In this Creation vs. Evolution debate, I am simply stymied. I was teaching a high school class once, and a young girl told me I couldn't teach her Evolution, due to some law of which I had never heard nor was made aware. I told her that as I was not trying to establish a religion with this teaching, which is the core of modern Biology, I didn't see why I couldn't. She told me that her mother told her, and her preacher confirmed it. Well, Reverend, I am sorry, but even a Bush appointed knee jerk right wing activist Supreme Court had to disagree with you and said that teaching Creationism or even Intelligent Design was actually "establishing religion" (see the First Amendment to the United States Constitution).
My aggravation with Creationists is well known to my friends, and I have never quite understood their shrillness, because Evolution is NOT challenging anyone's religion, and if anyone's religion is so fragile that it can't stand up to modern science, well, it might be time to examine that religion. This is the rub, I think; they see it as a challenge to their religion, something that might make their religion not look so true, and they have to fight back tooth and nail, even in some cases with actual physical violence. I don't think this squares with Jesus' teachings.
Folks, Darwin had nothing against religion. Though he did lose much of his faith after his daughter died, he was never an Atheist, and his ideas have nothing to do with being against religion. Unfortunately, some modern scholars are in fact Athiests, and trumpet it loudly; there is no need for this, as Stephen Jay Gould suggested in his idea of Non-overlapping magisteria. Using science to deny the existence of a deity or deities is facile and specious, and there is no need for it. I find it stupid. Taking evolution and trying to say "there is no God" is just totally ridiculous, and shows a lack of reason in my opinion.
Now, for a little of my philosophy, with some of my experiences.
First, "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. There is no science about it. In any scientific investigation, you take observed data and form an hypothesis. If the data fits the hypothesis, and the hypothesis holds up to further exploration, then you have a theory. Note that one of the "Creation Science" arguments is "it's only a theory". Yeah? What is "Creation Science" but a theory, and not a very sound one at that. Next, if everything works out, your theory becomes part of the modern body of science, like Newton's theory (now a "law), Einstein's theory of Relativity, and others. What these people did was take observable phenomena, gather them together, and form an idea of what happened. You find a bunch of fossils of animals that do not live on Earth any more, you see closely related finches on a series of islands that obviously had a common ancestor, what do you do? You say "Hmmm. These dead critters tell me that animals lived that don't any longer, and these finches tell me that a common ancestor must have lived in the past, and no longer does. Thus, a "theory" (later supported by much research and fact) is born.
What does "Creation Science" do? Well, they look at the facts, say "well, this had only 6000 years to have happened, so these finches were created on day 3, (Tuesday?), and these fossils are animals that Noah happened to forget, and were buried in the mud. Oh, and look, I know the arguments; I was raised a Southern (Hard Shell) Baptist. The Colorado River and Grand Canyon were a product of the runoff from The Flood, and happened in only a short time. (Um, what happened to all that water that covered the Earth? Where did it go?)
Now, imagine an episode of CSI, and see Grissom telling his team not to make an hypothesis with incomplete data. The scientific idea is that you take the data, and make your hypothesis. "Creation Science" does this backward. They go from the premise that the Earth was created 6000 years ago (see: Bishop Ussher), and mash the facts to fit that. How is that scientific?
It seems that these Creationists have been infiltrating serious scientific groups, mainly on Yahoo, but all over (I have seen them on the Carnivorous Plants group), and when anything is said about Evolution, they jump on it as a hawk on a chicken, telling why evolution could not have happened, and offering up "facts" that uphold their "theory", and being totally disrespectful to anyone who does not agree with their junk. They hold forth these :facts", say it has nothing to do with religion, but is based in fact (never mind that their "Creation Science is based on Genesis from the Holy Bible, and not from any other creation myth), and there is no religion in it. However, they never fail to tell you how Jesus has made a change in their life, has sent them visions, signs, and prophesies, and start "witnessing" to you, right after they tell you that "Creation Science" is not about religion. Here I direct you to the ninth commandment about bearing false witness. One lady told me her husband was an agnostic, and believed "Creation Science" for years before he "accepted Christ as his savior". Yeah, I rest my case.
I have nothing against Jesus, don't get that idea. I have a lot against people who claim to follow Him. I often wonder if they are really following Him, or following someone else that they think is Him. Much evil has been done in Jesus' name, and people will threaten to kill you for deviating from their idea of Christianity, which is why, though a follower of Christ's teachings, I hesitate to call myself a Christian.Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were Christians (McVeigh was a lapsed one it seems), as is Eric Rudolph, and the guy that killed Dr. Tiller (Roeder). Bill O'Reilly is also responsible for Tiller's death (his rabble rousing led directly to this killing), as are many "Christians" who consider the killing of abortion doctors "justifiable homicide". (Who are you really following, huh? Matthew 26:52.)
I am a very spiritual person, and have rather strong beliefs, and still can see how majestic the unfolding of our Universe is without having to believe in a creation that happened only 6000 years ago. To envision a Universe that is impossibly old, and a mechanism for the evolution of species that is elegant and messy at the same time, and the laws (gravity etc.) that run it, gives me a sense of awe that I never had when growing up in the Creationist ideas of the Baptist Church.
I will write more on this as I think about it.
