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]

Religion and Society 2

The question student-of-life asks below is related to the classic "Problem of Evil". My response is of the class of theodicy called "spiritual development." The Baha'i Faith emphasises the nobility of mankind, rather than the fall of man. That spiritual truth which is expressed through the Christian doctrine of Original sin is expressed in the Baha'i writings as man's "animal nature." This concept is similar to the Id of Freudian psychology, but is also expressible in terms of evolution theory as those characteristics that we have in common with other primates. Having been endowed with "the knowledge of good and evil", which I compare to our high creative function, those drives need to be kept in check by spiritual virtues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by student-of-life
If god knowing the end of things, at the time of the beginning, created me the way I am, then are not all of my faults his doing? I did not ask to be created. And even if I have free will to do as I please, did he not create me to will the things that I will? If you made a cake from scratch and the cake didn't taste the way you wanted, would you blame the cake. If you created by some means, a computer that achieved its own intelligence, and that computer didn't act the way you wanted, wouldn't it still be your doing?

"The reality of man is spiritual." This world, this life, is part of a journey that each of us is on. The journey itself is as important as the end, but the goal (unattainable though it is) is personal, spiritual perfection, or, in other words, the knowledge of God. Part of our movement toward that goal is achieved through our choosing to strengthen our spiritual (ie moral/ethical) nature in its control over our animal nature. When people act ethically toward one another, they get along better and civilization progresses. Again, for a Being (God) who is outside of the constraints of time, our "journey" or progress toward perfection is what is important, not putting us at the end of that journey by creating us in a way that you would consider "perfect". Your animal nature is constrained to follow the laws of stimulus and response (refer the school of psychology called Behaviorism). Your spiritual nature gives you free will and allows you to use your intellect to overcome Pavlovian response.

Besides preparing us for spiritual life after the death of our bodies, following the laws of God improves this life: It is by many people together having faith in God and His laws (in this case, just consider the Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated) that these laws can show their effect of improving society. If only half of the people try to obey the golden rule, and the rest of the people just take advantage of them, then there is little immediate social improvement. But if, despite these difficulties, the believers continue to be firm in their faith and to follow the golden rule, there are spiritual effects that will cause others to embrace the golden rule. These days, even many atheists state some version of the golden rule as an obvious necessity for the functioning of society. That is, obeying the golden rule (to the extent that one's spiritual nature has tamed his self-serving animal nature) is in one's ultimate self-interest because in a society ruled by that law people need not be afraid of one another, they help each other, and the resulting cooperation makes it possible for all members to have a better quality of life.

O SON OF SPIRIT! Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created.

- Baha'u'llah