Guardian: Why Creationism is wrong

No scientist can refute the theory that god created the world 3 seconds ago, with all evidence to the contrary built in, as a test of faith. Why god would do this is bit beyond scientific reason, but is within the scope of religious philosophy. One could move the timescale a bit and say god created the universe about six billion years ago, complete with all the physical laws, but still we are left with “so what”. So really there is no debate, if you believe in a creator god then, you believe that god created stuff. If you don't then go didn't. The Creation/Evolution debate is the merging different spheres of knowledge, I know that some rugby players are religious but I don't think it works to have a priest offering tactics based on Ezekiel's raising of the dead. Equally many scientists are religious, but know where the limitation of each sphere lies.

The best explanation of our existence based on the current evidence is evolution, that may change, but for now like all scientific explanations it works. Why religion feels the need to undermine science, by trampling all over its ground, is because science is damaging religion. Science has been successful, very successful, at blowing away myths and misunderstanding. Science backs itself to be tested and adjusts when it is wrong; making it more right than it was before. So as science has become more prevalent many people have found it hard to hold on to their faith, and now religion is fighting back. Religion deliberately misunderstands science, as religion is trying to show that the theory of evolution is weak, and so may be wrong, but religion will fail in its argument because it can only provide the alternative theory of “ta-daa”. Where religion will find success, however, is undermining some people's faith in science. Many people have no understanding of scientific methods, and religion is working on the underlaying worry that scientists “don't know everything”; and they don't. So scientists are left floundering because they try to tackle the argument on their usual terms and religion doesn't care about the result of that argument. The way for science to argue would be to insist that they can teach scientific theory's in church time, perhaps every church sermon should begin with an explanation that most images of christ are incorrect, as the nails would be in the wrist not the hands, that he and his mother were probably darker in complexion. Show that the bible was not written in a weekend but was collected by real people in a politically motivated way. Science doesn't need to be afraid of religion offering a theory or two, nor should it be annoyed. Science just needs to do it's normal thing but pursue it into the religious sphere, but that would scare the scientists more that the religious.