[Evolutionists today are not sexists, because science shows that sexism is not rational. Many creationists are sexists, because they retain a conservative that women are inferior.]

Silly me. Of course Darwin’s prejudices would not enter into theories about survival of the fittest and superiority of one species, sex and race over another. So now all evolutionists are not sexists or many are not sexists? Exactly or approximately how many creationists are sexists?
Is it sexist to understand there are differences between males and females both physically and emotionally so that each has a unique function in life? The Bible refers to the woman as the weaker vessel, not the inferior vessel. (Just as a piece of bone china is weaker than a clay pot, and should be treated with more care and consideration.) More responsibility is placed on the man’s shoulders as head of household and the woman is especially adapted for her role, as much as a man is built for his. Not many men have adapted to birthing and breastfeeding babies. ::Wide-eyed smiley:: Do you have any stats on that?

[Darwin's theory said:

1. More are born than can survive to reproduce
2. All organisms vary slightly
3. Those variations that improve chances of survival tend to increase in a population
4. These accumulate and account for the variety of life we see.]

If that was all that Darwin’s theory was, it would not have bothered anyone.
1. God adapted his creatures to survive in the world that was subjected to death and decay.

2. God likes variety. He is creative. Maybe that’s why we call him the Creator.

3. Good adaptations were created by an amazing, intelligent being. Romans 8 says the creation was made subject to vanity— a system of self preservation to preserve it until the fallen world was destroyed and all was ready for the coming new world.

4. Variations accumulate as God intended. (see #3)