From the very first page of the bible, appear some funny contradictions... Some have been expunged from the original text because they did not make sense or contradicted the message that the later priests wanted to promote, including removing some saucy business...

One of such funny item is of course the creation of Eve... We all know (to use a Rattus euphemism) that Eve was created from a bone of contention... A rib so to speak... But medicine can confirm that that men have the same number of ribs on both sides and the same as women... Some religious nuts anyway claim that god took a rib so that women would not be superior to men should god had taken his head... or inferior should he had taken a bone lower than the rib... And this is where it's ribbingly laughable... The problems lie in the translation... The original text uses a word that can mean a few things including side, rib, pillar, post, column, beam... If you're smart, you should see where I'm going to... 

Human male are one of the rare mammal males not to have a penile bone... But as well, in most mammal species too, females have a clitoris bone... Is this bone the missing bone? Who cares... The bible is full of other stories that would make a monkey blush...

One of the biblical text removed from "modern' translations relate to Lillith... Lillith was Adam's "first wife" but she did not want to copulate doggy style... Hence some fall from grace or whatever... Ahhh, religious fervour dedicated to the removal of bits that moralisationing does not like...

Anyone who tells children that God – literally – created the world in seven days 6,000 years ago is guilty of perverting education.

The truth – and education should be above all else a search for truth – is that the world, and the flora and fauna in it, including homo sapiens, evolved over millions of years.

But of course, whatever the founders of the Exemplar Academy in Newark soon to open as a state-authorised school might think, the divisions between the two points of view are not quite as cut and dried as that.

There is, for example, more than one sort of truth. There is factual, scientific truth and there are deeper, metaphysical truths.

For example, I don’t for a moment believe that Adam and Eve were ever a physically living people and neither, for the record, do any of the committed Christians I know. But there is a great deal of ‘truth’ in their human fallibility and curiosity. In a sense the Adam and Eve story is a novel, and like all the best novels it is full of insights and truths.

Intelligent, responsible adults working with children teach them the science and then, if they wish, explain that the creation stories – and every religion has one – originated as man’s way of explaining truths he ( or she) didn’t fully understand. It actually makes quite an interesting education project to explore and compare those stories and see what a lot they have in common.

And as for God. Well, he was man’s name for the almost unimaginable force which drove (drives) the process of evolution and change – a personification. So, if you want a religious approach, the science and the creation myth complement each other. You don’t have to argue the literal and pretty absurd case for an old man in the sky striding about making decisions for and about human beings.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/20/teaching-creationism-indoctrination-is-a-form-of-child-abuse/

See toon at top and article below it...