While we're on the topic, here's a page I think is topical. It's a page by a man named Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist and Orthodox Jew. He would probably be considered an "old earth creationist" in these debates:
Teaching About God In The Classroom
The Kansas Board of Education recently decided to allow schools to make their own determination about which mix of "evolution versus creation" to teach in their classrooms. This decision set off a tumult in the scientific and theological world - as if leaving the issue "open" somehow spells defeat for one side or the other in this debate.
As a nuclear physicist who has served on the staff of MIT and as a member of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, I have undertaken extensive research of the natural world in light of the Biblical account. My conclusion? I see no contradiction between them whatsoever.
So what's all the fuss about?
If I had to assign chief blame for the ongoing struggle between science and religion and the resulting erosion of biblical credibility, it would be to the leaders of organized religion. Since Nicolaus Copernicus had the audacity to suggest that the Sun, not Earth, was the center of our solar system, their kneejerk reaction to scientific discovery has been to deny its validity. Yet what does the position of the Earth have to do with belief in a creator of the universe or the validity of the Bible?! Nowhere does the text claim that Earth is central to anything. In fact, the very first sentence of the Bible - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) - places the heavens before Earth. As scientific data demonstrating the Sun's centrality accumulated, the Church was forced into embarrassed retreat. So today, the popular perception is that science had proven the Bible wrong. In reality, the claim of Earth's centrality had nothing to do with the Bible.
Similarly, Kepler's discovery of the elliptical orbit of the planets did not sit well with the religious establishment. Circles were perfect geometric shapes, ellipses are defective. An infinitely powerful God would be expected to produce perfect orbits. Of course, the Bible doesn't teach that a circle is better than an ellipse! Yet the Church condemned Kepler's discovery.
Then, Charles Darwin appeared on the scene. The thought that life in general (and humans in particular) had developed from lower life forms was simply unacceptable to the Church. The concept of evolution was condemned as heretical, notwithstanding the fact that Darwin in the closing lines of his book attributed the entire evolutionary flow of life to "its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator in a few [life] forms or into one." Nonetheless, the gauntlet of heresy had been thrown down.
Judaism views this whole issue much differently.
The medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote that conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible. Our Sages always viewed Torah knowledge in light of prevailing scientific theory. In fact, Jewish law states:
"Only wise and understanding men are to be appointed to the Sanhedrin. They must be experts in Torah law, with a wide breadth of knowledge. They must also know secular subjects like medicine, mathematics, astrology and astronomy." (Maimonides, Laws of Sanhedrin, chapter 2)
So where does the problem lie? In that acknowledged experts in science may assume that although scientific research requires diligent intellectual effort, biblical wisdom can be attained through a simple reading of the Bible.
Yet how can such a strange and poetic text be read literally? Two millennia ago, long before paleontologists discovered fossils of dinosaurs and cavemen, long before data from the Hubble and Keck telescopes hinted at a multibillion-year-old universe, the Talmud (Chagiga 12b) stated explicitly that the opening chapter of Genesis, all 31 verses, is presented in a manner that intentionally conceals information. Furthermore, Moses, on the day of his death, exhorted the people three times to read the Bible as a text having within it a subtext harboring multiple meanings (Deut. 31:19,30; 32:44).
From a Jewish perspective, the conflict over the Kansas school board decision is ironic. Maimonides wrote that science is one of the primary paths to knowing God, and for that reason the Bible commences with a description of the Creation. Throughout the Bible, knowledge of God is compared with the wonders of nature, as stated so well in Psalms (19:2): "The heavens tell of God's glory, and the sky declares his handiwork."
The first step in a rapprochement between science and Bible is for each camp to understand the other. Distancing the Bible from a few misplaced theological shibboleths will do wonders in furthering this mutual understanding.
Ditto that. Personally, when it comes right down to it, the unimaginable vastness of the Universe, the incomprehensible complexity of life, and the fundamental contradiction of the beginning and ending of time itself do more to lead me to a Creator that any priest, preacher or rabbi could ever hope to accomplish. The latter serve their purpose as wise councilors and spiritual mentors, but the awe of Creation itself is enough to convince all but the most arrogant, that every thing in this universe can only be the work of a God so powerful, he could have done it anyway he wanted.
Those who choose to damn the concept of evolution may well be (and IMHO, are) damning God's work.
While we're at it, classical Christianity sees the same oddity in the text of Genesis that the Talmud points to: St. Gregory of Nyssa described the first two chapters as 'doctrine in the guise of a narrative'.