To me, one of the most frustrating debates in this country is between evolution and creationism, and it’s frustrating because it’s completely unnecessary.
Evolution is not something that factored into my deconversion. But after leaving Christianity, I became interested in learning more about it, since I had left my past ideas on how we all got here behind. And the more I learned, the more it struck me that the debate between the two sides is completely superfluous. Of course, I’m not the first to say so, but I’ll offer my thoughts on it, nonetheless.
First of all, how should we refer to those who don’t believe in evolution? I don’t want to call them creationists, because there are a number of Christians who believe in a Creator and in evolution. So I think I’ll just use the term “anti-evolutionists.”
Anti-evolutionists tend to have several problems with evolution, but I think the most important is that the theory of evolution contradicts a literal reading of the Bible’s creation account in Genesis. While this is true, there are many different ways to rationalize it. First of all, why can’t the creation account just be viewed as allegory, just as many people think of the story of the rich man and Lazarus? Perhaps the sin in the Garden was just representative of the sins all men commit? Another idea is that each day is simply representative of a long period of time, rather than a literal day in order to allow for the millions of years required for life to develop. Then there’s the view that I tended to hold to when I was a Christian — it’s sometimes known (jokingly) as “last Thursday-ism.” It’s the idea that even though the earth and universe appear old, they’re actually quite young — just as Adam and Eve (if they had been real) would have looked like full-grown adults just moments after their creation. If God could create stars and the laws of physics, why would he have to wait for the light from those stars to travel all the way to earth? Why not just create it so that it already shines here? Why not create the earth with fossils already within it?
The real beauty of this belief, and really all the ones I’ve outlined so far, is that it allows one to hold onto his or her religious beliefs, regardless of what science tells us. But for some reason, many anti-evolutionists prefer to argue the science itself. I really think this is a bad idea. It’s reminiscent of the Catholic church’s argument with Galileo on whether the earth was round and revolved around the sun. It just draws a line in the sand where one may not be needed at all. Not only does this potentially upset the faith of those Christians who are finally convinced that science was right all along, but it also jeopardizes the education of children who are told to ignore what science shows us.
But It’s Only a Theory!
Yes, yes, we’re told this often. But a scientific theory is very different from our casual use of the word when we’re talking about an idea of which we’re unsure. In science, a theory is an explanation of some phenomenon that includes many different facts that have been verified over and over. This is why we have germ theory, the atomic theory, and the theory of gravity. Frances Ashcroft in a Fresh Air interview from September 27, 2012 said:
So science is indeed a theory, but I really like what the very famous American physicist Feynman said. He said, “science is imagination in a straightjacket.” We are constrained by all the things which we already know, so you can not simply conjure a story out of the air. It has to explain all the current facts, and the new ones which have just been discovered, and it has to make predictions that can then be tested to see whether in fact that story continues to hold when we know even more information.
This is a really important point. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory built upon facts, not guesses. And every discovery we’ve made since the time of Darwin has only supported the theory of evolution [1]. Everything we’ve discovered in physics, everything we’ve learned about genetics, and all the fossils we’ve uncovered, have all given further credence to evolution [2]. And more importantly, if we were to discover evidence that overturned the theory of evolution, then it would be discarded in favor of a theory that could make sense of all the evidence. But so far, we’ve never had reason to do that.
In my next post, I’ll talk more about the evidence for evolution. But the main point I’ve been trying to make here is that this argument between evolution and creationism is completely unnecessary. What all Christians need to accept is the fact that even if God really created everything, he did so in a way where all the physical signs point toward evolution. Maybe he did this to trick those of us who don’t believe (2 Thess 2:11-12), or maybe Genesis isn’t supposed to be taken literally. Either way, the evidence really only points one direction. So why fight about it?
Let’s stop trying to get creationism or Intelligent Design taught in our public schools, because they make claims that we can not verify. Let’s simply encourage our schools to teach our current best understanding of science, and then you can handle your child’s religious education in your home or church. This just doesn’t have to be an issue we fight over.
Finding Truth 
Really? You speak for Unklee now, or are you able to read his mind?
He is fully conversant with the Bible so I hardly think he would make a statement if he did not know what he was writing, do you?
Besides this is the point i made, or did you misunderstand?
Jesus is God is Jesus is God, right?
No, I’m merely aware of his views and he is definitely not a so-called “hard defender” (“if God does it in the Bible, it happened and it is morally right for him to do it”). The issue is that by your rebuttal based on God’s character in stories in the OT you are implicitly ascribing views to UnkleE that he does not hold. He has mentioned at several places (maybe not here though) that he finds several ot portrayals of God as problematic and that his perception of God’s character is based on the NT instead.
Emotional component? Smile…
No, sorry, nothing so deep’, I’m afraid. I just don’t like lies being passed off as truth, which is what Christianity is, pretty much.,that’s all ask Nate….
I see. I wondered, because at points you use less than detached language that comes somewhat out of left-field.
LikeLike
@ Ignorantianescia
You make me smile..I really love your responses. They are so funny. And Unklee is very fortunate. He now has a visible (sort of) friend to answer for him as well as his invisible friend.
How sweet. Poor old Christians. It must be really tough, having a conscience, being such raving hypocrites and still maintaining that us heathens are going to Hell for not believing in your Red Sea Pedestrian alchemist man-god.
So how about we just say that Yahweh was nasty and Jesus was meek and mild? (that sounds like a brand of cigarette) and all the rotten things that Yahweh did was probably because those ungrateful bastards, the Jews, probably deserved what was coming to them and it was those stupid bloody Catholics who compiled the bible and misrepresented God and all the proper Christians?
Sounds about right, yes?
“Should never have kicked Marcion in the teeth?”
“Well, don’t blame ME your Worthshitfulness. It was that sod Eusebius and those other crusty old farts that put the bible together. Oh, we NEED the Old Testament. Really? And look at the dwang we are in now?”
“Sigh…can’t we just sort of edit it a bit? You know, add a bit here and there, like we did the New Testament?”
“Weeeerl…..maybe.”
LikeLike
Emotional component? Smile…
No, sorry, nothing so deep’, I’m afraid. I just don’t like lies being passed off as truth, which is what Christianity is, pretty much.,that’s all ask Nate….
“I see. I wondered, because at points you use less than detached language that comes somewhat out of left-field.”
Sorry, missed this bit.
You’re worried about “left field language”?
Be grateful we are still in the same ball park.
When I start typing in crayon you know i have reached the end of my tether. For now, though, Christians are still worth a laugh or two.
But when such blatant liars lose their fascination for me then I’ll go play somewhere else.
LikeLike
Ej Arkenaten, ek nie denk nie dat jy naar die hel ga as jy overlyd, want ek is annihilationist. En ek is ook inklusivist. Dus jy heb altyd kanse!
LikeLike
@ignorantianescia
Which illustrates my point, that Christianity is a crock: you cannot agree on a single unifying doctrine, just make all this es aitch one T up as you go along.
In common vernacular it might be called Cherry-Picking.
Excuse my reply in Engles, my Afrikaans is a bit rusty, I’m afraid.
Nice to see they allow rock-spiders on Word Press too.
Hmmm, the NGK, now there is a church to sing Hallelujah about right? Supporting Apartheid all those years….
Got to love Christianity.
“Become a Christian; we have a flavour to suit whichever doctrinal BS you would like to adhere to. Racism, Slavery, Misogyny, we’ve got them all.”
LikeLike
Hi Nate! Congrats for being one of the top commenters on Grome Soapobox this year.
http://gromesoapbox.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/comm.png
And happy new year 😀
LikeLike
Haha, I’m not a NGK member, but a PKN member (the Netherlands). So I think your slavery point is moot after 1863. Not that I’d deny that the predecessor churches of the PKN have at several times been at the wrong side of ethics.
However, if disagreement makes Christianity an exercise in cherry-picking, shouldn’t that mean other religions, worldviews or (dis)beliefs with diversity of opinion are also fakes? In other words, isn’t that an argument for actual scepticism?
LikeLike
Hey, it’s all Double-Dutch to me, my friend.
Yes, other religious beliefs are all fake, of course, which is an indictment of an omnipotent deity. as much as it s an indictment of the fraudulent claims of men.
In fact, any worldview that hinges on belief and more importantly, obeisance in the supernatural is fraudulent.
We can all have our own opinion but not our own facts.
Happy new year, by the way.
LikeLike
Ark,
“We can all have our own opinion but not our own facts.”
This is an important point. Although, I don’t think one side has all the facts. I do believe one side moves nearer to certainty and the other side further away from certainty.
Regards
LikeLike
Persto.
So are you suggesting the moon is not made of cheese after all?
Happy New Year, and may your god go with you…;)
LikeLike
Ark,
Happy New Year.
Regards
LikeLike
Thanks Larry! Glad I made the list 🙂
Happy New Year to you too!
LikeLike
Hope everyone here had a safe and happy new year. All the best for the year to come 🙂
LikeLike
you too, Ryan!
LikeLike