Evolution/Creationism - Two sides of the same coin

In this forum the debate Evolution vs Creationism is reduced to Science vs Religion, which are two different perspectives on life, with different ways of explaining life.Science deals with the material (physical reality of body in the environment); and religion deals with the immaterial aspect (life as a lived experience - relationships, consciousness, morality). A preference for one perspective does not negate the other.In psychology there are different perspectives to examine behaviour. These perspectives have different goals and priorities in research, different methodologies and domains of analysis, as well as different concepts of 'self'. For example, the psychodynamic perspective (popularly known as 'Freudian') places emphasis on childhood experiences and relationships. It relies on talk therapies and experiential rather than experimental evidence. A biological perspective focuses on chemical components in the brain, hormonal levels, genome sequencing and brain wave abnormalities. It relies on experimental evidence. A social dynamic perspective looks at how a person is positioned in society - their gender, socio-economic position, culture and historical period. It relies on experiential and experimental evidence.Each perspective offers a different way of looking at the behaviour of patients. For example, let's take an attempted suicide. A psychodynamic therapist would examine the patient's relationship with his parents, siblings and would look carefully at his childhood by questioning and talking to the patient. A biological therapist might never meet the patient, preferring to look at brain scans, blood tests and other medical procedures. A social constructivist would look at his social background, work, if he is on welfare benefits, his marriage, etc. The attempted suicide might be due to one or a combination of any of the above factors. Our understanding of the patient is only enhanced by using the different perspectives.Psychological perspectives are sometimes irreconcilable because of their different assumptions and methodologies. But to say that a preference for one negates another is absurd and irresponsible in the care of patients.The same goes for the study of life, including its evolution. Religious scripture is more than 2000 years old - long before the arrival of modern science. Explanations of creation are full of symbolism and metaphor that we do not yet understand. Scripture is not a science paper, but a fascinating document of human culture. For as soon as man could write, he wrote how he came to be. Where did he get these stories, we do not know. Hieroglyphics are a fascinating collection of early writing, but until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone we did not properly understand what was written. The same goes for scripture. It clearly denotes a progression of biology on Earth (evolution), it clearly states there were distinct periods of development (punctuated equilibrium) - this is fascinating. But the strength and purpose of religion is to help us deal with life as a 'lived experience' - the highs, lows, confusion, pain, love and sadness - which science has nothing to say about.Science does help us understand the physical properties of life, both in the present and past. We would not have medicine, engineering, technology without it and surely our lives are better because of science. But the adherence to one perspective and the exclusion of the other only narrows our understanding of life and how we got here.Evolution viewed through only a scientific perspective (current theory) sees life as the result of violent cosmic accident and will probably end by violent cosmic accident. How it happened, we will never know because no one was there to record it - a mystery of history. But we have faith that one day science will unlock the mystery.Evolution viewed through a religious perspective (current understanding) is the result of God's work. How it happened, we don't know because no one was there to record it - mystery of God's work. But we have faith that one day God will uncover the mystery.The two sides are not so different and by investigating both we can achieve a greater understanding of life and how we got here.

You argue from the position of the current explanation of evolution (mutation provides the drive by which natural selection steers the course of evolution). You presume this to be accurate. You presume this to be the only scientific explanation and any argument against this explanation to be religiously driven and thereby unscientific. I completely disagree. I think the explanation is false. My disagreement is based on rational argument and evidence. I believe the current debate (evolution vs creationism) is in fact an argument between Arbitrary Progression vs Christian Scripture - very narrow, very specific, very unscientific.Over the course of my activity in the forum I hope to show there is another way of regarding evolution that can stand on its own merit, without having to pit itself against religion. Like the birth of a child, from conception through gestation until the baby's first cry, it demonstrates both the miracle of God's work for the faithful and the coherence and intelligibility of Nature for the scientific - both sides are satisfied.I believe the same is true for evolution - that current evidence lends itself to a different interpretation, a preferable interpretation (by Occam's Razor) that demonstrates a more concise, coherent explanation of how life develops on Earth. I hope to show we are in a system of development (evolution), a process of gestation. We don't see it because we're in it - can't see the forest for the trees. Evolution is a system like other systems found in Nature with identifiable stages and processes that are replicable and testable. I will propose an explanation that makes predictions to support or refute its claims - something current evolutionary theory cannot do.You may think I have gone off topic, but through reading your post I see I need to clarify my position. I am not in one camp or the other in this debate. I hope to discuss the falsehood of this division and how this pointless (though passionate) argument is only acting to stymie further investigation into how life developed on Earth.

Point taken. I am answering replies in previous posts.