The push to lend scientific legitimacy to the Biblical theory of creationism unfortunately has been turned into yet another either/or proposition despite countless precedents that suggest there are preciously few elements in life in which only two options are available. I would love to think I am merely a superior mind in relation to the fact that I have absolutely no trouble reconciling God with evolution, but I think my real talent lies in avoiding the trap of extremists on both sides of this issue. It is a sad state of affairs when those prone to saying that with God all things are possible insist on limiting God’s ability to create the universe through the long process of evolution. But that is what comes when one takes the written word of man literally; conveniently forgetting that nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that God presented a bound volume of His history to us.
Just because one should clearly be able to see how God could have created the universe using evolution doesn’t mean it is time to start pushing that theory into the curriculum. Karl Popper, a British philosopher of the 20th century, posited a specific criterion to use in the often painful process of demarcating the often blurry line that exists between science and pseudo-science. That criterion is almost ridiculous in its simplicity: falsifiability. In other words, Popper suggests a claim can only be scientific providing there exists the potential for an observation to be made that would prove it false. To use belief in God as an example, since there is no authentic way to prove that God does not exist, theology cannot adequately be described as a science. Before you go getting all riled up, Popper was not suggesting that this meant no one should believe in God, nor was he stating that everything connected with religion with unscientific. If it will make you feel any better, Popper also applied the same principle to the theories of both Freud and Marx and found them both worthy of being lumped into the giant melting pot of pseudo-science, along with astrology and reading tea leaves.
There is more to it than Popper merely spitting on three of the greatest forces in 20th century life, however. The primary problem Popper had with Marx and Freud was in their basic structural architecture. Popper wasn’t saying that Marxism and Freudian analysis have no significant purpose or don’t’ contain elements of scientific application; his problem was they had been ideologically constructed to create a false sense of immunity from falsification. The real problem with Popper’s concept of falsifiability as applied to the issue of creation and evolution is, unfortunately, both are unscientific. At present there is no more conceivable method of making an observation that would prove evolution to be false as there is a way to prove that God didn’t create the universe. Understand, I’m not talking about the Bible here. When discussing such a mind-blowing act as the creation of the universe, it would seem to be downright sacrilegiously self-centered to assume that God only thought enough of those subscribing to the Holy Bible to afford them a blow-by-blow account. The fact that so many creation myths and legends include so many similar accounts says to me that God knew full well trying to get human beings to come to an agreement on any one particular religion would have been possible only by suspending the writ of free will.
Not that I can prove this claim to be false, of course.