When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination. Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientific

Some people oppose the theory of evolution. They propose instead a literal reading of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: God created the world in six days. This interpretation has broader implications, for there is "a culture war hotting up in America between Christian morality and relative morality, which is really the difference between a creation-based philosophy and an evolution-based one" (Clifford 6). To some creationists, even the common conservative view that a "day" in Genesis 1 stands for a time-span of eons is unacceptable, for it would attribute error to the Bible and reduce morality to human whim. Creationists, who have been in and out of the public eye since the Scopes trial in 1925, had some major successes last year. In August 1999 the Kansas Board of Education deleted almost every mention of evolution from the state's science curriculum, and in October the Kentucky Board of Education voted to substitute the phrase "change over time" for "evolution. Oklahoma officials recently decreed that textbooks must include a disclaimer on the certainty of evolution (Clifford 7). What, then, should be thought of creationism? Is it a courageous stand for open-mindedness toward the Bible in an educational culture that excludes the biblical perspective? Or is it an attempt to impose an simple view of the Bible and of science? At first glance, the creationist proposal seems reasonable: Present students with two theories, evolution and creationism, and let them make up their own minds. A second look, however, shows that the proposal contains two assumptions that virtually all professionally trained biblical scholars and scientists completely reject: that Genesis 1, interpreted literally, is the only or at least the standard biblical creation account, and that the six-day creation story in Genesis 1 is a rival to the modern theory of evolution. These assumptions show that creationism fundamentally misunderstands the Bible and the relation of science and religion. The majority of biblical scholars, theologians of the mainstream churches, and philosophers of science hold an alternative view that will be summarized here under three headings: creation in the Bible, the differences between biblical and modern views of creation and the relation of religion and science. The strongest biblical argument against creationism is that Genesis 1 is only one of many creation accounts in the Bible, and these biblical accounts are too distinctive to be harmonized. The cosmogony found in the second and third chapters of Genesis tells a very different story than Genesis 1. Here are a few of these differences. Creation in Genesis 2 proceeds at an unspecified pace that surely lasts longer than a week, whereas in Genesis 1 all takes place within six days. In Genesis 1, the man and the woman are created at the same time, whereas in Genesis 2 the man is created earlier

Some topics in this essay:
God Evolutionists, Near Eastern, Board Education, Charles Darwin, Reed Sea, America Christian, Proverbs--also Genesis, Creation Genesis, , Holy Bible, genesis 1, theory evolution, natural selection, scientific reports, origin life, genesis 2, story genesis 1, six days, story genesis, book genesis, bringing people,