I have often wondered why creationists are so determined not to accept the brilliant work of Charles Darwin. Could it be that those with a magic worldview consider only the unfathomable worthy of the Creator’s touch? Because they can view the world only through their narrow perspective, they call the ideas of Darwin Darwinism, implying that it is a false religion. Their adherence to absolutism causes them to see the tiniest flaw in Darwin’s work as proof that none of it is accurate.

Those who find the work of Darwin compelling think of his ideas not as a religion, but as scientific theory. They are ready to embrace further compelling research which supports or refutes Darwin’s findings. This is the way of science. It is flexible and expansive, fed by those who are curious about themselves and the world in which they live.

Those with a magic worldview cannot allow themselves to become too curious. Do they believe that too much information about the actual creation of the world diminishes the Creator? I cannot think that the Creator is concerned about such things. It is my opinion that we human beings have evolved, not only physically, but also mentally and spiritually over millennia of time and that all of creation is interconnected in a infinitely complex and exquisite dance that thrills and enlarges me when I consider it.

In my opinion, Darwin has stumbled onto a tiny part of the entire picture. There are multilayers of our beings that remain unexplored by most of us. Our inner worlds have been the source of fascination by only a few pilgrims on this Earth.

One wonders what our existence would resemble if we explored more deeply. Perhaps we would not be so intrenched in rigid belief systems that demand the teaching of religion in the science class along with true science as represented by the explorations of scientists such as Charles Darwin.

More instructive for our public school students might be a comparative religion class where they would learn that the tenets of both the Jewish and Christian religions evolved from more ancient mythologies. Perhaps such a study would lend an instructive balance to creationism being taught in the science class.

Patricia O’Neill


Baton Rouge