creation of human kind

[Partha Banerjee]

>Given the unanswered questions that evolution leaves in its path, it sounds
>more like philosophy than science to me. If one can believe in evolution,
>one should find it much easier to believe in creation.
>
>Sujatha

__________

The theories of evolution have much fewer questions unanswered than the
"theories" of creation do. And unlike creationists, evolutionists do not
pretend that they have all the answers.

The creationist theory on the other hand is only a myth, but pro-creation
philosophers (mostly status quo politicians and the religious right) clothe
it in a quasi-scientific garb.

"Creationists for the most part are fundamentalist Christians (make it
fundamentalists - PB) whose central premise is a literal interpretation of
the Bible (make it Puranas or the Quran - PB) and a belief in its
inerrancy. In adopting a literal interpretation of the Bible, they differ
from nearly all other Christians and Jews (make it other Hindus or Muslims
- PB).  Scientists, many of whom are religious, have no wish to deny
fundamentalists their own beliefs, but the creationists are determined to
impose their views on others. In particular, they are lobbying to have
science classes teach the ideas of: a sudden creation from nothing by God;
a worldwide flood; a young Earth; and the separate ancestry of humans and
apes.[...] And because they depend on supernatural intervention, not
natural law, they are also unscientific. There is no scientific evidence,
or even an appeal from common sense or experience, to suport the
creatinists' claims." [From Tim M. Berra, Evolutoin and the Myth of
Creationism. Stanford University Press, 1990]

Creationists also take advantage of the reluctance of the scientific
community to get into raucous political fights. That's how Christian
Council has become so powerful in USA, a country that has thousands of
extremely intelligent scientists. The same logic could be applied to the
situation in India or say, Pakistan or Iran.