You might think it has already been overdone, and that this is old stuff but, I insist, your wrongness will stifle your ability to maintain your level of self-interest. I’ll also insist the reason you feel like that, although the argument may have persisted for generations, the reason it got nowhere is because new material seldom got introduced to common folks like myself in some understandable way. I had to go out and find it, and then argue it out with other folks until it finally made sense. Ultimately, I have learned over the many decades of my own life, the reason an argument reaches no reasonable conclusions is likely to be because both sides are wrong.

If we look sensibly and, with constructive thought and aim, compare the creation and evolution ideas side by side, the philosophy of evolution still persists and, in fact, serves better to uphold the idea of an existent God than does the other. That's the most I can find wrong with it, aside from it being too limited in scope.

As it gets presented to us, it only pertains to biology.

Let’s first state their premises: The Creation Theory claims that God has always existed, and will always exist. Interpreted into an acceptable statement that seems more plausible, let us say, "The premise of Creation Theory is that God has no memory of nonexistence, and no foreknowledge of its own demise."

 Whether or not you accept the interpretation, to question the truth of it would be to question whether God is actually existent. It would seem sensible to think that if it went through a period of nonexistence, the god named God would have no awareness of it; and, also, sensible to think that we, too, would suffer the same lack of awareness, since it existed long enough to feel the loneliness that made it so desperate it created mankind. We could ask it, "God, do you remember a time when you did not exist?" and "Do you have any knowledge of a time to come when you will not exist?"

I am certain that it will realize the seriousness of our intentions and answer, as we have predicted, "No!" That would tell us nothing more than that it believes he has lived forever, since it has no memory of a span of time when it was not alive; and, since it has no foreknowledge of a future his future lack of awareness allows it no experience of, it has no concept of when and whether it may die. It may, in fact, already have. No one seems to have any dependable access to him of late, and no one aside from George W. (Whoppers) Bush has recently claimed to have been in its presence. Mister Bush being a known liar, feel free to doubt his word. Many have, and do.

The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, asserts that, out of chaos, all forms advanced by natural selection into higher orders of existence, a result of adaptation wherein each species has been required to develop all kinds of weapons to enhance their chances for survival. It is mankind’s attempt to explain how fire, smoke, and rocks slowly developed into intelligent life. It had nothing to do with accidents. It had everything to do with the fact that those species who failed to adapt to ever changing conditions are no longer with us.

I, who once threw an apple against a tree to see the way it might splatter, have never felt reluctant to think that an omniscient God might have invented evolution. Although I don't believe it, I have often wondered why the one idea has to do away with the other, which prompts slack-jawed dismay in people whom I question about it. Talking about that makes atheists' jaws drop while they accuse me of being a closet believer; it also causes the religious to accuse me of atheism. See, those guys aren't so damned dumb, after all! The fundies are the ones who get it right!

But, let’s go on as though we find Evolution to be the more sensible idea, even if that’s not so: It would seem that, if dead rocks and mud could evolve into intelligent life-forms equal to ourselves, an existent God would simply be a life-form that evolved beyond us (Would we necessarily be aware of that, granting it had to have happened millenniums ago?—especially since we never get to inquire of God, and have to take the word of people whose integrity we worry about)?

In other words, when compared to a notion which states that God either (1) came into its existence, fully developed, for no reason at all; or (2) God always existed for some unimaginable reason by some unimaginable causation, the Theory of Evolution more fully supports the notion that God could exist than creationism ever has. It does, in fact, if one would follow the idea out in search of its point of absurdity, in the absence of a first cause statement, almost require that a God’s existence must be true.