Rising Tide of Magic versus Reason

The battle over whether Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct or if life was indeed created by a god is raging most intensively in the United States, where Christian fundamentalism flourishes as nowhere else in the world. Whereas Woodward’s book merely gives an overview of the history of the contribution made by creationists, Hunter, as a molecular biophysicist, clearly takes sides and tries to prove that evolutionists are currently unable to explain many processes of life on a molecular level. In summary, basically all creationists say that because we haven’t understood it, it must be of divine creation or origin. The battle front between scientists and creationists has been shifting for some 2500 years now, since the inception of science by the Greeks. Each time something was understood as a result of scientific explanations, creationists had to take a step back. But they do not seem to get the message: If something is not scientifically explicable today, this does not mean it cannot be explained at all. And to turn the table on them: Science has long proved that most claims made in the bible are untenable in many regards, historically, logically, as well as scientifically. Hence, their theory of creation, derived from the bible, is based exclusively(!) on a document which, from a scientific point of view, is probably the worst and least tenable piece of alleged non-fictional literature ever produced. The creationists’ way of arguing is: If I do not know, I have to believe in what the bible says. But what if I happen to know, and it contradicts the bible, do I still have to believe in what the bible says and reject my knowledge? And if so, why? And if not, then why should I believe what the bible says where I do not know? The creationists are not offering an alternative explanation to the unexplained; they offer a belief system of miracles, wizards, and demons that has been refuted a thousand times. And since god’s existence cannot be proven or refuted for principle reasons, their attempt to replace science with a creator is what is called pseudo-science. If god – provided he exists – at the very beginning of this world made such an imperfect creation that he has to permanently intervene with miracles to fix it, that is, if he is so fallible, then why do we call him almighty, omniscient god in the first place? And if science allows random changes at any time, location, and magnitude by a creator, that is, if it allows miracles contradicting all natural laws and rules as we know them, then why do we not abolish all sciences and go back to the stone age with all its superstitions, wizards, witches, demons, devils, goddesses, and fairies? That is the intellectual level of creationism. And I refuse to go there.