Let's start by linking to a couple of BBC articles that have concerned me over the past week:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7612152.stm

I have to be careful here because by voicing my opinions I run the risk of giving more weight to the opinions of those creationists mentioned in these (and those like them in many other) articles, and validating them in ways that I do not believe they should be validated.  However, I also feel that I cannot let my own views go unpublished.  Note that I am not saying 'ban all religion' or anything like that - I'm simply saying, keep it in it's place and don't try to dress it up as something that it's not.

Here's how my point boils down: The universe, nor any part of it, was not created by a 'god'.  I admit that it might be a much cosier position to believe that it was ('ignorance is bliss', basically), and therefore I can understand how so many people believe it (and if I were the leader of the world(!) I wouldn't do anything to stop it), but it is fundamentally wrong to attempt to place creationism as an equal alternative to the facts growing out of science.  The creationist theories of today should absolutely not make it into the classroom as if they were science - because they are not, they are based on blind faith, whilst science is based on knowledge. 

Some might attempt to argue that a scientific view is also based on faith.  Okay, that's a fair point.  But it's a different kind of faith:

The scientist that builds a model of the universe based on her faith of a mathematical model built, in turn, from her faith in a theory does it so she can test that model to see if it is true.  She is, on the one hand, hoping that she has found the ultimate model, but on the other hand she is also hoping that she hasn't, so she can learn more.  She is also hoping that somebody else will come along and question, to the nth degree, every aspect of her model and it's founding theories, in order to find any mistakes.  When a mistake is found, she will not attempt to sidestep it by blaming it on the devil, or inventing another saint, or by blaming it on a misinterpretation of the texts, she will go back and look at her work and, if she can do so, will fix it.  If she finds that it's the whole model that's fundamentally at fault - she will throw it away (and her belief in it) and start again from scratch - taking all she learnt from the old one with her.  Equallty, if the theory from which she built the model is somebody else's, and it was the theory that was shown to be at fault, then a new theory might supplant it, and the originator of first one will accept defeat graciously (okay - we're talking about the vast majority of truly professional scientists here!).

Scientific beliefs, therefore, are transient - they exist in order to be tested day after day until no more tests exist that can challenge the theories on which they are based.

If religious people sought to test their received beliefs as much as the world's scientists do - then the world would have far fewer religious people.

Religious belief, ultimately, is not tested until an outside action occurs which causes the believer to question it.  For example, the death of a loved one or a mass catastrophe.  Rarely will the disciples of a religion actively go out and seek to disprove the basis on which their faith is built - because this kind of activity is in itself opposite to the idea of a religious faith: you do not need proof to believe.

So that is, why ultimately I feel one should not be seen as a replacement for the other.  The existence of a book over two thousand years old (in the case of christianity - except of course that date is not really realistic given how many contributors it's had) does not surplant the rigour to which modern day science is tested every day.  In the CERN LHC experiment, for example there are multiple detectors within it designed to detect the same thing but by different outcomes - this will have stemmed from multiple competing theories, all of which can only be proven or disproven with this experiment.

We also have to look at the motivation behind the new wave of creationism - for example the museums, one of which has been set up in Portsmouth, UK (following a line of similar ones having been opened in America).  The goal of science is to explain the universe (at all levels, from subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological etc), in order that we can learn more about it and it's origin, but also because we want to be able to work with it more effectively (energy, travel etc).  There are also many other branches of science, and they have a tendency to influence each other - for example theories stemming from the field of archaeology might influence theories present in anthropology, or geology or whatever.  Sure, the different sciences compete with each other - which is healthy - but they all do it from a common ground, because they are all tested.  Crucially, however, the sciences exist within themselves, and their existence is not governed by the existence of another science (even if they are linked to others).

This flavour of creationism we are seeing today has one primary motivation - to discount the theories presented by science.  And how!  For example, dinosaur fossils (and others) - so it is said - are merely tricks by god.  Note how no other explanation is given for this - because ultimately that's the comfort in the creationist view.  If you don't understand it, or you can't explain it - 'god did it' and there's your answer.

But as Richard Dawkins, and many others, have said - 'So, if God did it - who "did" God?'  And herein lies the ultimate failure creationism - for every creator you need another creator - and to believe anything else is to throw the immaculate conception out with the holy water.  But there will still be others who say - "you don't need another creator - it started with God" - okay think more about what I'm saying.  God cannot exist in a void - otherwise what exactly is heaven or the afterlife?  If created it Himself - then what brought him into being?  Unless you're answer is 'another god', then the religious belief of creationism falls down.  But, then of course, if you do say 'another god' then you also have to face the fact that you've been worshipping the wrong one all this time.

And we must ask ourselves why is it now that creationism is trying to assert itself so much into traditional education as a science?  Why can't it just be content with being taught inside places of worship, or inside school as 'Religious Education' as it always has?  Is it really because 'people are unsatisfied with the scientific explanations and are looking to religion'? Not a bit of it - but it's a nice unproveable line to use!

Isn't it actually because church attendance is dwindling?  Isn't it actually because the fields of sciences are getting palpably close to being able to explain so much that has previously been a mystery?  Isn't it actually because we human beings are starting to show that scientific theories of how life is made, DNA etc, and our abilities to manipulate these things, are showing up God as a fraud?  You bet your life it is.

Finally, about evolution itself.  Firstly - as this article explains very succintly - reasonable proof for evolution is undeniable (unless you accept that it's all just a trick by God - in which case you have my sympathy).  As for natural selection - this is just an example of a process that can lead to evolution, and it also happens to be one of the best ever.  The thing about natural selection is that no other framework can explain Evolution (of a lot of things - not just animals but even stars and to a certain extent galaxies as well) as accurately.  Contrary to what many ignorant creationists try to tell us, Natural Selection has been proven beyond any significant doubt more than once, but the religious sceptical mind will either deny it, or say that the chances are just too big.  The chances are only too big if you believe the world is only a few thousand years old.  If, instead, you take the scientific view, then you're dealing with 4 billion years - and that's an awful long time for anything to happen - however unlikely.  The beauty of natural selection is that the longer time over which you extend it, the more likely it's results are to appear - this is contrary to what many of us believe about chance - for example rolling 20 sixes on a dice is improbably precisely because of the number of times you have to do it.

Have a read of this, too: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm - an interesting read if you need to refresh your mind on exactly what convinced Darwin - and so many others.  Also note the observation about why the Christian world was so opposed to the idea - because it threatened to prove (and, I'm afraid it did prove) that the world is significantly older than the previously held view - and so was met with a lot of hostility.

The facts are:

• Genetic mutations do occur when breeding (either sexual or asexual) reproduction occurs - to see an extreme case of this - look at what happens when the gene pool is limited (and I'm refraining from any smart alec comments about adam and eve here).  So some of this is down to recessive genes - a slightly different chinless beast - but not all.  Furthermore, this is demonstrable fact - for example a child with a traceable genetic defect having been born from two otherwise healthy parents.
• Not all genetic mutations are 'bad', i.e. hamper the life of the individual that possesses them, and a good deal of those can be passed from parent to child - some pass from the Father, some from the Mother, some from both, and others occur spontaneously.  Again - demonstrable fact.
• One genetic mutation can lead to a large change in the organism.
• If the mutation does not significantly impede the organism thereby causing it to die young, it will reproduce.  If, by fluke, it benefits the organism - for example longer claws on a climber, stronger teeth on a hunter, better fins on a swimmer, stronger wings on a flyer - it has an even greater chance to live longer, and therefore a greater chance of reproducing.  If the mutation is copyable from parent to child, then it's children will inherit the beneficial genes and therefore their parent's greater chance for survival.
• Repeat this enough times (breeding cycles vary from years in the longest animals, down to seconds at the smallest level) you will start to see diverging species.

And to be honest - given the mistakes that nature (or therefore God - if you're His bitch) clearly makes - I'm glad for both my and my children's sakes that it took far longer than 6 days.