SR540Beaver

I posted this in another thread sometime ago. I thought it might fit in with the discussion here. It seems that our "Christian" celebration is a rather modern invention. Our American Christian forefathers and founders didn't much care for Christmas celebrating and even sought to abolish it.

http://www.cedarlane.org/98serms/s981206.html

II. Christmas in America During Colonial Period

During this time of turmoil in England, English settlers arrived in America. The English who settled in the south were those who enjoyed drinking in excess as the way to celebrate December 25. For example, Maryland-bound passengers aboard a boat in 1633 so immoderately drank wine on Christmas that the next day thirty sickened of fever and about a dozen died.

Up in New England the Pilgrims were Puritans. They spent their first Christmas at Plymouth building a house. Later, the Puritan Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony attempted to suppress the holiday.

A Puritan minister wrote:

It can never be proved that Christ was born on December 25. Had it been the will of Christ that the Anniversary of his Nativity should have been celebrated, he would at least have let us known the day.

South of New England, Dutch, German and Swedes settled the areas of New York and Pennsylvania. They celebrated Christmas and New Years by drinking hard cider, masquerading, card playing and the firing of guns. In Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas, the non puritan English settlers enjoyed dancing, card playing, cockfighting, ninepins, and horse racing.

In the lives of people in the mid Atlantic colonies and the southern colonies, Christmas was not a major holy day. Thomas Jefferson rarely mentioned Christmas. George Washington frequently spent Christmas hunting and settling year-end financial matters. In the 18th century Americans celebrated few holidays before independence and even fewer after our revolutionary war. At the time of the birth of our county national holidays as we know them today did not exist. The only consistency was that where and when people celebrated a holiday, drinking, fighting, and squandering of money was the routine way to behave. All of this changed as the culture of our new nation developed.

III. Christmas in the New Nation

Anthropologists and sociologists say that special religious and civic days, interspersed among ordinary days, temporarily release us from the everydayness of life. Holidays establish a rhythm in a calendar year and help us describe and give significance to units of time. They help us renew social, religious, and civic commitments, and in this way they give us a national cultural identity. So as our new nation matured, we gradually created holidays such as Thanksgiving, Independence Day, New Years, and Christmas.

In the early 19th century loud explosions were popular on Christmas, as they were on the Fourth of July and New Years. Shooting guns and exploding gun power was the most common approach, but people created explosive noise any way they could. One man in Missouri recalled that in his boyhood his brother took the bladders of freshly butchered hogs and blew them up tightly. Christmas Day they lay the bladders down on the ice and struck them with a big paddles making a noise louder than a popgun.

The practice of drinking as a way to mark Christmas was also popular. According to a newspaper, in Philadelphia on Christmas eve 1833 young men wandered in packs, drinking in taverns and fighting on street corners.

IV. Starting about 1823: A Transition

from Explosions, Drinking and Gambling to Home and Family

Gradually nineteenth-century Americans recast Christmas. Slowly our foremothers and forefathers molded Christmas into something new. It became a celebration of the family and the home as a spiritual sanctuary from the world.

The central scripture of this new American Christmas was a poem attributed to the Episcopalian, Clement Clarke Moore. An Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas was first published in 1823. Soon it appeared each year at Christmas in newspapers throughout the nation. The poem about Santa Claus celebrates home and family instead of gambling, firing guns, and getting drunk.

A central focus in the home became the Christmas Tree. A pagan symbol of fertility and regeneration, the practice of bringing an evergreen branch or a small tree into the house and placing it on a table became popular in German speaking areas of Europe about 1600. The Pennsylvania Dutch brought the custom of Christmas trees to the United States. One of the earliest documented references is in 1821. In 1832 Rev. Charles Follen a Unitarian and professor of German at Harvard College, put up a tree in his home in Cambridge and decorated it. Because of this, Unitarians like to claim that we were the first to introduce Christmas trees to America. These first trees were small and sat on tables. Soon Americans started bringing trees that went from floor to ceiling into their homes. They decorated the trees with candies, toys and candles, transforming this ancient fertility symbol into a symbol of the home as a spiritual sanctuary from the world.

Slowly the popularity of the day grew. Louisiana was the first to declare Christmas an official holiday, in 1837. By 1860 fourteen states had done so. The need for a national holiday to celebrate religion, family happiness, childlike mirth, and generosity increased during the Civil War. By 1865, 31 states and territories officially recognized Christmas, and in 1870 the Congress in Washington voted Christmas a federal holiday.

V. Christmas in America after the Civil War

Christmas after the Civil War came of age as the most important American holiday. The old Christmas of drinking, card playing and shooting guns had disappeared. A national celebration of home and family replaced it.

dan,

I don't know where to send a letter of unsupport. But I would suggest sending letters of support to his Council and to national. I think our support would far outweigh his.

klsdr,

I'm at a loss in how to respond to your comments. First, I'd be interested in knowing what denomination your church is. I'm Southern Baptist and spent some time as a Minister of Youth. When our kids entered junior high, they became part of the youth group which ran from 7th grade thru 12th grade. While Sunday School classes were age specific and even gender specific, all youth activities were open to each youth. Of course, adult supervision was always on hand. And some of the activities were by specific Sunday School classes and divisions. I'm not sure why you think kids should not spend the night away from home before the age of 12? You will be raising a lot of "momma's boys". My son spent many nights at his grandparents from the time he was 3 or 4 and loved it. When he was playing baseball between the ages of 6 and 8, the boys took turns spending the night at each others houses on the weekends during tournaments. Now, I'll admit that I was picky about whose house he got to spend the night at, but that is being a good parent. Many times, it had more to do with the kid than his parents when I decided who he could stay with. I think that as long as you have mature, responsible older scouts and adult leadership along, the younger boys need to go on the campouts to begin learning. That is what most of the boys joined scouts to do. To restrict them this way just extends their Cub experience. Why not just restrict the age they can join then?

This isn't meant to criticize, I'm just baffled by the reasoning.

Geez Eisely, there you go stirring the pot again! LOL

Three cheers for Lambert trying to be the best scout he can be by following 11 points of the Scout Oath. Now if he could have only managed the 12th point, he would be exemplory.

Who would want a policeman that followed all the rules set forth for him except the rule about excessive use of force? How about a fireman who followed all the rules except for running back into a burning building to save a child? How about a doctor who follows all of the rules except the one that says they have to treat any patient in need of medical care presented to them? They would all still be policemen, firemen and doctors.....right? They should be given the highest honor of their profession and advanced to a teaching position....right? There are just certain aspects of the career they chose that they decide not to adhere to, and if people don't like it...well, they can just kiss their butts! Right?

The truth of the matter is that Lambert's mommy was his Scout Master and seems to have given him a pass throughout his scouting years. When he was out of scouts and training for a leadership role, he outted himself and got called on it. Mommy wasn't in charge and able to protect him anymore. I have a hunch that since he had his Eagle, he thought he got in under the wire and was home safe. He figured wrong.

Rooster,

You're shameless!!! LOL Keep it up!

NativeTexan,

I can relate to your story. Our son is 9 and became a Christian a little over a year ago. I don't remember what prompted the conversation, but he was talking about the moment of silence his school observes every morning. He talked about how some of the kids misbehave. When we asked him what he did, he said, "I ask God to forgive me for my sins." I'm a pretty big ol' boy, but I have to tell you I got pretty choked up. It's nice to know that the example we set sinks in more than we know.

It is that time of year again. The Holiday season, led off by Thanksgiving. We do a lot of things in these forums. We share information, advice and frustrations. We get into lively debates on different issues, occasionally heated, but usually friendly. Let's take time to think about what we are thankful for and then share it with each other.

I'm thankful especially in these uncertain times to be an American. I'm thankful for our freedoms. I'm thankful for my family, my job, my home, my health, my church, my God and my friends. I'm thankful for all the blessings the Lord has given me. While I have worked hard for them, they would not have been possible without the His blessing.

My challenge to all of your Scouters out there for the Holiday season.....do a good turn as often as possible. Share YOUR blessings with others!!!

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

I know this is unrealistic and would never happen, but wouldn't it be great if chartering organizations were required to have both Cubs and Boy Scouts? They would have a much better chance for interaction and possibly increase their crossover rates. We have a Den Chief who shows up for about half the den meetings, sits in a chair and hands out snacks at the end of the meeting. I've got a hunch that the majority of our Webelos 1's will drop out after next year. Perhaps if the church who sponsors us had a Boy Scout troop too and they met at the same location, the boys would have an idea of what Boy Scouts is about and want to be a part of it.

I'll get hit over the head by some people here for saying this, but here goes. I am not a cub leader....yet. I have been thinking about it. The main reason is because our den leader does not control the den. It is a Webelos den of 15 boys. For whatever reason, the Cub Master and Den Leader do not want to split it into two seperate dens right now and instead split the boys into 2 or 3 groups during the meeting and send them to different rooms to work on projects in an attempt to gain some control. This still does not work, they wander from room to room when they are not supposed to. Most of the parents are there and do nothing unless asked, me included. I think they do nothing because they don't want to be perceived as trying to take control and out of respect for the person who is supposed to be leading. I don't think the Den Leader will do what needs to be done because the parents ARE there and she is afraid of making a parent angry by doing what she might need to do to gain control. Which leads me to what I believe needs to be done. My son played baseball for 4 years from the age of 5 thru 8. His teams were competitvie teams, meaning they played to win. In order to win, they had to learn to pay attention to the coaches in order to learn how to play well enough to win. How did we get kids from age 5 to 8 to pay attention? We yelled at them. Not in a demeaning way. Not in a way to hurt their feelings. We yelled at them enough to be heard over their own roar to get their attention and to let them know that we meant business. Once they knew the limits, they began to respect them and rose to the expectations we had set. The better they behaved, the less we had to yell. We actually functioned as a team because everyone knew their job and what was expected of them. The coaches and the boys had a great relationship and the boys had a blast playing ball, playing it well, and winning. I think that Cubs too often takes a very casual soft approach with the boys and say that they are "just" kids and the idea is to have "fun". Would you let your kid act at home the way the kids act in the den? Of course not! They can have discipline and still have loads of "fun". They have to know what the limits of rowdiness are. You might have to be "mean" at first. But once they know that they have to behave and that they are going to be called on the carpet for acting out, they will usually settle down. In other words, you have to get your bluff in on them. I would take advantage of the parents NOT being there to lay the law down to the boys. Tell me this, if you don't do something to gain control and let them know who is in charge, do you really think they will decide to settle down on their own? Yes, they might grow out of it........when they are teenagers! But if no one ever sits on them and makes them behave, they will probably act just as bad when the are older.

Here is a partial transcript from the O'Reilly factor concerning accomodating religious issues for Muslim students in public schools.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70977,00.html

Basically, cubs covers this range:

6 years old - 1st grade - Tigers

7 years old - 2nd grade - Wolves

8 years old - 3rd grade - Bears

9 years old - 4th grade - Webelos 1

10 years old - 5th grade - Webelos 2

There is some overlap of age because of when birthdays fall. Just how much younger do you want it to go? Pre-school age? Younger kids always want to do what older kids are doing. Many Cubs want to do Boy Scout activities, but just are not up to the task of handling camp stoves and cooking and pitching tents by themselves. Some can, but many can't.

Rooster,

My comment about God creating man from the dust of the Earth was more or less a joke. But when you consider that evolutionist question how life began and raise questions about the primordial ooze; and then read in the Bible that God created man from the dust of the Earth, there are striking similarities. One of the main differences being the process and the "who" that caused it. The creation story and scientific theories on how our planet formed have many similarities with the exception being the length of time involved. For a strict literal creationist, it took 6 literal 24 hour days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Scientific methods show it to be billions of years old.

I believe you questioned my beliefs as a Christian earlier and I described them in pretty good detail. Just for the record, let me do it again. I am a Christian. I have been since the age of 7 and I am now 45. I make no apologies for my faith. I am very secure in my beliefs and my faith and my relationship with God. I am willing to die for my faith before I would deny it. I know what I believe and why I believe it (not just because it is the way my Mom and Dad taught me). I have been a student of the Bible for most of my life. I believe that God is God. He is the only God and he is limitless. I belive that he is the creator of everything. I believe that the Bible is his revealtion to man. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died as a sacrifice for my sins and rose to life 3 days after dying. I believe that he will return again. Deep in my heart, I know these things to be true by my simple faith. I can prove none of these things. I can only accept them by faith.

Because I believe what I believe and know why I believe it, I fear no contrary teaching or feel threatened by it. My faith is not determined by whether there is prayer in public schools, whether evolution as a scientific theory is taught in schools, whether "Under God" is in the pledge or whether "In God We Trust" is on out money. Those things do not make Godly people or determine their faith. My faith is something internal between myself and God and is manifested in the way I conduct my life. Those beliefs were taught to me at the hands of daily life with my parents and my extended church family.

It pains me to see Christians who fear the way of the world and feel they must demand equal time or who want to legislate morality and values on people who may not believe the same way as them. Are they good values? Yes! Would they be good for everyone? Yes! Does God want people to come to Him freely or be forced to come to Him thru laws? I believe He wants men to choose Him freely.

Bottom line for me, evolution is a theory and a scientific field of study just like gravity is. As a field of scientific study, it is proper for study in science classes. Creationism is a matter of religious belief and faith and as a matter of faith, can not be proven, but must be simply accepted by those who choose to belive it. It should not be taught in school. It is religion and not science.

My faith is strong enough to believe what I want regardless of what scientific theory attempts to answer.

If my son's science teacher stood before the class and tried to tell them that the Bible, God and religion are lies and should not be believed, he'd have a fight on his hands. Be honest, how many stories have you heard of where a school science teacher ridicules religious beliefs and tries to evangalize children to accept a science theory as a form of religion? I never have and I know what a school system would do to the teacher who did it!

For those interested in public schools and religious issues, you might want to watch the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News tonight. Here is one of the topics of discussion for tonight:

"Should public schools change their rules to accomodate the religious practices of Muslim students? Parents and students in Maryland are struggling with that question right now."

Rooster:....believe in a man-concocted theory about how life evolved on earth from the non-living to the living....

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't God create man from the dust of the earth in Genesis? That is quite an "evolution"!

Robk, you said: Since you think it's a science issue, and not a religous issue, it's alright for the government to force your beliefs on others who do think it is a religous issue?

Rob, let me throw something back at you. If an orthodox Jewish child goes to the school cafeteria and they are serving hotdogs for lunch or canadian bacon pizza, isn't that a violation of his religious beliefs? Since they are serving something that his religion allows him to eat, shouldn't they quit forcing their "religious" belief on him? I mean after all, the eating of pork is a "religious issue" for a Jew. The fact that the school would blatently serve food not allowed to him is a violation of his religious beliefs and the school has no right to do this. Right? It is the same argument you are using. What about the Muslim kid who goes to school and actually has a "woman" in a position of authority teaching him? And to top it off, she isn't covered from head to toe with just a mesh panel to see out of. How offensive to his religious principles! Having a female teach him and wearing a pair of pants is a forcing a religious belief on him against his will. Darn it, The government has NO right to do that to this poor child. It is a religious teaching contrary to his beliefs. How can the government actually get away with pushing this agenda on these kids? I'd be willing to bet that most people fighting for giving creationism equal time to evolution in school would laugh at the Jews or Muslims who would think of the food and clothing as religious issues.

Rooster,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that anyone in this thread has presented evolution as a fact. Actually, I've gone out of my way repeatedly to say that it is a theory and not a fact.

MOST science is theory! It is always being reviewed in light of new discoveries and evidence and the theory is tested. Each time the test results are known, the theory is either farther substantiated or further questioned. By your argument that it should not be taught until proven a FACT, then hardly any science should be taught in school.

I'm having a really really lousy day at work today, so I only had time to find one source. It is:

http://www.cedarlane.org/98serms/s981206.html

II. Christmas in America During Colonial Period

During this time of turmoil in England, English settlers arrived in America. The English who settled in the south were those who enjoyed drinking in excess as the way to celebrate December 25. For example, Maryland-bound passengers aboard a boat in 1633 so immoderately drank wine on Christmas that the next day thirty sickened of fever and about a dozen died.

Up in New England the Pilgrims were Puritans. They spent their first Christmas at Plymouth building a house. Later, the Puritan Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony attempted to suppress the holiday.

A Puritan minister wrote:

It can never be proved that Christ was born on December 25. Had it been the will of Christ that the Anniversary of his Nativity should have been celebrated, he would at least have let us known the day.

South of New England, Dutch, German and Swedes settled the areas of New York and Pennsylvania. They celebrated Christmas and New Years by drinking hard cider, masquerading, card playing and the firing of guns. In Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas, the non puritan English settlers enjoyed dancing, card playing, cockfighting, ninepins, and horse racing.

In the lives of people in the mid Atlantic colonies and the southern colonies, Christmas was not a major holy day. Thomas Jefferson rarely mentioned Christmas. George Washington frequently spent Christmas hunting and settling year-end financial matters. In the 18th century Americans celebrated few holidays before independence and even fewer after our revolutionary war. At the time of the birth of our county national holidays as we know them today did not exist. The only consistency was that where and when people celebrated a holiday, drinking, fighting, and squandering of money was the routine way to behave. All of this changed as the culture of our new nation developed.

III. Christmas in the New Nation

Anthropologists and sociologists say that special religious and civic days, interspersed among ordinary days, temporarily release us from the everydayness of life. Holidays establish a rhythm in a calendar year and help us describe and give significance to units of time. They help us renew social, religious, and civic commitments, and in this way they give us a national cultural identity. So as our new nation matured, we gradually created holidays such as Thanksgiving, Independence Day, New Years, and Christmas.

In the early 19th century loud explosions were popular on Christmas, as they were on the Fourth of July and New Years. Shooting guns and exploding gun power was the most common approach, but people created explosive noise any way they could. One man in Missouri recalled that in his boyhood his brother took the bladders of freshly butchered hogs and blew them up tightly. Christmas Day they lay the bladders down on the ice and struck them with a big paddles making a noise louder than a popgun.

The practice of drinking as a way to mark Christmas was also popular. According to a newspaper, in Philadelphia on Christmas eve 1833 young men wandered in packs, drinking in taverns and fighting on street corners.

IV. Starting about 1823: A Transition

from Explosions, Drinking and Gambling to Home and Family

Gradually nineteenth-century Americans recast Christmas. Slowly our foremothers and forefathers molded Christmas into something new. It became a celebration of the family and the home as a spiritual sanctuary from the world.

The central scripture of this new American Christmas was a poem attributed to the Episcopalian, Clement Clarke Moore. An Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas was first published in 1823. Soon it appeared each year at Christmas in newspapers throughout the nation. The poem about Santa Claus celebrates home and family instead of gambling, firing guns, and getting drunk.

A central focus in the home became the Christmas Tree. A pagan symbol of fertility and regeneration, the practice of bringing an evergreen branch or a small tree into the house and placing it on a table became popular in German speaking areas of Europe about 1600. The Pennsylvania Dutch brought the custom of Christmas trees to the United States. One of the earliest documented references is in 1821. In 1832 Rev. Charles Follen a Unitarian and professor of German at Harvard College, put up a tree in his home in Cambridge and decorated it. Because of this, Unitarians like to claim that we were the first to introduce Christmas trees to America. These first trees were small and sat on tables. Soon Americans started bringing trees that went from floor to ceiling into their homes. They decorated the trees with candies, toys and candles, transforming this ancient fertility symbol into a symbol of the home as a spiritual sanctuary from the world.

Slowly the popularity of the day grew. Louisiana was the first to declare Christmas an official holiday, in 1837. By 1860 fourteen states had done so. The need for a national holiday to celebrate religion, family happiness, childlike mirth, and generosity increased during the Civil War. By 1865, 31 states and territories officially recognized Christmas, and in 1870 the Congress in Washington voted Christmas a federal holiday.

V. Christmas in America after the Civil War

Christmas after the Civil War came of age as the most important American holiday. The old Christmas of drinking, card playing and shooting guns had disappeared. A national celebration of home and family replaced it.

Robk,

In a post to me on Saturday 11/16, you said this:

I am amazed at your inablity to see that evolution, while not a teaching of any religion, because it directly contradicts the teachings of certain religions, is de facto a religous teaching.

This is where everyone says you are calling evolution a de facto religion. While you said it is not a teaching of ANY religion, it is de facto a religious teaching. I think many people have a problem seeing how an teaching can be religious while not being part of a religion. As I've said in the past, to a Creationist who views it in light of their religious teachings, it is a religious issue. To a scientist viewing it thru science (not even considering religion) it is purely scientific and not religious. It is a matter of perception depending on which side of the fence you are standing on.

Evmori,

The bank Lobby may be open and cash checks, take deposits and make loans. All of the other departments are closed and not functioning. All of the checks, deposits and loans accepted will be processed on Monday night along with Monday's work. Banks transfer funds back and forth thru the federal reserve as a central bank. The bank may "appear" open on Sunday, but it is for customer convenience. The actual "work" of the bak is done when they can communicate with other banks and the Fed. My wife and I have been in the business for over 20 years. Most people have no idea how the banking systm works or what goes on behind the scenes.

Those Christian holidays were not government recognized holidays when the founding fathers began this country. Government recognition came later and there were many Christian people that wanted to abolish Christmas because in the late 1700's and thru part of the 1800's, Christmas was a pretty rowdy drunken holiday. I can't offer any supporting evidence right now, but I have read this before in more than one place. When I have time, I'll see if I can find a reference. Time and perception change.

Not to speak for Merlyn, but I don't think that is what he said. He was pretty clear. Companies should give floating holidays in place of established holidays to allow employees from varying walks of life the ability to celebrate the holidays of choice. The idea has it merits, but would be a nightmare for employers, depending on the type of company. When it comes to a holiday like thanksgiving or Christmas, the vast majority of employees would want the holiday. If you only have 1% of your workforce show up, the company can't really function. Banks take the federal holidays because the Federal Reserve is shut down, therefore they CAN'T do business on those days. While the idea looks good on "paper", it would be a logistical nightmare.

Robk,

With all due respect, you are totally coming out of left field. Regardless of the "logic" used (I'd call it rationalization) to come to your conclusion, evolution is not religion. There is no way you can define scientific study as religion in the same vein as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Judiaism. Not only are we talking apples and oranges here, we are talking apples and animals. I've been a Christian (Southern Baptist) for 38 of my 45 years. I graduated with a degree in religion from a Baptist University and worked halfway thru a Masters degree in Religious education. I've been a Youth Minister, Sunday School teacher, ordained Deacon, led Bible studies and preached in crusades in foreign countries. I know my Bible, my faith and my religion. Evolution is not religion. It is a scientific theory and is taught as such. Anyone who teaches it as fact has no idea what they are talking about. Again, you see it as a threat to your religious beliefs and therefore consider it a "religious" issue. Government entities are restricted from teaching religious beliefs by the constitutional restrictions of seperation of church and state. Evolution is science just as biology or geology is. Because it is science, it is taught in science classes in school. The scientist who study evolutional theory do so for scientific purposes and not for the purpose of challenging people's religious beliefs. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, it just does not make it so. As I said, you are dealing with an issue near and dear to your heart that you feel threatens your beliefs making it emotional. Reason says it is part of science and not religin. It may not be a part of science you agree with or like, but it is still science.

Acco40,

We are discussing tax funded compulsory public school education where a variety of subjects are studied each year....including science. And evolution is taught as a theory (because it is) not a fact. Any scientist who claims evolution is fact would be laughed at by the majority of scientist. If any of you ever watch the Discovery Channel, Discovery Science or The Learning Channel you will not in practically every program discussing, planets, stars, evolution, dinosuars, etc. they always say scientists "believe" blah blah blah. Based on the evidence to date, they form their theories. They never claim them as fact because there is always more evidence to discover that will add another piece to the puzzle. Creationist who are somehow feel threatened by science tend to gloss over this.

Maybe I'm missing something here. If you are not crossing over to Boy Scouts, why would you participate in a "Crossing Over Ceremony"? The name is kind of self evident to me. I would assume that the ceremony is for those who have chosen to move directly from being a Cub Scout to being a Boy Scout. The world already has too much of an entitlement attitude and this sounds like the kids who are not moving on to Boy Scouts feel like they are getting short changed if they don't get to participate. Kind of like those silly participation trophies they give in sports so kids feelings won't be hurt if they don't have something to take home like the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place winners. I would say the ceremony is more of an induction ceremony than a graduation. Now that I've spouted off without ever having been involved in one, would someone more in the know tell me where I am wrong please?

Wait, wait, wait!!! Weekender and Robk, you guys are dealing straight from your emotions and not from reason. The study of evolution is a scientific endeavor while the belief in the Creation account in Genesis is a religious one. Scientists who study the theory of evolution are doing so strictly for scientific reasons and are not trying to discredit Creationism. If anything, they are indifferent to it and don't even consider it. Evolution is science and students study science. It is not religion. Because you see them in direct conflict with each other, YOU percieve it to be a religious issue. For you it is, for scientist it isn't. That is like saying that since God created light, man's attempt to harness electricity and create a light bulb is man playing God and is a religious issue and electricity should not be studied in school. God gave man an inquisitive mind and science sprang from it. Science attempts to answer why and how about everything.....including how the stars and planets came about. As new evidence is discovered, it adds to the body of knowledge of science and theories are revised based on the added evidence. Evolution is a theory and not fact. It is taught as such. Until a better alternative is presented with compelling scientific evidence, it will be the prevailing theory. Because the Bible says so holds no sway with a scientist. They do not work based on faith, they have to be able to hold it, feel it and test it. Evolution is science, not religion.

I know the issue of BDU's has been beat to death in other threads, so I won't belabor the point too much. Perhaps BSA could take a "hint" from BDU's and put adjustable tabs in the waist instead of elastic. We had trouble buying my son's pants too. The size we bought for him fits him today, next summer they won't. The next size up swallowed him even with the elastic. Adjustable tabs allow you to take in and let out several inches with a custom fit instead of having to cinch big elastic pants with a belt and having a bunch of uncomfortable folds of material around your waist. Regardless of how much "hate" people express for the pants, I don't see the BSA cleaning out their warehouse of 100's of thousands of pants and starting over anytime soon. You just have to make do with what you are required to use.