twinbanj writes:
Being from the UK, more christians muslims and Jewish people here take their respective holy book's view on a creation as a metaphor
That's probably true as well for a majority of Americans who consider themselves Christians, and for folks with this perspective, I don't think there's anything "mutually exclusive" between their various beliefs and the theory of evolution. Speaking for myself at least, I'd also say that atheists need not find anything "mutually exclusive" between our skepticism/atheism and metaphorical interpretations of holy texts. There can be honest value in understanding many of these metaphors, regardless of one's commitment to religious faith, or lack thereof.
But looking again at the title of the thread: "Why are evolution and creationism mutually exclusive?", I think it's every bit as interesting and valid to ask: Why are creationism and metaphorical interpretations of the bible mutually exclusive? The point is, creationism is what stands out on its own as a system of belief that is mutually exclusive with other kinds of religious belief, as well as all forms of non-belief. Creationism is mutually exclusive with the deeper understanding that one can get from reading the bible as metaphor or as any other sort of non-literal non-historical description, just as it is mutually exclusive with science.
Regarding a completely separate aspect of the OP:
Isn't it possible for the energy in the theorized big bang, to be a god?
And if so, what would be the importance or relevance of identifying this energy with the name "god"? It would strike me as really bizarre to assert that we must supplicate ourselves, declare our devotion and pray regularly to this "energy" because it is actually some form of sentient being like ourselves (because we were "created in its image") that takes a direct interest in our personal wishes and responds to us in particular (or at least to those of us whose side it is supposed to be on).
The whole concept of a "supreme being", with a capacity for "personal relationships" with every one of us, with a strangely flexible sense of judgment, and with "omni-everything", is just so much linguistic shenanigans -- such a "being" can only "exist" because the structure of human language makes it possible for us to utter sentences that say such a thing exists. "God" seems definable only in terms of logical contradictions, physical impossibilities, and oxymorons. I just don't see the point of it.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : fixed grammar typo in first paragraph
Edited by Otto Tellick, : slight elaboration in last paragraph
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor grammar repair
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2