I usually write on economics. I'm comfortable in that area of knowledge. However, as this "debate" about intelligent design seems to actually be gaining momentum, I think it is time I spoke up on this "issue" - although even calling it an issue gives this far more credence than the issue deserves.
Let me begin with a story that I hope is true. Even if it isn't, it's a great story. I went to a Jesuit High School. For those of you unfamiliar with the Jesuits, they are a catholic order that have been called the "shock troops" of the Catholic Church. They specialize in education. Remember Liberation Theology? That was started and developed by the Jesuits. The point is these guys are very heavy in the intellectual department.
Anyway, back to the story. One of the guys who taught at my school worked his way through seminary by bartending. Yes, he was slightly unconventional. Anyway, one day a group who literally interpret the Bible turned up at his door. Bad idea. He asked them if they believed the Bible was to be interpreted literally. They answered yes. He got his Bible (which he probably knew better than they did) and found a passage that said something to the effect if a person drinks poison their faith will keep them from dying. He asked if they believed the passage. They said yes. So, he went and got a can of gasoline and a few wine glasses and started pouring. Suddenly, they left. Imagine that.
Here's the point: There is this idea called an allegory. It is a "A symbolic representation" according to dictionary.com. Let me break this down into something you can understand. Christ said it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than enter heaven. I am sure you know this because it is from the Bible. What Christ was really saying is a person who is overly attached to material possessions at the expense of his spiritual development will have a more difficult time getting into heaven. Have any of you well-off fundamentalists actually tried to walk through the eye of a needle (please don't answer that)? The Bible is full of allegories. They are used as teaching devices to illustrate a point.
I can't even believe this is actually a debate we are having in this country in the 21st century. For those of you who actually believe this theory, what in the hell are your children going to do for jobs in a job market that relies more and more on higher levels of science? Do you realize you are condemning your children and grandchildren to a life where countries that have an enlightened view towards science (meaning they actually teach science from a book that isn't the Bible) will get damn good jobs that pay real money while America will be condemned to third world status?
I know that fundamentalists will not read this rant because it involves logic and reasoning. However, these are the only tools I have. To help other people in dealing with this debate, I have included some questions Clarence Darrow actually used during the Scopes trial.
For those of you unfamiliar with Clarence Darrow, he was one of the most famous criminal defense lawyers at the turn of the century. He defended the science teacher in the scopes monkey trial, where a school district charged a teacher with teaching the theory of evolution. The movie inherit the wind is a remarkably accurate portrayal of the events leading up to this trial and the trial itself. Below are some of the questions Darrow would pose to people who interpreted the bible literally. Given the current political climate, I found these questions very relevant.
For more on these questions, go here: http://www.deism.com/thinksam9.htm
As a simple one question with no follow-up, the question below is fabulous:
Did God curse the serpent for tempting Eve and decree that thereafter he should go on his belly? How did he travel before that time?
Next, Darrow would ask the following series of questions. Note how he sets up the questioned:
Did God command Noah to build an ark for him and his family and to take on board a male and female of every living species on earth?
Did he build the ark and gather the pairs of all animals on the earth and the food and water necessary to preserve them?
As there were no ships in those days, except the ark, how did Noah gather them from all the continents and islands of the earth?
Did he then cause it to rain forty days and forty nights and destroy every living thing on the earth?
Did all these living things enter the ark on the second month and 17th day of the month?
Were all the high mountains on all the earth covered?
Did the waters prevail on the earth for 150 days?
According to the old testament, was this (the end of the flood) not about 1,750 years BC?
Is not history full of proof that all colors and kinds of people lived over large and remote parts of the earth within 50 years of this time?
Were the pairs of animals sent to every quarter of the earth after the flood?
How could many species that are found nowhere but in Australia or other far off places get there and why did they not stop on the way?
Was there any more water on the earth in Noah's day than any other time before or since?
Is not all the water that falls drawn from the reservoirs of water on the earth?
Is it possible to increase the amount of water on any part of the earth without drawing it from another part?
Does not water seek it own level?
Next, look at this series of questions that highlight the conflict with Galileo's astronomical discoveries and strict biblical interpretation:
Did the sun stand still to give Joshua time to fight a battle?
If the sun had stood still, would that have lengthened the day?
If instead of the sun standing still, the earth had stopped revolving on its axis, what would have happened to the earth and all life thereon?
Finally there is this series of questions that establishes the clear conflict between the Bible's timeline and the earth's history as established by science:
Under the biblical chronology, was not the earth created less than 6,000 years ago?
Were there not many flourishing civilizations on the earth 10,000 years ago?
According to the same chronology, was not Adam created less than 6,000 years ago?
Are there not evidences in writing and hieroglyphics and the evidence of man's handiwork which show that man has been on the earth more than 50,000 years?
Are there no human remains that carry their age on the earth back to at least 100,000 years?
Has not man probably been on earth for 500,000 years?
Does not geology show by fossil remains, by the cutting away of rock from river beds, by deposit of all sorts, that the earth is much more than a million years old and probably many millions of years old?