I personally don't see a conflict with religious creation stories and the creation theories of science. The religious stories are a reflection of mankind looking within themselves to answer the question of how we came into existence. Science creates theories based on observation. They are looking at the results but that does not show them the underlying cause.

For instance, scientists say that the universe began when matter started to expand. Before this expansion there was no space or time. Because we cannot observe what was before this event, scientists do not know what existed before and may never know. For a religious person the answer is easy. What existed before time was God. But what is God? The nature of God is something that is beyond our comprehension. So like the scientist, the religious person says that before time existed there was God, and God created the universe.

We know that scientists base their theories on the observation of physical events; so where does the religious person get their knowledge? This knowledge is a personal journey done through prayer, meditation, and personal experience. Of course most religious people rely on the insights of the great prophets and religious thinkers in history. They would teach people the insights that they had experienced and this in turn would get written down in a manner to make it easy for most people to understand. Thus the religious teachings that are handed down to us are more of an allegory rather then an exact description. Imagine this, a great prophet or holy person of 4000 BC sits down to comtemplate creation and a vision unfolds before him of various animals growing and evolving, changing into different forms until they arrive at the animals that they know. How would they describe that to the people of their time? I don't think you can dismiss these ideas and visions like the scientists do. However, neither can you accept them as absolute as the fundamentalist religions do.

Take a look below at the story of creation from Genesis and a brief description of the Big Bang theory:

Genesis:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Science:

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb where fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

So lets take a look at certain events between the two points of view.

Genesis: the earth was without form, and void. Science: all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point.

Genesis: God moved upon the face of the waters (spirit). And God said, Let there be light... Science: all the particles of the embryonic universe began rushing away from each other, forming the stars and galaxies.

Hmmm...funny how to an open mind, these events may appear rather similar.

So what about evolution? Another big thorn in the creation debate. Scientists have discovered a vast amount of data in the fossil record. They have been able to do amazing work in determining different epochs in Earth's history. I don't believe a reasonable person can dispute that the age of the earth is far older then the bible implies, or that animal forms have changed and evolved over time. But once again, scientists are seeing the effect but not the cause. The scientists counter that it is random cell/gene mutation that creates a change in an organism. If the change creates a more survivable trait for the organism then it will be passed on to future generations. That is really an unsatisfactory explanation. It may be the mechanism of change but what triggers the change? How does a group of photosensitve cells decide to specialize into different functions to provide an animal with sight? How did a chameleon's skin decide that it would be better to change with the color of it's background, and how did the chameleon learn to control this new found ability? How come a tiger's stripes don't match the color of their environment? How come the tongue of a frog mutated to a long sticky appendage and a salamander's did not?

Below is an excerpt of Genesis compared to the theory of evolution:

Genesis:

Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.”

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”
And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.

Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.

Science:

Life started with the evolution of single-cell microorganisms. They evolved into more complex multi-cell organisms. Evolution proceeded with marine invertebrates then fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs and birds. Next came mammals and then humans.

I find it interesting that in Genesis, the first creatures were fish and fowl, the next day was the creation of sea creatures and living things that scurry and swarm in the water (amphibians?), the next day was livestock and wild animals (mammals), and then there was man. Is this really that far off from what the evolutionists say?

The problem is that the scientist is trained to deny God and search for a mundane explanation; whereas the religious fundamentalist is taught that their scriptures are the literal truth and any evidence to the contrary is wrong. In the study of quantum physics we are discovering that thought can have an actual effect on matter. This is something that the mystics have been saying for thousands of years. If we can prove that thought energy can affect matter then maybe we can prove the existence of spiritual energy. If we can prove the existence of spiritual energy then maybe we can prove the existence of God.

Technorati Tags: creation, evolution, Religion, spiritualism, metaphysics