Creationism VS. Darwinism debate II

After I posted the first portion of this article in a forum (I love Philosophy.com), a fellow philosopher responded:

"The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives scientific support to the belief that we are all related. That is, all humans come from the same pair, and all of life comes from the same primordial seed."

Until that hi-lited word becomes "absolute proof", I doubt the possibility of being on the same page about our existence will come to fruition. The word 'theory' leaves room for doubt just as the word 'faith' leaves doubt in the mind of the secular community for different religious affectations.

Unless both factions seriously explore the other's beliefs with equal interest and intent, it is doubtful the twain shall meld. For as both contend they are qualifiably viable in their own right, contentiousness make them polar to one another.

I replied:
I have studied both sides objectively, and as regards this contention, I see a crucial difference between the two sides:

The Creationist side begins with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2; an interpretation which many (perhaps most) well respected and well grounded theologians (such as Augustine) reject; an interpretation which is, in itself, a theory about what the Creator intended to communicate through those chapters. While you refer to your belief in this theoretical interpretation as Faith, it seems to be really more of a commitment to agree with the doctrine which your particular denomination promulgates. From the basis of that predetermined, theoretical interpretation of scripture, only that portion of the scientific evidence and deduction which supports that interpretation is accepted, while other evidence and the implications thereof is ignored.

The Evolution side begins with evidence, painstakingly accumulated and recorded. Observations of God's creation were made in detail by Darwin, an ordained minister himself, and those observations led him inevitably to the conclusion that the physical characteristics of earthly organisms came to be through the God-given process of natural selection. This theory was the only logical framework that could explain his data and observations. His faith in God was not shattered by this revelation, rather his awe and astonishment at the subtlety of God's creation was increased. His understanding of human foibles and failings, however, prevented him from publishing his work until another scientist (Wallace) made an new set of observations and came, independently, to the same conclusions.

Regarding the theologians of Creationism: Read Mathew 7: 15 - 20 which has as its theme "You shall know them by their fruits." If the fruits of Creationism are discord amongst Christians, the rejection of Christianity by the Scientific community, the rejection of science by a large potion of the Christian community, the atheists making a plaything of religion, and the followers of Creationism becoming blindly loyal followers of their clergy and tithers of their church to the detriment of their willingness to reason, then who will say that these are good fruits?

Creationism VS. Darwinism debate

I have been researching the history of the Creationism VS. Darwinism debate, and it appears that one strong impetus for opposition to Darwinian theory in general was the rise of Social Darwinism. One particular force for the development of this controversy in the U.S. was William Jennings Brian, who opposed the theory of evolution, and actively campaigned against, it for two reasons. First, he believed that what he considered a materialistic account of the descent of man through evolution undermined the Bible. (One might assume that he preferred a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.) Second, he saw neo-Darwinism or Social Darwinism, which tends to support forcefulness and aggressiveness over loving kindness and meekness, as a great evil force in the world promoting hatreds and conflicts, especially the World War.*

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis Saint Augustine argued that Genesis should be interpreted as God forming the Earth and life from pre-existing matter and allowed for an allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that Christians should be willing to change their minds about it as new information comes up. He also warned believers not to rashly interpret things literally that might be allegorical, as it would discredit the faith. *

The entire Creationism vs. Evolution debate has been a real source of contention and conflict in this country. It has polarized the scientific community in opposition to the religious community to the extent that scientists have become embarrassed to confess their belief in religion and many Christians have come to distrust science. (There is even some thought that the distrust engendered by this debate has been used by greedy industrialists in their efforts to discredit scientific evidence for global warming.) There is evidence in the arguments made on the Creationist side that ignorance of the nature of scientific research and theory-building is not only prevalent but valued. There is also evidence that atheists see this vocal Creationism movement as representative of all religion and use it as a strong argument for their position.

It seems a great pity that such a destructive controversy as this might have arisen from a mistaken belief that the biological/historical theory of The Evolution of Species by Natural Selection leads inevitably to disbelief in God or to a belief that “might makes right.” The theory of evolution works both as an explanation for the known data about the nature of life and as a means for predicting other observations and forming testable hypotheses. Theories of social Darwinism, while predicting that a better armed country will win a war and that a bully will get his way on the playground, do not provide any basis for morality. Indeed, moral decisions that come from such theories could lead to the destruction of civilization and the end of life on Earth. The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives scientific support to the belief that we are all related. That is, all humans come from the same pair, and all of life comes from the same primordial seed. It would be better for Christianity if all Christians would graciously accept Evolution of Species, just as the Christian community finally accepted that the earth revolved around the sun.

*[Paragraph contains quotes from articles in Wikipedia]