Please take the following personal discussion as an opinion, and please address it as so with constructive criticism. Please do not mix personal feelings with your arguments if you choose to disagree. I do know this debate is controversial.
This is written with a religious point of view in mind.
The Evolution Debate
In my opinion the contemplation and thoughts of the questions provide a much deeper answer, but not a conflicting answer with the general religious answers. They do not conflict because it is equivocal to viewing the problem from two different views. This is where my problems with people arguing the legitimacy of evolution vs. creationism comes in. God's acts in general are naturalistic in means, and aren't "Pull the rabbit out of the hat." Some find conflictancies in the Adam and Eve story and evolution, but again this doesn't really argue evolution directly but instead argues the starting point. Evolution is in itself a process. Creationalism is a starting point . Scientific and religious views are two sides of the same coin when it comes to looking at things with both views from a religious side. Yes perhaps the sun rises because God made it to, but the mechanisms he designed to make this work are what science explains (religious point of view). Scientific analysis explains in depth how things work. There is increasing evidence for evolution, and I do not see any reason why both can't exist together - because one is a process and one is a starting point. As for consolidation of the starting point of it all I think arguing the intricacies is useless since many people will interpret it differently. Literal interpretation is what some may argue, but the problem with this is in the bible literal interpretation can end up in some very extreme scenarios, stoning the kids probably isn't something very many would condone. Context and interpretation are important things that also must be considered as well as symbolism. With all the possibility for slight personal variance depending on interpretations I don't believe it at all constructive to argue the starting point. I would like to query reader's as to why it's important to argue this minute point. From my opinion the lesson and reason behind the story is more important than the literal story itself. Literal interpretations in the bible don't seem to work all the time, so in my opinion you must take from it what they are trying to actually "say" rather than the literal words. Reading the resurrection stories side by side you will see what I mean, all the accounts of the four describe the small points differently sometimes in direct conflict with each other (how many were present, who showed up, What the tomb was like upon arrival, the presence of the guards, etc. ) These stories were written later and what was meant to be preserved was the stories, ideas, and lessons behind the words for because the words are written with human hands years after small details may vary. Arguing the Creationalism vs. Evolution debate from the point of view of where things started is seemingly pointless. Conclusion? Evolution is a process and creationalism is an initial setup. Evolution is something you can see in real effect as well (as a process.) The physical differences of people in different locations alone is evidence of such. Adaptations occur and things change. Crossbreeding has occasionally produced new "species" as well (Ex: Ligers.) These two arguments alone allow for evolution as a process.
As for the teaching of creationalism in schools - I can honestly say in my opinion this makes absolutely no sense. Evolution is taught as a theory, which has undergone scientific process. Creationalism is purely religious, and teaching creationalism joins church and state which violates the foundations and principles of our country. Teaching creationalism in public schools would by inference produce many more extreme issues. Schools would then by the principle of equality be forced to teach every religions version of "the beginning." Dismissing evolution as an exception is paramount to dismissing all scientific process and denying the existence of everything science shows and produces. The teaching of creationalism would also be capable of expanding religious views of all types into the other areas of science.
One last note, arguing for creationalism in schools, would also mean extreme religions such as Scientology could be taught as feasible as well. I believe this to be completely fair and in my opinion high schoolers should be shown all of their religious options so they can find what they believe in rather than being ignorant of everything else (outside of a school setting in my opinion), I believe many parents would have an objectionable albeit hypocritical view on their children being taught Scientology in school, which is what teaching creationalism in schools is arguing for at the same time.
|"Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."|
—Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences
I realize this is controversial, and without doubt I probably have something wrong or inconsistent logic. Please point these out, and I will note\address\credit as such.