What a joke! On Monday night, coming in late I had missed the news and turned to Newsnight on BBC2. I cut in on a discussion on the impact of fundamentalist Christian based education and particularly whether creationism should be taught in schools as an alternative view to a scientific one.
Cutting to the chase, the representative Christian, John Lewis (not the department store), failed to answer a single question directly. Even when agreeing with Paxman's statement that "why we are here” is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one, he hedged his response by saying only "potentially true". And on two occasions at least he ignored the question and said "he was not a scientist", as if this allowed him to ignore scientific analysis. So he provided no argument for considering creationism alongside evolution in a scientific context than merely making the assertion over and again that it was a matter of providing options. No wonder Jeremy Paxton struggled to remain even-handed while keeping a straight face, though judging by his body language he was also bored.
Let's be clear, everyone is free to have their own ideas, but not being a scientist does not mean you can take a position that science is rubbish. Yet that appears to be the creationist perspective. John Lewis referred to both creationism and Darwinian evolutionary theory as theories, as if they are equal. The whole point of a scientific approach is however that a theory is then tested against the facts, and if the facts support the theory then it strengthens the likelihood that the theory is correct, but in most cases it will never be absolutely proven and a scientist always acknowledges that future evidence may work the other way. On the other hand, based on the evidence provided to date, creationism remains a theory, with no factual basis whatsoever other than that it is based on a particular interpretation of the bible, and an extreme one at that.
If you want to believe that the bible is an historical record, you are welcome to do so. However this can only be a tenet of faith as the evidence clearly indicates that it is a mish-mash of writings from around 2000 to 1500 years ago, a time when women were considered to be chattels, vile murders were carried out in the name of public policy and most people could not read or write. They needed fables and imaginary friends to help them understand the mysterious world around them. This is not true today so if you do believe that the bible is a factual record, then I would say you are a little mad (which is my right too, and with more evidence in my favour than against).
Further more if you wish to pass on to the next generation your irrational belief in what is called creationism, then do so under “religion”, where you are free to consider alternatives without having to look at the evidence. Just don’t pretend that it is science.