Okay, hold up. Believing that the Bible is perfect does not mean that I am close-minded. To the contrary, my college professors and fellow students who have told me, "You can't possibly believe that the Bible is perfect!" are the close-minded ones. I am still open to other interpretations of what it says, or open to the idea that such and such a verse may be poorly translated or fragmented in our English versions. And I do not have any qualms against those who believe it is not perfect. I don't think God really cares. Personally, I have no fear of the Bible being proven wrong and my world collapsing, because it is the only thing in my life where I have the confidence and the arrogance to say, "Yes, I am right about this."
On a side note, I grew up as an evolutionist, and my family has never been regular church goers. I have been a creationist for about 18 months or so. Changing your mind after seeing the evidence cannot possibly make a person close-minded.
Daenna, if I were choosing my belief system based upon fear, then I would certainly be an evolutionist, since I was publically humiliated time and time again in school this semester without doing anything to deserve it. All I did was speak up when they started attacking religion, and for that my grade has suffered. How is that a reaction based in fear?
Cecilia, in reply to your statement, one has only to remember the great philanthropists like Mother Theresa to see that religion does not "only cause suffering." Perhaps religion without salvation makes people unhappy because they don't understand the rules they are following, but those who are saved find joy in doing God's work. But I'm getting off topic. This thread is supposed to be about evolution, not about whether or not believing in Biblical canonity makes you a close-minded fool.
The Gunslinger is doing a really good job of explaining natural selection, but I'm going to help by providing the Zoo Books explanation that I grew up with. So, there are two short legged horses. Somehow when they have a baby, it mutates and has long legs. When the saber-tooth tigers chase all the horses, the ugly duckling horse always gets away, while the normal horses are more likely to die. The ones that live pass on their genes, and so the ugly duckling fathers more long-legged horses. The same cycle happens over and over again, and each generation there are more and more long-legged horses in the gene pool. Eventually the short-legged horses completely cease to exist. As you can see, natural selection does not act upon the individual or the entire species, but upon a single population, which is a group of one species that lives in a certain place (within breeding distance). A few hundred miles away, all the horses may still have short legs, and thus, we stupid humans with our categorizing systems might choose to call it a different species. But like race and skin tone, species are a continuum and oftentimes it is difficult to tell where one ends and another one begins, since they are all human-defined categories.
Anyway, I love everyone. Don't judge.
Estuans interius ira vehementi SEPHIROTH!