The notable thing was, though, that the next morning I woke up and it suddenly struck me what the basic problem with our discussion - and really any discussion with a fundamentalist/creationist is. It's not only a difference in ideology, it's a difference in paradigms. (I know, I know - over used word, but let me 'esplain)
Ok... it's an irrefutable fact that the universe, the world, and everything in it has changed since the moment it came into being - even if we use the Bible as the playbook here. We can see with our own eyes that the universe of the Bible has changed - we can see that from basic observation of rivers and stars and animals and bacteria and plants, etc etc etc. We also know that there were plants and animals that are not mentioned in the Bible, that perhaps were gone before the Bible was written - I don't think even the creationists dispute dinosaurs, for example.
The discussion is not about change - that's a given - it is about how the change occured.
Now, when a creationist asks me if I believe in evolution, I say "yes". The problem here, though, is the definition of evolution and the paradigm or framework that it exists in. What I'm saying "yes" to, is a field of study. We know change has occured in the universe and when we study that change in biology, it's called the science of evolution. We can also study those changes in geology, archeology, physics, climatology, etc. Together, they form a body of knowlege about how the universe and our world work.
When I come to the table to debate a creationist, I come with studies and books and fossil records and tables and graphs - but what I'm defending, is not the specific facts and figures, but the process of change in the universe. It doesn't bother me in the slightest when new observations occur. We find out that a fossil is younger than we thought, a new insight puts a change in a different time period, fresh minds discover and reach new conclusions.
The paradigm is this: the basic process of evolution has been so well observed and documented that we know that is it the way biological life changes on the planet. The details, however are not a closed book. In science, we don't observe something and carve it in stone - this doesn't negate the process, it's simply a matter of working out details within the process. In science, making observations and testing the hypothoses, even proving them wrong is the point! It's a good thing when ideas are proved wrong, it shows that we're learning and uncovering more - getting closer to really understanding.
On the other hand, when a creationist comes to the table with their Bible, their paradigm is very different. They believe that the book is closed - that what is contained in the pages can not change or be dis-proven. The seek to prove creationism by looking at the objective data and making it fit their pre-determined truth. The two points of view are opposite each other.
It was no wonder, then, when the young man I was arguing with started calling me a hypocrite - saying that my acknowledgement of changes in the details of evolutionary science as simply the ongoing work in the field was flawed. He felt that if I believe in evolution, that I must believe that everything written about it is a fact.
When Darwin finished his work - built on many other works, his just started the controversy - that was not the end of the story, but the beginning. There is no Bible of evolution - nor is the belief that evolution is the process by which change occurs in the universe a religion. To me, it's simply a field of study - asking questions about what I can see with my own eyes - about change. I will never know all the facts about the changes that have occured and are occuring, but that's ok
The difference is, in my paradigm it's ok to not have the answers as long as I have the questions. In the fundamentalist/creationist paradigm, it's only ok to have a set book of answers and no questions. No wonder it's so difficult to discuss the issue!
