by Neil K » December 22nd, 2005, 3:31 pm
I've only read the first page of this thread so if I repeat anything that has already been said, then I apologise. I've been thinking and reading a bit about this for the last few days, and this is my view on the Creation / Evolution / Intelligent Design shenanigans - bear with me on this.
Firstly, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus died on the Cross and was risen from the dead three days later. Why? Because in the gospels, there are four different and independent accounts of what happened, and, give or take a few minor differences between them, they all pretty much say the same thing. Hence, I trust them and this is why they are a fundamental part of the Christian faith.
Now, if the story about God creating the Earth in 6 days is to be an important part of the Christian faith, then the logic I used in the previous paragraph would dictate that at any other point in the Bible where the creation of the Earth is referred to, then it would agree with the account of Genesis. Alas, this is not the case. The irony of the whole thing is that the first thing which Creationists refer to in order to justify their position - the Bible - is also the very thing that, for me, blows their arguments to pieces.
I can't quote from verse, but one of the Psalms mentions God creating the Earth; Paul refers to it in one of the Corinthian letters; the beginning of the Earth is referred to at the start of John's gospel; even God talks about it in great detail in Job 38-41: NONE of these refer to the Earth being made in six days or, for that matter, tries to make a claim as to how long God took to make it. So, based on this, the 'six day' theory and the Christian debate over how we came into being is, for me, two things: (a) it's not meant to be taken literally, and (b) it's not of great importance with regards to my faith.
Evolution? I don't know all the in's and out's of it - it could well be right for all I know. What I don't understand is where the idea of it governing itself comes from: how can it possibly rule out the idea that someone or something is in charge of it or, failing that, set it in motion? I don't like the way it's used to bash religion rather than purely as a scientific theory. As many scientists have said, but the proponents of atheistic evolution don't seem to understand, science can tell you how things work but it can't always tell you why that thing should be made the way it is and it can never explain why it should even be there in the first place. For me, this elevation of biology to the level of metaphysics is wrong.
Also, I can't understand how it is taught in schools as scientific fact when amongst scientific circles the debate over it's validity and accuracy is still ongoing. Richard Dawkins and his ilk can slag off religious fundamentalists all they like, but the problem is that they are the fundamentalists of their own profession when they say they've got 'The Answer' to life on out planet and expect Christianity to die overnight. Isn't it the nature of science that one theory takes precedence until another comes along and betters it? How can you rule out the possibility that in, say, 10,000 years time several new theories will have come and gone, and that Darwinism will be a mere footnote? To me, the attitude of Dawkins is sheer and unfounded arrogance.
In general, I don't think Creationists are in the right, but I don't think the Evolutionists are either. What I believe is that the debate is pointless and, in many instances, is fought against a background of ignorance (and in some cases I feel this is deliberate) on both sides. I believe that God made the Universe and everything in it: I'm not particularly bothered how He did it and How long he took to do it. You may think that a cop out but I came to that conclusion from reading my Bible.
'Between my finger and my thumb / The squat pen rests. / I'll dig with it.' - Seamus Heaney, 'Digging'
