Pointless Debate

If you aren't aware, a debate was held this week between Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  The debate was between which model of the universe works best: evolution or creationism.  I have not subjected myself to the actual debate, but you feel so inclined, a video of the proceedings can be found here.  Even though I have not seen the debate myself, I wanted to comment on why the entire thing was a waste of time for all parties involved.

First of all, evolution is taken as fact by its supporters when it is still a theory.  And do not be confused that I am misusing "theory" to mean "hypothesis," which is a common error.  No, I realize that gravity is still a theory, too, but no one is calling that theory into question.  My problem is that while there is certainly evidence to support evolution, it does not prove it.  Additionally, evolution is not observable since it takes, at minimum, tens of thousands of years for one species to become a different one.  And while scientists have found lots of related looking species, the conclusion that they are related is still an extrapolation of available data, though not an unreasonable one.  (Although whenever I hear someone say that evolution has been proven, all I can usually hear is hubris.)

The problem with the creationist side is two-fold.  First, it is impossible to prove there is a god.  I have faith that there is a god and that faith is supported in numerous ways, but I cannot prove anything to another person.  That's why Alma challenged the Zoramites to experiment upon the word to find out if it was true, because each individual person has to discover the truth for themselves.  The other problem is that the main "proof" of creationism is the Bible.  A lot of people on the evolution side are atheists (at least the loudest ones tend to be), so using a source to argue your point that is not recognized by the other side is completely futile.

The final problem is that neither model is correct, but both have part of the answer.  Family traits are clearly passed on from one generation to the next and there is a Supreme Creator, but there are still gaps.  One famous hole in evolution is human hearing.  We have a bone in each ear that picks up vibrations which our brains interpret as sound, but that bone is attached to no other bones; according to evolution, there would have to be a useless piece of bone hanging out in our heads for countless generations before it actually served a purpose.  The hole with creationism is that the depiction in Genesis is largely symbolic.  The universe was not created in seven 24-hour days, but rather seven periods that were interpreted as days by Moses.  You have to remember, for the Lord to explain to Moses about creation would be like explaining how an airplane flies to a toddler.

I am most certainly a man of faith, but I also recognize and appreciate the importance of science.  One thing I do not do, however, is follow either blindly.  I have seen enough in my life to remove doubt of the existence of my Father in Heaven, so it is not blind faith.  I love learning about new scientific discoveries, but I know that another new discovery around the corner could change our current understanding.  The two schools of thought are not diametrically opposed, as some seem to think.  They work best together, just as our Father intended.