"I have long been at a loss to understand how it is possible to believe the evolutionary theory, riddled with holes and inconsistencies as it is, more that the creationist view. The facts we see in front of us fit the notion of a rapid creationist view far better than a long evolutionary one, and why the evolutionary theory is considered to be "science" but the creationist theory is not eludes me completely. It was partly a serious study of evolution that led me to conclude that I'd rather be the product of a creationary God than an evolutionary accident, and so embrace Christianity. I am so pleased I did, life has become so much less gloomy.
Robert Harper, Battle, England"
The above is from the comments section at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7613403.stm
I'm happy that Mr Harper's life has become less gloomy, but I suspect that it is not Christianity that has improved his life so much as either belonging to a group or having something to believe in - perhaps even a shifting of responsibility away from himself.
The debate over creationism is an curious one, for just the reasons that Mr Harper points out. His belief in Creation comes down to what he wants to believe, rather than what objectivity suggests. Mr Harper doesn't discuss this, but I suspect that he'd rather there be a Santa Claus than that there not be one. I'm curious to know what he does at Christmas time.
The problem with creationism has nothing to do with Creation: it has to do with the difference between religion and science. Science allows for debate. Religion, at least in this case, does not.
