Creation and evolution

Now this is a topic that causes enormous trouble. The only reason I can see for the huge fights is that both sides are immovable. If you try to discuss evolution with the religious, as I did the other day when the Jehovah's Witnesses called, they become somewhat heated.

If you try to point out flaws in evolution to the evolutionists, many of them overheat too.

Note that I didn't say 'try to tell the religious about evolution' nor did I say 'mention creationism to evolutionists'. Just try discussing, and pointing out flaws in their cherised beliefs. The friction between the two is now so great that they will assume you're attacking them when you're not.

I have no religion. I am a scientist, but not an evolutionist. I am neither creationist nor evolutionist. I am entirely neutral in the matter. I simply enjoy the reaction this subject causes.

So I'm going to pick on both sides. I didn't start this fight, but I can't leave it alone.

First of all, let's hit the issue of dates. Christians believe the world was created six thousand years ago and that man arrived on day one. Sorry, day six. Science puts the figure at several billion years ago, and man grew out of the monkey-stock a couple of million years ago.

There are flaws with both of these dates.

Science first.

New Scienist recently covered the contentious issue of the fossilised human footprints in Mexico. I'm not going to get into the issue of whether these are footprints or not. I'm not qualified to judge. What's interesting is the argument over how old they are.

Some say they are 40,000 years old, and they have scientific proof based on a system of dating the rock. Others say they are only a few thousand years old. They also have proof based on a different system of dating the rock. The argument has degenerated into 'Oh, but we tested the black bits in the rock. They're a different age from the orange bits.'

Sometimes I think there should be a 'slap the scientist' day. So some bits of rock are older than others. This says nothing about the footprints, but it does highlight one thing. All geological dating systems are flawed. We still have no idea which is right, when we get such huge discrepancies between samples from the same place. Any scientist who disagrees is a blinkered fundamentalist, because we all know our science isn't perfect.

Religion next.

This six thousand years is based on a calculation by a mediaeval monk, who added up the ages of everyone in the Bible and then added the time since the death of Christ. It is not in the Bible. It was not revealed to some great prophet. It was calculated by a man.

He forgot something. Men do that.

Adam, the first man, is credited with living 800 years. But, and it's a big but, so I'll write it again. BUT Adam didn't start to age until he left the Garden of Eden. Inside, he was immortal, like everything else. Only when he got shown the door, and told to 'Go forth and procreate' (if that's the correct translation), did he start to age.

Right. So if that monk's calculations were correct, then Adam was turfed out of Eden six thousand years ago.

How long was he in there? He wouldn't have recorded the passage of time. Why would an immortal do that? He could have been in there for millions of years. Genesis records only a few events in Eden, not every minute. Outside Eden, what was happening? Dinosaurs? Extinctions? Did that asteroid hit the Earth by accident, or did someone throw it to clear the big reptiles out of the way before letting the human race loose?

That's my thoughts on the date issue. Scientific dating is unreliable. Biblical dating works only back to the point where Adam lost his cushy job.

Neither science nor religion can give an exact date for the age of the planet. So stop fighting over it.

You should both spend your energy working out how much time we have left.