Raised a Catholic, I attended 13 years of Catholic schools in Alberta, and I do not remember a time in my Catholic development that evolutionary theory was ever denied or rejected. This is not to say that no Catholics are Creationist; it takes all kinds. However, in my own education, it was always made clear that Genesis was a story made up by humans who had limited access to information.
So what is the point of denying a theory that has a great deal of evidence to reinforce it? Archeologists and scientists are still finding strong evidence that further substantiates the theory of evolution. It seems to me of no real use to deny evolution; it's just too good! If anything, evolution is a miracle. The idea that all things are capable of continuously improving upon themselves is nothing short of miraculous. Nevertheless, as odd as this seems to me, not everyone accepts evolution. In fact, in Calgary, Alberta, we are lucky enough to be close to the Big Valley Creation Science Museum. At this museum, Creationists attempt to rationalize the existence of an abundance of fossilized evidence without disturbing biblically documented history.
I was surprised and pleased to learn that I had a friend who is a Creationist. This young woman was happy to respond to my queries. When reading her responses, I realized that she held a great deal of conviction for her belief in this theory, and was in no way ill-prepared to respond to the conflicting theory of evolution. She explained that evolution was an extremely flawed theory. Referring to macroevolution, which she, as many other Creationists do, consider to be a poorly supported theory, she claimed that this theory lacks evidentiary support.
This is not the agreed upon conclusion among scientific communities however. Macroevolution, is the study of evolution which focus on changes that occur in species. These studies include topics such as biodiversity, speciation and extinction. This theory is substantiated with the visible evidence of mutations of species, as well as the development of new species, both past and present. A quick look into some academic journals shows that macroevolution has been very well documented and supported.
Nevertheless, discussing scientific validity of Creationist theory is a loosing battle. What stood out most prominently to me in the interview was the fear that by accepting evolution, it would somehow diminish the value of human existence and negate her belief that each human life has purpose. To this woman, a fundamental aspect of her belief in this system is to validate her existence. For her, evolution is random and godless. Thus, if humans spontaneously evolved from apes, then our existence in this world is meaningless. Further to that, evolution implies that humans and animals are not separate, but the same. As I have been vegetarian for nearly half of my life, I am not sure why that would be a bad thing.
Although I appreciate and empathize with the need to feel like I am an intrinsic part of this world, I am still not entirely certain how evolution would devalue this. Still, according to my friend, evolution devalues human life and thus leads to "accepting the destruction of human life in cases of genocide, abortion, and natural disasters, and an individual loss of purpose and uniqueness." Again, why exactly? To me these seem like rather drastic leaps; monkey's to genocide?
I took on this little project because I see religion from a functionalist perspective. Using this position, I am personally able to rationalize many religious traditions; bizarre as they may seem to the outsider. Thus, the use of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden held contextual validity in a time where information was at a premium. When subject to a limited scope of knowledge, why not use an attractive story to explain the nature of things? But when we are able to go beyond mere stories to well disputed facts, it's like pretending that the first IPhone is as good as the IPhone 4. That is just not true!
The foundation of Creationism is based on a contextually obsolete narrative. Is in not then an insult to God (assuming there is one), to ignore the information that has been given to us that has allowed humanity to move forward and prosper? Why is the ability for all organisms to adapt and change with circumstance not extraordinary enough?
Although one may not share the sentiments of a Creationist, one might wonder what the real harm of believing that the biblical story of creation is completely possible? Even if it one does agree that Creationism does a terrible job of explaining away the archeological evidence of present, people believe all kinds of crazy superstitious things! Hec, I love reading horoscopes. So why is this belief no different than teaching our children that there is a Santa Clause, or a Tooth Fairy?
Creationism, as harmless as it may at first seem, is the flagrant ignorance of the knowledge that humanity has laboured so intensively to obtain, and is nothing short of oppressive, and dangerous. If we accept partial truths for everything, and ignore contextual sensitivities, then at what point do we stop taking the Bible, a book written in 538-332 BCE, as an authority on contemporary life? Why should human inquisition cease simply because an outdated authority claims that something is fact? We have abolished slavery, the marriage of a woman to her rapist, and the sacrifice of humans to deities. So why are there people still clinging to Creationism?
Science, says novelist Martin Gadner, is "the search for reliable knowledge about the world: how the universe (including living things) is structured and how it operates." It is my hope, naive as it may be, that religion do the same. It is innate in our being to know more, and to ceaseless strive for improvement. Still, just like Creationist theories, evolution is only a theory. The use of the word theory implies that there is room to err; as there always should be when searching for truth.
I truly believe that people should be able to think and act freely. However, it is equally important to acknowledge that that conscious which drives us is not always right (evolutionists included). Further to this, there is no stasis of truth or fact. Perhaps if we accept that truth is in constant development, we can acknowledge that neither humans, nor our systems are divine. But rather are subject to our inherent aptness to err.
Mere human animals, we are perpetually exploring, and inscrutable when oppressed by ancient dogmatic tradition.
