Creationism and Evolution Reconciled

[Welcome BAT 2010 participants! Please comment.]

It is both fit and mete that on the auspicious occasion of Spring and the Easter holiday we gather together, secular and religious alike, and try to bridge our differences. While Evolution and Creationism appear on the surface irreconcilable, with a little humility and a good heart we can reach across the divide and together find common ground.

————
[WARNING: Not Safe For Work ! ! ! ! This post is rated “MA” for violence, strong language of a sexual nature and disturbing mental images.]

[A note on responsibility: The language in this post is entirely mine. The images and the underlying concept are stolen borrowed adapted under Fair Use exemption from the work of the brilliant artist, author and web designer Tom Weller, a kind, gentle and decent man who would never use the sort of language I do. His images are sampled here partly in the hope of providing him with the readership he so richly deserves. If anyone is looking for a creative website designer, give him a shout.]
————

Most people not homeschooled are well aware of the principle of evolution by natural selection, first articulated by Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin. As applied to the appearance of humans, there is substantial fossil evidence that we are descended from a series of ancient ancestors:

But not everyone agrees this is so. Biblical literalists insist that their Bible is inerrant, perfect and complete, and it says nothing about evolution but rather reports that God/Jehovah created all the creatures on Earth including human beings in their present form. So then, creationists assert, evolution must be a fraud.

In America today, a substantial majority of people believe that godly influence of some sort was involved in producing modern humans, while no more than 25% (depending on the poll) accept a strictly naturalistic view. Somewhere approaching half of all Americans reject evolution entirely and instead believe that humans and all other creatures were created as is by the biblical God.

The Texas State Board of Education recently voted to require that schools give equal credence to Darwinian evolution and Biblical literalist creationism. Since Texas wields the largest influence among textbook publishers right now, that decision may well influence science teaching across the entire nation.

Clearly, creationists are here in large numbers and aren’t going away any time soon. As an agnostic I am firmly in the Darwin-Wallace naturalist evolution corner, but as a humanist I want to reach out, to help find some point of commonality. I am willing to give just a little if creationists are too, and it is clear that literal creationist claims have at least one glaring, unanswered weakness; with whom did the sons of Adam and Eve mate?

According to the Bible God created the first humans, Adam and then Eve, perfect in form and innocently unaware of evil. After inexplicably abandoning these innocents to the wiles of Satan,

God cursed them for thier arrogance, drove them from his presence and abandoned them to their fate. The Bible makes no mention of the disappointed God creating other humans, so apparently Adam and Eve were it. Eventually the two procreated and Eve bore three sons; Cain, Abel and Seth. Cain then killed Abel, leaving only two males to carry on the jewel of God’s creation. But with no females available, and the Bible very clearly does not mention any woman in the Beginning but Eve, how was it that billions of humans came to be?

There can only be one logical answer.

(modifications mine)

According to literal Biblical creationists, all modern humans must be descended from a couple of motherfuckers.

This seems harsh to me, even for so neglectful and vindictive a god as Jehovah. It was in searching for an alternative explanation that I came cross the brilliant solution of Mr. Weller. Let us accept, and here I am certain my creationist brothers and sisters* will join me, that while Jehovah was in a creative mood he also made an assortment of monkeys and apes including those we now see around us. And let us further suppose that among those primates were a few females that were kinda hot-looking, or at least hot enough for a couple of typically sex-starved young human males when they hooked up with those hot females who had gone out on the savannah on a warm Saturday night, looking to monkey around.

Some of the monkey females went for the steady, upright Seth, while others (and ladies, you know who you are) were drawn to bad-boy Cain. The predictable result, courtesy of a merciful God, is that the boys were able to reproduce without having to fuck their own mother. Now, isn’t that a more decent and believable account?

I recognize creationists will have to accept that they are all descendants of monkeyfuckers and thus part monkey, but that seems to me a small price to pay to escape the literalist alternative. If however creationists want to insist on motherfucking as their preferred argument, I have no problem with their views being presented in school along with strict agnostic evolution and the monkeyfucker thesis presented here.

Teaching all three will certainly liven up the curriculum as well as what-did-you-learn-in-school-today-sweetheart dinner table conversations and subsequent parent-teacher conferences. Given honest presentations, I trust over time the kids will sort out what is plausible from absolute nonsense.

[* Literally. My brother and sister and their spouses are biblical literalists, insistently so. I have tried this theory out on them, but so far they are holding firm to their claims that inescapably imply motherfuckery. I can only hope that time will soften their hearts, and they can come to accept monkeyfucking as God’s real plan. After that discussion though, religion no longer comes up at family gatherings and so there’s a mercy.]