Different Facets of the Same Gem
I would like to expand on Brad's idea of establishing unity between the seemingly-disparate camps of Darwin/evolution proponents and intelligent design believers. Personally I agree with a number of my classmates when I say that my beliefs lie somewhere in between the two points of view, although I tend to lead towards the more religious. I have always been inspired and fascinated by theology, especially issues such as the origin of the universe. There is a great book called The Science of God that has helped me to reconcile the evidence of evolution with the text of the Bible. I would love to see the rifts between science and religion lessened; perhaps someday people can believe that all the ideas of science, and religion, and everything else are really just facets of the same beautiful gem… "One God, one law, one element, / And one far-off divine event, / To which the whole creation moves" (Tennyson in Bump 255).
As many of the articles pointed out, both 'sides' of this great debate have been guilty of narrow-mindedness at one point or another, however it pleases me to see that the parties are working towards closing the gap between them. The "Darwin under attack" article mentioned that "intelligent-design advocates have abandoned the 'biblical literalism' of their forebears and have accepted the scientific method, 'not authority, as the ultimate test'" (Bump 259). The Science of God really exemplifies this break from biblical literalism; a main argument it proposes basically goes into the theory behind light travel and the continuing expansion of the universe to describe how it might be possible that a 'day' for us now (as in the time it takes the earth to complete one rotation) could encompass millions of prehistoric 'years' (as in the time it takes for the earth to travel all the way around the sun) due to the expanded distances of the earth and sun. Although this concept is very complicated and I can't hope to explain it properly, the basic idea is that the 'days' mentioned in Genesis can mean something more than the literal 'day' we think of, kind of like a metaphor; the Bible is, after all, a piece of literature, and we should not rule out the possibility that some of its subjects could be metaphors, "the value and validity of…which provide access to important dimensions of reality" (Bump 271). Once we start breaking down the barriers that kept us so rigid, we can be more open to seeing the unity between science and religion.
As for what should or should not be taught in school, I agree with Richard Land, who is quoted in Bumiller's article, when he says, "If you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory," not as straight fact (Bump 267). The one thing we can all agree on in the end is our lack of knowledge, and so it is important for us to always keep an open mind when exploring the great mysteries of the life, the universe, and everything (Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference).