Doc Rampage has an interesting post on the currently popular topic of how evolution fits with Christianity. I have to admit, I’m in much the same place Doc is. I am a Christian and believe in creation, but there is scientific evidence that definitely makes a young-earth creation more difficult to believe in. While, unlike Doc, I’m not ready to question the canon there are some unanswered questions I have.
I’m never one to shy from a debate, but there are some difficulties in this topic, as I have experienced lately in discussions on Mano Singham’s blog. This is largely a question of philosophy. It seems that, for most people, the science doesn’t decide the question one way or the other. It’s actually the belief (or disbelief) in a omiscient creator that creates the starting ground and the discussion is polarized based on an individual’s beliefs. Often the discussion breaks down more into ‘who should prove what’ than any discussion weighing the actual evidence.
There is one thing I think gets lost in all of this discussion. For much of the scientific community creation or evolution is meaningless. In either case man, and all other leaving things, reached a point some 6,000 years ago where he was uniquely suited for his environment. If we were created by God it’s reasonable to assume that our minds and bodies were created to function in the cultures that existed at that time. If we evolved it’s also reasonable to assume that we adapted to our particular situation. This means for sociology, psychology, medicine, archeology and most anthropological studies evolution is a non-issue. If we start at recorded history and work from the idea that we are uniquely suited to live on this planet in the social groups that existed at the time all science is minimally impacted. All that’s left are the biologists and the philosophers duking it out.