Creation or evolution? The arrival of Darwinian thought sparked the debate and is not the first time science and religion has met on a field wielding observable fact and doctrine. This battle pits the ever-growing body of evidence supporting evolution against those who believe in a literal genesis. Not all members of organized religion believe that the bible is a literal account, rather that it is a collection of stories inspired by a deity with the express purpose of guiding what is deemed to be moral and acceptable behaviour.
The modern creationist point of view is carried by a number of young Earth creationists. These people believe that the Earth and Universe is in the area of 6000 years old and that mankind is descended from Adam and Eve through to Jesus. They use the Bible chronology to arrive at that age of 6000 years old. The problem with this narrow view is that it flies in the face of large volumes of empirical evidence which shows the Earth to be in fact much older. The Creationist stance has not changed much over the past 25 years and every year their position is weakened by new discoveries. One of their most treasured weapons is carbon dating. They use the limits of carbon dating to try to validate that science is flawed and that the Bible is the most reliable piece of evidence we have. Radiometric dating using the carbon-14 isotope can only be reliably used to date organic samples in the range of 50-100,000 years old. In order to date to the latter, you need sophisticated analytical tools which can isolate the ratio of carbon-14 to the other isotopes, and the lab technician must be able to eliminate any contamination of the sample.
There are many other methods for dating a material, carbon dating being the most commonly known by the layperson, but poorly understood. This is the tenet for the Creationists argument; use the same tired arguments that most people do not understand to disprove the reliability of the scientific method. They pray on the fact that evolutionists cannot provide all the answers that their precious book can. This is perhaps the most disingenuous aspect of their position. If one were to search the Bible, you would find a passage where the numerical value of Pi, that wonderful coefficient we use in geometry, is 3. Yes that's right, 3, not the 3.141592654 and so on. One would also find that Genesis, the backbone of the creationist argument puts the Geocentric Universe forward. The Sun, the Moon, the stars, all set in the firmament or sky and revolving around us. We know that Pi and a geocentric universe as put forward by the bible, are not true.
Now in order to believe that evolution is false, we would have to believe that the fossil record has been entirely a scam by the scientific community. The dinosaur bones, bones of early hominids, even the geological record, has all been planted evidence, like a cop placing a dime bag in the pocket of the suspect he just bludgeoned with his club. That would have to be the largest scale of purgery ever committed against humanity, by a wide margin.
The most formidable weapon yielded by evolutionists is the code, which makes life possible. Genetics is a marvelous study of the natural world and has come a long way. Our genome, the genome of sea urchins, the genomes of insects, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and all life shares a common ancestry. The fashion in which DNA is used by one set of animals, replicated for use in a completely morphologically different group of animals is the truly amazing part. The same code in humans that gives rise to our sense of smell, hearing and sight, is found in the sea urchin's tube foot, a body part that cannot smell, hear or see anything. Genetics has been remarkable in how it can reuse a proven code for different physiological needs.
One of the lines that tickles me the most is, "If we are to believe evolution, we are to believe that life happened by complete random chance, or an accident". First off, evolution makes no claims as to how life began. That's where we have theistic evolutionists. God could very well be that missing piece, the one who allowed life to begin in that primordial ooze a few billion years ago. Also, once life is here, the evolution is not accidental. It is chance and probability but everything can be viewed in such a way. The mutations, which gave rise to the biodiversity, as we understand it, are random, and they have probability. What is not random, is whether or not the mutation will survive. If the new mutation provides the individual with an advantage, it will survive and pass on to future generations. Fish did not grow legs, some fish developed lobed fins instead of rays in the fins like a trout or salmon. The lobes allowed for the fins to be adaptable to supporting the weight of the fish body, and in times of environmental stress like food availability, the new fish could drag it's body into the mud, making a whole new area of food capture available.
The point is that religion and science do not have to be at odds here. Science will never be able to explain all of lifes mysteries. Also science cannot prove the existence of a deity. The number of people who make up the creationist side of this story, are blinded by their faith. Perhaps they do not wish to think of Man and Chimpanzee as related, (by the way a common misconception that we came from chimpanzees) more appropriate to say we are evolutionary cousins, sharing a common ancestor. The evidence to support the creationist side is weak andd grows weaker all the time. Very few people would take everything from the bible, that is Old and New Testament, as literal truth. There is plenty of room in the evolutionary camp for theistic evolutionists. Pull up a chair and lets talk.
