to.) [1] I wrote a short introduction to this concept at http://transformedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/genesis-1-introduction-to-theology.html http://transformedthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/genesis-1-in... [2] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html [3] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XI.6.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XI.6.html