I don't understand this. I am Christian and I am an undecided on pure Creationism vs. theistic evolution. I'm not trying to "play by" anything--that is just my genuine belief. Albeit I am genuinely undecided.
I think the point is how can you believe in God and then makeup God at the same time. First of all attempting to associate creation with science is technically forming some new belief.
Neither can a science form belief systems, else they tend to be just as dogmatic. I am pretty sure there are those who
do not want to associate science with religion. I pointed out in the other thread that the Genesis account is technically not a religion. There are some who may think that an encounter with a famous person is some "religious" experience, but it was just a physical reality.
I question any one who thinks the account is even inspired by God. Technically God the entity gave it to the Hebrews, and they did not make up God as part of some religion or even religious practice.
I never associated the account of creation as a way to refute evolution. Evolution has been used by some humans to refute creation. I just got done reading the "Creation/evolution Controversy", that was heavily biased in favor of evolution. Whether it was planned or not, the side of creation science really had no chance of winning their argument. I see no immoral reason for one in a democratic society to stand up for their beliefs, even if I do not agree with them. It is only immoral when a human attempts to force their opinions on others. If that is what the OP was going for, in # 2, that can be understandable. The whole controversy had to do with the education system. Any economic factor came into play on the side of the textbook companies and never on the side of creation science. From what I read, for the most part during the controversy no creation science group had any vested interest in any textbooks. They lost the controversy, and no public school would ever touch their textbooks, even if it was legal for them to do so.
For one thing attempting to establish legislation in favor of one group or the other is walking a thin line between what is right and what is wrong on a moral basis. Creation Science was wrong in any attempt to force only one theory taught. For the most part, they attempted to keep evolution out, or if it was taught there would be equal time.
I am not sure that any one will ever convince another that the Genesis account is a theory. Even at the time it was proposed. That seemed more like a borrowed phrase from science to "enhance" the creationist side of the controversy. The whole issue was brought to the public by scientist, and was directed at the textbook industry. Of course when the scientific community finally got into the controversy, they claimed that the scientist on the creationist side were not actually scientist and had besmirched the name of science to even call it a theory. I agree it is wrong to call a fact a theory, but I digress.
The irony of it all is that the scientific community had to get religion on their side to prove that teaching creationism was wrong. I guess neither side could muster their own ability to defend their own ideology.
Since evolution is the default answer in practically every public form of life, it would probably be futile to ever have that culture war again. Technically teaching evolution is not forcing a belief system on another human. Neither would teaching creation, albeit such ideology would pretty much confuse a child, just like at one time, evolution was thought to have been the means to confuse children. Some have just reconciled the two as in there cannot be any controversy on the mere fact there is no controversy. It would seem that unless one was actually told that either was wrong (and convinced one way or the other), or that one had to choose between the two, else the world would end. Yes there are some who believe that if one rejects evolution the whole world would fall apart. At one point it was even a choice between Darwin or God.
The reason that Creationist lost the battle was their inability to give up their religion. That could have been a moral issue as pointed out in #2. I would like to point out though, that has nothing to do with the Bible or even the Genesis account. It has to do with the perceived notion of what religion even is. I cannot change the belief that the Bible is just some religious text, because to most humans, even atheist, it is. However that belief does not make it a fact, no matter how dogmatic one may be on the issue. Take it or leave it, I am not going to make it a dogmatic issue either.
