What Is The REAL Value And Agenda Behind The Discrediting Of "Creationism?"

A lot of people nowadays use the "big bang theory," age of the Earth and evolution in general to not only explain the Earth's origins, but to pointedly discredit anyone that dares believe in a god - particularly, it seems, the Christian God (because so many critics tend to start with Christianity and rarely go much further in their criticisms of other beliefs in deities).  While people like Isaac Newton were both scientists and people of faith, the whole concept of any real reconciliation of science and faith nowadays is painted as being borderline preposterous, stemming from the ignorance and delusions of uneducated and superstitious people.

But here's a question: The big bang theory is, broadly speaking, the expansion of the universe from something akin to a spec which involves the combining of elements to create more familiar matter.  Where did that spec and those elements come from?  Why, I wonder, is it more "ignorant" to believe in a god that, in whatever way over however many years, CREATED a vast universe that functions independently (i.e., evolution) and naturally formed the Earth, than it is to believe that all these elements and this expansion just... existed and began its processes, for no reason whatsoever? If you're going to say, "Oh, well, we're just criticizing those that take the Bible too literally," then you still throw off the whole argument.    You can say, "Well, faith and religion are just ancient psychological tools meant to be grown out-of and replaced with fact, originally used to make sense of the world and provide some structure for early man." To some extent, that's probably true as it makes a lot of sense, except that the only practical benefit in doing away with spiritual and religious faith in a deity at all is to get out from under that god's and religion's restrictive tenets. After all, rules are made to be broken, so they say, and how much easier could it be to break a rule than it is after you've just decided for yourself that the rule is obsolete (mostly because you want it to be), serves no practical purpose and is, in itself, immoral because of its inherent intolerance?

Answer this: Do you want EVERY impulse and human behavior to be... tolerated? Where is the line drawn and why?  For example, since everyone is going to die, anyway, why is murder wrong? Say someone comes and murders a friend or relative.  They can't be brought back, so why not just tolerate it and let the killer go?  What is "justice?"  Like faith and the rules of religion, why do we need it? And even for those that do tend to take most Scripture literally, there is at least an awareness that it is full of metaphors, shadows, parables and so forth. I can't speak for other faiths and religions, but much of Jesus' teachings are in the forms of stories and parables whose meanings were never in the literal.  The Bible with which most are familiar cites the Earth as having been created in seven days, yet later admits that a day unto the Lord is as a thousand years.  Or more? There's a lot of "scripture" that isn't even in the Bible that most know and abide by, at least in the Western hemisphere.  The point where the time frame and mode of the Earth's creation is concerned is that nobody knows and nobody really needs to know - at least, not in the definitive sense.  Understanding nature is one thing, and that is useful, but knowing for certain its origins and where it came from is something else altogether.

Frankly, I don't think it has anything to do with actual science. It seems to  change very little to believe that the Earth is 4 to 6 billion years old instead of just 10,000 in that there aren't many practical applications of either theory that haven't already at least begun to be explored and put into practice.  I think it has to do with the fact that religion (and not just Christianity or even Islam) has for so long been used to excuse so many atrocities and so much hate that science and the battle to discredit creationism is just the latest tool in some people's attempt to systematically rid the world of any semblance of organized religion whatsoever. If you can't guilt the "ignorant" religious people into seeing that they have too much influence or power and hurt too many people with their seemingly arbitrary rules about homosexuality and abortion and other things, then, well... get them on the facts.  Get them on their belief in things that cannot be proven and for which many say there is solid evidence that contradicts said beliefs.  Okay, but there's still just one problem: FAITH, BY DEFINITION, IS A BELIEF IN THAT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF!

And religion?  Does anyone with half a brain actually believe that there has to be a god at the center of an actual religion?  In the earliest heyday of Star Wars, there were people that made a serious attempt at getting the Jedi... lifestyle or... whatever... recognized as a legitimate "religion."  They almost pulled it off, and what's at the center of that: The Force?  Even in Star Wars mythology (which is what many consider it in a modern sense), the anthropomorphism of the Force as midichlorians only exists in one or two of the films and is largely rejected.  Otherwise, that's about as close as the myth gets to identifying the Force as any one or group of entities.

The subtle hypocrisy in trying to discredit creationists is that, in doing so, you're engaging in a form of intolerance that is not so dissimilar to that intolerance which many would attribute to religious believers and simultaneously condemn. Whether you're seeking to silence anyone teaching evolution or anyone promoting religious dogma in public and trying to merge it with public policy, you're trying to silence someone.  You are actively discriminating against a point of view and, by extension, anyone that holds it, and the very fact that you could be threatened by a perspective which you claim to be so preposterous and ludicrous does, in itself, I think, say something about the weakness of your own crusade if not your overall argument.  Ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe, especially where the origins of the Earth are concerned IF they even think it's of any personal or practical relevance.  What I think critics of creationism tend to fail to consider is that even the validity of their theories on evolution and of the big bang theory, itself, still does not rule out the existence or even involvement of a higher power.  If anything, the universe, itself, becomes that higher power because you are always going to be stymied by that ultimate question: Where did the spec and the elements come from that had to combine and expand to execute the "big bang" and form the universe as we know it today?