Does this answer the creation vs. evolution debate once and for all?

You realize, of course, that it's a fake, satirical site, right?

EDIT: Cool, man. Just checking.

Simply put: No.

British "news" organizations are really no better than American grocery check-out stand scandal magazines like the Nat'l Enquirer, Star, Sun, etc.. Whether Dawkins is accurately and in-context quoted is highly debatable.*

That said, I have always known that the theories (plural) of evolution cannot fully and completely satisfy some of life's more unique forms in some very hostile environments that are not all that widespread.

And that said, there is _no_ and has never been _any_ debate between evolution (about change) and creation (about the formation of the universe. Debating the two, in my mind, is about like debating color and sound. They can share _some_ characteristics, but one is not the other and vice versa.

*To be fair to the British electronic press, if someone digs up the same story in a widely recognized scientific journal or international press organization like AP, then I would be more accepting of the "story" that Dawkins has problems with the theories based upon a human gene...

Which is why the whole thing is so laughable...

uh uh. There's a lot of proof out there towards evolution... but really. Why bother arguing about it? We're here on earth and living a pretty good life here... sorta. We have too many problems without furiously battling an argument which will never be won. Creationists will always believe in creation. Hard Core Creationists will always believe in a 7 day creation. A lot of people will always believe in an old earth and evolution, and notice how I'm not saying Atheists. I'm saying a lot of people, including a lot of Christians. Then the Hard Core Atheists believe that there was no god figure who created anything and humans came from much primitive life forms. THEN, there are the people who say we came from monkeys and they're just stupid... we came from a similar primate ancestor as the ape, which isn't a monkey. Note the similar primate ancestor- we did not come from the ape.

I find it extremely interesting that people dub "creationist" to assume that if you believe the earth to be over 6000 years old, than you must be evolutionist.. No, God has a plan, and as of right now, O hold firm that OUR age began with Adam and Eve. Some diputes have remained over the origin before that based on tranlsating the beggin og the Bible differently based on Manuscripts.

I.E. "The earth was void and without form."

And some would say the Hebrew REALLY says.

"The fertile soil existed a long time, and without purpose, and in Chaos."

This challenges the 6000 year theory, but does NOT challenge the Creato, Jesus, the Sabbath and the other 6 literal days of creation.

My favorite quote from that Biased website you mentioned is....

Not all biologists are convinced by this explanation, however, and a number of mavericks still cite creationists as evidence of a process of ‘natural aberration’ in which nature sometimes gets it spectacularly wrong,

lmao i read half and i already know the flaw in that seemingly perfect argument

he is saying that creationists and and evolutionists are seperate species or have a different gene in them making them what they are and that is not true

there is basically nothing different between those who believe in creation versus evolution only really their opinion so how would creationists be "weeded out" of the gene pool when a gene for creationism doesnt exist the article makes it sound like to be a creationist or evolutionist not a choice and that is completely not true i was once a complete christian going to church every wednesday and sunday prayed every night and all the other stuff that goes along with it but i changed i am now an athiest and nothing people have thrown at me has changed my mind, and if what that article is saying is true that is not possible

Is this a serious question? The issue is not one of evolution, since creationist beliefs are passed down culturally, and at one time there was an evolutionary advantage to having a belief in some kind of divine force/afterlife.

Richard Dawkins was a vegetarian before the Fall.

"Darwin’s theory of evolution could offer no rational explanation for the continued existence of creationists. "

Back to the drawing board.... on how to utilize the concept of rational in theory-making.

Taking only the part where it said that, whereupon it says "no rational explanation for creationists."

FAIL.