I believe in evolution, but also believe in God, and believe that God has influence over life and evolution.
With creationism, I think the problem that most people have is that it can't be proven. It's more of a matter of faith, and seems to insist on rejecting all facts and science.
For example, there is an insistence by some that the world is only 4000 years old, with man being on the Earth on the literal 6th day of Earth's existence. Man is literally modeled out of dust by God. Animals are plopped onto the Earth from nothingness, and Adam walks around and gives them random names. A serpent walks and talks in the Garden of Eden, and it is never questioned.
In university, in my biology class, my teachers prefaced evolution by saying this: "In biology, we have to refer to science. We can make no claim without evidence to draw conclusion. For this reason, we will show you the evidence for evolution. You need to know what the facts are. You need to know "survival of the fittest" or "adapting to environment", similarities of life forms, the family names of living beings, etc. You can believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism, but because we have no hard evidence to present it, we can't discuss it, and will not cover it."
I didn't understand why they would even mention it.
It's kind of like taking a math class, and rather than explaining division, someone thinking it necessary to explain why 2x2 is 4, or who created math itself.
Creationism, to me, is more of an opinion, and a philosophy, not a science. It doesn't draw on any previous knowledge. It has a tendency, rather than to draw conclusions from acquired knowledge, science, nature, or research, to completely reject it, insisting on the belief in Creationism. It seems to draw on the often antiquated, primitive ideas of ancient man (such as, God lives "above" in heaven, or that mankind started only 4000 years ago, the age of the Earth), rather than understanding man's faulty understanding based on their limited knowledge. If one looks at the book of Noah, for example, the sky's "open up", and the rains fall, because the blue sky was thought to be literal body of water, and not actually light waves, making it appear blue. Because we have been in the sky, flying in a plane, we have seen that heaven is not literally above us, nor is God, nor is the blue water.
In the same way, I don't think that the bible can be used to base one's scientific beliefs on.
We can see how a virus mutates and evolves, becoming resistant to the medicine that once cured it. We can go to ponds, and see frogs mutate, growing extra limbs, or having a missing one, to show mutation based on water pollution and an indicator of the health of the environment.
My prof showed us a slide with an embryo of a pig, a frog, and a human. Strangely, we couldn't distinguish which was which, because even human embryos seem to have a tail, which later becomes the backbone.
I took a religion class in college as well, and my professor brought up this debate. He said, "You like my watch? Yesterday, it was just a bag of parts, and today, it "evolved" into a watch. Does that make sense to you?"
I raised my hand and said, "Do you like my watch? Yesterday, I had only a bare wrist, but when I woke up to day, it was there on my arm, "created" NOT from parts, but from nothing at all. Does that make MORE sense to you???"
Evolution is often misunderstood, and oversimplified to suggest that it is something that it is not.
It isn't just "a theory." It is a lot of facts put together to explain how living forms can mutate and change, and adapt to their environment. It shows a number of family groups that animals belong to, such as an average house cat, and a lion. It shows that all life forms are carbon based.
What it is NOT is that a dog one day had a giraffe baby. It does not say that one day, a monkey suddenly walked upright, put on a suit, and went to work in an office as a man.
And it still acknowledges that there are still some very interesting mysteries and questions about it.
For example, however man came to be, we went from being cave men, with Stone Age understanding and tools, to suddenly building pyramids with such precision that mankind today is unable to duplicate it, nor understand how it was done, and these pyramids happened in Mexico and Egypt, about the same time, among peoples who didn't know of each other.
It is still a puzzle to understand the Mayan Calendar, because it is still more accurate that our atomic clock, and predates the Mayans themselves by 3000 years. Why would they start a calendar before their own existence?
We have a puzzle of the "missing link", where there seems to be a missing step of the apparent progression of primates in the fossil record.
I don't understand why so many people see Evolution as "denying God" or "God's influence" or whatever. Evolution simply asks the question, "Where did we come from? Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Are we more like animals that dislike? How and why does mutation and evolution occur? What proof do we have, and what conclusions can we infer?"
Religion, on the other hand, does the opposite. I can't prove to you that I speak in tongues, but have no doubt about it that it is real. I can't prove God to you, can't show God to you, have you touch, hear, taste, smell, or see God him/herself, but I believe in God absolutely no doubt. I believe that God is the small inner voice that we call "our conscience", our Jimminy Cricket that guides us if we listen, that is louder when we are listening to it a lot, and harder to hear when we defy it. I can't prove that, not even with scripture, but I often have literal conversations with that voice, and it answers in a thought, or a general knowingness. Can I prove to anyone, even another Christian, that that voice is God? No. I don't have to. One Christian once claimed that it was simply my own heart, and to follow one's own heart is to be led into darkness, referring to the selfishness of their own heart. However, my "heart," my "heart of hearts", my conscience, my God who lives within, who knocked and I asked in and have faith that he/she entered, and resides there, is not selfish, not dark. If anything, my heart never allows me to be selfish without feeling heavy and guilty, constantly gently but persistently tells me "you know better," until I surrender.
I can't, then, imagine a religion class insisting on proving God with scientific criteria. That would make the concept of faith pointless. It would make my discussions about my belief system, my faith, my spirituality, and my relationship with God frustrating. My faith is based on my walk with God, listening to God, reading, listening to God, to others point of view, using reasoning, and much of the time, taking a leap of faith.
For that reason, I am unable to really understand this "debate."
University shouldn't teach "creationism" in science, where one can't even prove that God even exists, any more than a pastor should be responsible for teaching Chemistry in a church service.
Nor do I think that one must choose between religion or science.
