Why not spider woman?
The BBC piece was a thoughtful and well written summary of the questions and problems we Americans must deal with. Personally, I can't understand how anyone can believe in creationism, no matter what new name they give it, but millions of Americans do. A friend has a brother with a masters in geophysics who is an avowed creationist. He uses his scientific credentials to write articles for creationist publications. His convoluted explanations for the existence of fossils are utterly ludicrous, but for people who already believe that the earth is only 7000 years old or so, he is apparently totally convincing. At any rate, he says what they want to hear. What is frightening is when schools are forced to teach theories that are the antithesis of all reason, and against all we have learned from science. Even though most of us will never witness the birth of a new species through evolution, we can and do witness evolution everyday. Bacteria and viruses mutate constantly, creating new versions of themselves in order to meet and overcome the threat to their existance. What is that if not evolution? There are insects and plants that mutate to become more able to deal with their changing environments. That too is evolution. It may not -yet- be a new species, but the changes that it has made to survive are just like what has been happening over the millenia. Given enough time entirely new species may yet appear from those first steps. Or maybe not, because while some mutations are successful, others fail and eventually the species disappears. One way to diffuse controvery is to say, as a theology professor I knew did, " The Bible teaches Who, science teaches how." And that might work for people of faith, but not every one is. There is a great deal of proof for evolution, circumstantial, true, but that's accepted in any court of law, but as far as I can see, not a shred of proof for creationism. It truly frightens me to think that the schools might be forced to teach as science something for which the only "proof" are the writings in a book which is the result of people writing down the tales told around campfires thousands of years ago, It would make just as much sense to accept the Navajo version of creation, or the Mayan, where Ixchel sits at her loom and weaves the fabric of the world and all that dwells in it. As a weaver, I kind of like that one. It too is the result of ancient people telling stories around a campfire. If one is considered to be a myth, then the other should be treated the same way. One person's myth is another person's religion. My 2 cents, for what it's worth.