I'm always amused that proponents of creationism often exaggerate the small inconsistencies in the Darwinian theory of evolution, while overlooking the gaping hole in their own belief.

They demand that theory of evolution be subjected to the strictest scientific inquiry, which is as it should be, but ignoring or tolerating inconsistencies in their own belief.

Instead of making their case, they choose to discredit the rival theory. Even if the theory of evolution turns out to be imperfect, that doesn't mean theirs is right. In fact, they could be even further from the truth.

The Piltdown Man was a hoax. Early English paleontologists, in their eagerness to establish the antiquity of their race, overlooked inconsistencies and fudged their findings. The theory of evolution itself is not in serious jeopardy.

The theory of evolution is itself evolving. As evidence mounts, small inconsistencies are corrected and incorporated into the theory. Such is the process of scientific inquiry. Science is a self-correcting enterprise, quite contrary to the dogmatic stance of fundamentalist religiosity.

The realm and scope of science and religion is different. One is about facts, the other is by and large about morality. Science does not tell us what is moral and what's not, neither does religion tell us how to build an aircraft or clone a sheep.

If proponents of creationism insist on challenging the theory of evolution, they must be prepared to subject their own theory to the same level of rigorous testing.

Those holding steadfastly to petrified theories will find themselves increasingly on the defensive, and just like the Neanderthals, swept aside by the tide of evolution.