Evolution vs. "Creationism"

(Revised 2-9-2008)

Most Christians believe much of what is written in the Bible. But, while many Christians understand divine intent, some Christians do not. Some instead seek and focus on words in the Bible that will justify their desire to rule the world in the name of God and Country. Therefore, I am duty bound to set them straight, and on this page I will discuss the Evolution vs. "Creationism" debate.

The six day creation story in the first book of the Bible is an allegory. It is a very short and beautiful allegorical explanation of how the world was created. In the beginning it was meant to illustrate that God is the Creator, and the rest of it was meant to demonstrate how man disobeys God when he indulges in judgmental egotism and thinks he is a wise judge of what is good and what is evil — when he ignores God and tries to play god.

In that respect it is much like the creation stories of many other religions and cultures, containing great wisdom and great advice, and yet portraying magical events that are the stuff of myth, fable, and fantasy. They were not meant to be taken literally, but to give us a concept and an idea of divine power and intent.

That is why I do not understand why the American Christian Right insists on reviving the old Scopes Trial argument for "biblical creationism" against the scientific theory of evolution. I can only conclude that they think that if they thump their Bible long enough and hard enough, their "godless"opponents will be vanquished and "God’s Word" will prevail.

The trouble is, they do not know what the true Word of God really is. In fact, their argument simply does tremendous harm to religion, because they focus on man-made doctrines and dogma which forces a biblical allegory to compete with common sense and be compared to science. That just makes no sense and it is entirely inappropriate, not only because there should be a wall of separation between church and state, but because real biblical truths are actually compatible with science, and the allegorical "creation" story was never meant to be taken literally.

That’s why their argument is so feeble — even more feeble today than when it was shot down seventy-five years ago in court during the Scopes "Monkey Trial" (read the play or see the movie "Inherit the Wind").

Of course, at that time a conservative and biased "Bible-belt" judge and jury heavily favored the "biblical creationism" argument, and they decided in its favor in spite of its being ridiculed and thoroughly discredited in court. But the conservative judge and jury’s stubborn denial did not reflect real religious devotion, and justice was not served by it. Indeed, the moral victory in that trial (as portrayed in the play and movie) was won by the argument for evolution and against the absurdity of inappropriate and misguided biblical literalism.

A similar trial held today in most places would result in a resounding victory for evolution. In fact, most educated and reasonable people now realize that evolution is how God created the world. Surveys have shown that 83 percent of the population say Darwin’s theory of evolution belongs in the nation’s science classes, and 70 percent don’t see any conflict between the Bible and evolution. Most Americans see evolution as science-based theory and biblical creation as a matter of belief. They believe that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that evolution is indeed God’s method of creation.

That is self-evident and born out by clear and undeniable scientific evidence. And while there may still be some good Christians and Jews who sincerely believe in the story of creation in the first book of the Bible, the presumptuous political argument for so-called "biblical creationism" pushed by the Christian Right is just a blatant demonstration of arrogance and religious bigotry. After all, they can believe whatever they want, but in trying to force their beliefs upon everyone else (including trying to force changes in public school curriculum), they are betraying the principles their religion was founded upon, and they are going against the very Constitution of the United States.

But, aside from all that, and in addition, let’s look at some facts. The Christian Right’s so-called "science of biblical creationism" (later called "intelligent design") idea insists that God’s "six-day act of creation" took place around six or maybe even as many as ten thousand years ago according to the Bible’s "historical and genealogical records." They insist that the earth cannot possibly be any older than that.

However, scientists have estimated the age of the earth using a wide variety of measurements, including radio carbon dating, accelerator mass spectrometry, and the measurement of radioactive nuclides and levels of Beryllium-10 and aluminum-26. They also take into account the layers of sedimentary rock, the layers of coral buildup in the ocean, and even the measurement of dust on the moon. In fact, the moon dust measurement and radio carbon dating of moon rocks both indicate the same thing. And taking all these and many other things into account, scientists have been able to determine that the earth is some 4.5 billion years old, at the very least.

Of course, the Christian Right has an "explanation" to dismiss all the scientific evidence, but it usually amounts to the basic claim that "God is so powerful that He could have created the earth to look as if it had been in existence for millions of years." They stubbornly refuse to even consider that there are any words in the Bible that are not absolutely and literally the true word of God, or that any of the Bible’s language is symbolic or allegorical. That, to me, is just arrogant and foolish stubbornness, and self-righteousness.

The earth and life on it obviously evolved and nothing appeared by magic, unless you consider the natural creative processes to be magic. It took many, many millions of years to develop and evolve into what it is today. And that’s not just scientific fact. It is plain old common sense and logical deductive reasoning.

Of course, on the other hand, the Bible does say, "to God, a thousand years is as one day." So it is possible to regard the "six days" of creation in the Bible as six thousand years — and therefore the creation story could then be taken at least a little more literally. But even so, the biblical story of creation should be recognized for what it is, and we should realize that it was not meant to be taken literally.

After all, who could seriously take it literally and believe that there were originally only one man and one woman (Adam and Eve); that the man was actually created instantly out of thin air; that the woman was actually created instantly from the man’s "rib," magically plucked from out of the man’s body, and that from those two sprung all of humanity? Surely we were not expected to take that seriously as a literal event. Who would? And why?

If one does take it seriously and literally, the biblical creation story raises a whole lot of very serious questions. For instance, where did the second woman ("Cain’s wife") come from? Considering that Cain’s mother and father (Adam and Eve) had displeased God, and considering that Cain had especially displeased God when he slew his brother Abel, would God have created a wife for Cain like he "created Eve" for Adam? Probably not. And if not, where did Cain’s wife come from? Where did their children’s mates come from? Why and when and how were there different types and races of people created in different parts of the world? Aren’t all the different types and races of people from different parts of the world obvious proof of evolution? Why are there archeological artifacts that are millions of years old?

Furthermore, as if that weren’t enough, ask yourself this: If God has the capability to intervene and create living and material things and magical events in the world, why does God not perform that magic now?

The answer to that is that God does not have that capability. God is very real, but God is not a superman-magician. That should be obvious, because if that were the case, wouldn’t this world be a far different place right now? If God could have created and maintained a world and a paradise like the original "Eden," isn’t that what would exist right now? The answer is yes, absolutely — because God loves the world and all humanity, and would not purposely allow the suffering that exists in the world. God is merciful, and loving — and don’t let anyone tell you differently.

Don’t let anyone tell you that God wants humanity to suffer as "payment for the disobedience of Adam and Eve" (the so-called "original sin"), because that is a ridiculous and absurd statement that only reveals total ignorance of God. After all, what kind of parent would want their children to suffer? What kind of God would hold a grudge against humanity for so many thousands of years for something that the symbolic "Adam and Eve" did? And what kind of God would let humanity suffer if it had the power and capability to prevent and stop that suffering? Those are of course rhetorical questions, because the answers are (or should be) obvious.

Now granted, it is true that the Bible contains more than one story that depicts God’s "magical power." But those stories were not meant literally either, and they were not meant to be taken literally. Most of them, like the creation story, are allegorical and contain symbolic and metaphorical language and depictions. The same is true of the stories of Moses using God’s power to "part the sea" or bring down plagues upon his enemies. Those things were not magical stunts that were conjured up because Moses waved his "magic rod," as Hollywood movies portrayed in the 1950s. They were actually natural events that happened just like natural events happen today, which even today are often erroneously called "acts of God." But they are not acts of God . They are random acts of physical Nature, and they are not created by any supreme or supernatural consciousness.

As the Bible says, the sun shines on the good and the bad alike, and earthquakes, floods, droughts, diseases and other plagues have their impact on both good and bad people alike. Nature does not discriminate or favor.

But even so, certain natural events were written down in the Bible to sound magical, as if God was performing great feats of magic (on behalf of Moses and the Israelites, for example). They were written as such because men (prophets and scribes) either exaggerated or embellished upon what actually happened, to make their God seem greater and more powerful to the reader. They were human, after all, and that’s what humans tend to do.

Anyway, all that is to show why the Christian Right’s argument that the creation story in the Bible should be taken as literal fact is simply wrong. And it is utterly ludicrous for them to argue that we should teach their so-called "biblical creationism" or "intelligent design" as scientific fact in our school classrooms to "disprove" and negate the scientific theory of evolution.

Even if it weren’t ludicrous, it is simply unfair and illegal. In a democratic society with freedom of religion, every religion must be treated as equal. No particular religion or religious scripture or religious denomination can be favored or be dominant, even if it is predominant in the society.

Furthermore, the only proper place to teach the Bible or any other religious scripture is in the church or synagogue or mosque or temple or ashram, or in the home — not in public school. In school, children should learn that every religion, like every race and nation and culture, is equal in the sight of God, and/or equal under the law of the land.

This truth should be self-evident, just as surely as the truth that every person is equal in the sight of God and/or under the law of the land. So the Christian Right is simply wrong for trying to force and impose their beliefs on everyone else, especially when their beliefs are so misguided, unconstitutional, and out of touch with reality.