I won't pander to those of you who so desparately would like to enter into a debate, but rather I'll pose some topics of discussion and thought:
1) What is Creationism? To assume that Creationism is to believe that God created Adam and Eve with the snap of his fingers is akin to comparing God to David Copperfield. Instead, for those that DO believe man was created in such a manner, than I pose this question: If you believe that God created all things in 6 days, and rested on the seventh, do you also hold true the belief that 1 day to God is the same as you and I define a single day? If your answer is 'no' (that 1 day to God is not the same as 1 day in today's terms), then how can we, as Christians, allow the teachings that man was, in fact, created as a whole, complete man...from nothing? In other words, is it not plausable that God's most miraculous act is, in fact, that the world and all its creatures are so intertwined that man did, in fact, evolve from the earth? For, in fact, if ALL living organisms are composed of, primarily, the same elements, is it not both possible AND ingenious that all humans, animals, plants, and other living things are, in fact, as one?
2) For all those so vehemently opposed to teaching of Creationism as a plausible explanation to the existance of the world around us, I ask you this: Isn't education, by definition, the act of acquiring a higher level of enlightenment and understanding, and breadth of knowledge? How, then, does banning the introduction and teaching of one hypothesis, even if only in a cursory sense, promote enlightenment in our educational systems? The argument most often cited is that Creationism can't be proven or disproven, and thus is not scientific. Though, isn't much of what's taught in our educational systems based upon theories or only creative thought, at best? Reading poetry and discussing Poe, does little to teach our children how to write a constructive essay for a college entrance exam; it (poetry) is, however, another type of literary writing, albeit not functional or pragmatic. Thus, to ban teaching an opposing theory, whether one likes or believes in the theory or not, is to promote ignorance; not enlightenment.
I believe that the conflict stems for a simple, albeit grounded ignorance on both sides of the debate:
Evolution teaches us that all living things have evolved from spores that, most likely, first began living within the ocean particles. After a series of dramatic climate changes, the earth's temperature finally reached a "sustainable" level by which these spores were capable of developing via anaerobically-dependent (w/o oxygen)organisms. As major changes and more particles continued to interact with Earth, the environment became such that the highly toxic, and believed to be mostly Sulfuric gases (mist) that previously defined the earth's atmosphere, finally gave way to an atmosphere that gradually became more oxygen-dense. Thus, those species capable of adapting to aerobic metabolism survived...or, at least, multiplied with greater verocity; ensuring survival of the species. In essence, cosmic particles left on earth, combined with a changing Earth's atmosphere, is what Evolutionists agree is where our planet and its plants, creatures and humans have evolved from.
In 2004, the journal Nature (430, 149)ran an article discussing new findings from the Hubble telescope that supports the assertion that our galaxy has existed for Billions of years. Previously, in June 2001, Time magazine ran an artilce of similar focus - the Big Bang Theory.
To summarize the Time article: The Universe was created about 15 Billion years ago as the result of a giant explosion...The earth will/could remain habitable for another few billion years...After 100 trillion years, expansion of the universe will lead to disintegration of galaxies, eventually leading to Black-Holes (vortexes whereby matter is drawn-in and cannot escape) and, finally, just atomic particles.
Though, despite such findings, two questions still remain in science: What caused the explosion in the first place and, more importantly, where did atoms come from?
For if we're to believe that only Evolution is acceptable b/c it somehow is superior science, than how can we believe the finality of Evolution if we don't know it's true beginnings?
It's ironic isn't it: More evolutionary scientists would more quickly support the wholly unproven hypothesis that intelligent life exists on other planets, than to accept that Creationism may beget Evolution.
To wit, read something that was written, not by today's scientists, or even within the time period since Darwin first proposed the Theory of Evolution, but, instead was written in 4004 B.C. (i.e. over 6000 years ago):
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep...And God said, 'Let there be light: and there was light. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [BTW, a firmament separates; thus, to seperate water from water, is to describe creating air where there previously was only vapors/gas]...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit...And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth [NOTE: Make special note Moses writes that life was created from water, and specifically the Bible makes note that birds were brought forth, out of the water.]
"...But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. [BTW: Biology is defined as "the study of life", and thus, the 'breath of life', with regards to man, would be defined in biological terms, as 'Oxygen.']" - Genesis 1-2
As a Christian and a student of the hard sciences, I find it hard to believe that Creationism and Evolution DO NOT, or at least cannot co-exist. In fact, I see more evidence that the two are intimately intertwined, than radically opposed to the other.
And finally, to address the conclusion of our planet and galaxy, again, I find it reassuring that modern science has confirmed what was written by the prophet Isaiah, some 2700 years ago (713 B.C.):
"..all the hosts of heaven shall be dissolved [BTW, in ancient times, the word 'heavens' refers to the stars], and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll [NOTE: Sorry to keep interrupting, but this is what I find most interesting. I assume that if I was living in 713 BC and saw a vision of a Black-Hole about the only comparison of my time that I could make would also be to say that the stars rolled into themselves like a writer's scroll of paper rolls into itself]
"...And the streams shall be turned into pitch, and the dust into brimstone, and the land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever." - Isiah 34
BTW, The word 'pitch' refers to a resin, residue or substance, primarily composed of hydrocarbons. Also, 'brimstone', for those science supporters, should be familiar with it's more common name - Sulfur (a gas); what the earth's atmosphere was primarily composed of in the first place....before all this Evolution started
Interesting, isn't it...what one can learn when you read more than what is placed in front of you, and open your mind to the possibilities that true enlightenment doesn't come from banning opposing thoughts, but rather engaging opposings theories with unbiased, thorough and plausible conclusions.