Runner,
"Where there is poverty and persecution the church is at its strongest"?

I agree that he so-called Bible belt in the USA (where the church is strongest) also has the lowest per-capita income.

However it also has the highest rates of unemployment, teen pregnancies and crime plus the lowest national average IQ.

Either something's not working like it's supposed to or people are using the church as some sort of insurance policy to commit sins and then seek forgiveness - like a Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free card for members only.

On the other hand, maybe their lives are so miserable and pointless that they are hoping for something better afterwards.

Then again, combine those two options and maybe that's what it's all really about anyway.

Danielle

The reason creationism is on the rise is because scientifically and common sense wise it makes a lot more sense than the ever changing, ever wrong assumptions and dogmas made by evolutionist. Just happens that even the youngest of children know that where creation exists their must be a Creator. The alternative is fanciful and unscientific.

Rache

Have you ever heard that where sin abounds Gods grace abounds more. It is the sick who need a doctor. Maybe those who are well off are so self righteous that they can't see the need for forgiveness. Maybe they look down so much and judge the lower class as you seem to be doing.

What "rise of creationism"? The only developed country in the world where creationism still has any significant support is the U.S., and the percentage there that believe in naturalistic evolution has gradually risen from about 9% in 1991 to 13% in 2006.
Another more recent poll from 2007 showed that 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believed in naturalistic evolution.

In the rest of the developed world, creationism is purely a fringe phenomenon, with at least 80% of the population accepting naturalistic evolution, including 95% of religious leaders.

(from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

Runner and rache,

I know a couple who are fundamentalist Christians and are extremely well off. They frequently fly overseas to see family and friends. Or, it may be the fact that the wife never has her hair-cut, nor wears makeup that saves this sort of money :-) They never donate to charity as they believe that if God wanted these people better off (saved), he would have done so. From what I can see there are not going to be a lot of people in heaven - (and what few of them are there, will be deadly dull).

Their church, which is based in the US, looks after its worldwide membership financially very well. The extended family are all of the same religion. They were not extremely poor when they converted. Presumably, their church can afford the best PR and campaigns.

I sometimes wear a red scarf which immediately labelled me as satan's spawn. I also have my hair cut and on occasion wear makeup, and indeed, the worst sin of all - I wear pants, thus, destined to go to hell in a handbag. This is even after I have carefully explained that when someone attempts to ravish me in the dairy dept of Woolies - which is inevitable - I can fight them off without showing my nickers. (Indeed, at my age, I would consider it a plus if I could raise any feelings of lust in the opposite sex).

This family are staunch creationists. They do not deny that scientists find fossils apparently millions of years old. These fossils, they will tell you, are planted by God to test their faith. Their children are professionals, all university educated.

Runner,
I’m not looking down on the lower class, I’m just responding to an opinion with some facts.
If you prefer to counter facts with more opinion that’s fine, but the notion of man being created directly out of dirt being scientific and less fanciful than any other possibility is a bit of a stretch.

Maybe some religions are marketted more toward the poor and desperate and others target the rich and influential.

I don’t feel that the number of self-proclaimed religious people is increasing but the influence of religious fundamentalism certainly is, and it hasn’t been very pleasant.

Maybe that’s why there is such a hostile reaction against it, even from those who would be more tolerant under different circumstances.