The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory which fits with available evidence- fossil record, and especially the genetic blueprint which is undeniable in my view as a map of evolutionary development.

It is not a certainty that this theory is correct- far from it. Nor does it answer questions like ‘how did everything start’, ‘what is the meaning of life’ etc.. It is, however, convincing that the theory fits all current available knowledge- which, after all, is the sum of human science and philosophy. Our heritage; as the most privileged generation that has ever existed, in this sense.

With this in mind, the question has to be this: are we prepared to trust scientific findings, in the knowledge that we are effectively looking at a millimetre squared of a photo which is (perhaps) millions of square miles wide and long? Or do we wish to place faith in a theory that looks toward our individual ‘souls’ or convictions and makes a leap of faith.

For me, there is the simple reality that people will choose according to their feelings and experiences. We are largely free to choose for ourselves, after all.

Having said this, I feel the most humble and most informed standpoint (though only a fraction more informed than faith) is to attempt to rationally explain what we observe around us. We owe it to future generations, even if we ourselves end up believing something which turns out to be wide of the mark.

The argument that belief in a Divine Creator can then lead to a specific World faith is simply irrational. The only rational continuation of belief in a Deity, in my opinion, is an ecumenical approach. However, whilst this standpoint could be correct (through some kind of subconscious human awakening towards a greater meaning, perhaps) this approach still lacks any evidence in scientific terms.

I contend that we cripple the analytical, evidence-based skills of future generations if we ever encourage them to believe as fact something based solely on faith. No less than the future of humanity is at stake.

They would claim that the findings of science support the claim that there is a rational and powerful God of some sort, and are fully compatible with what we know about the Christian God from other ways he revealed himself to us. To put it another way, Christian teaching about what God is like fits with and explains what we have found out about the world through science, and even explains it better than atheistic presuppositions can.

It has left me feeling as though the theory of evolution, as popularly presented, comes close to the story of Father Christmas.

I have found this revelation strangely liberating. The bleak pronouncements of evolutionary propagandists have a humanity-denying direction that saps the spirit and suggests that life is fundamentally accidental and meaningless.

I have not yet arrived at my own “myth” but feel that the exploration can now re-commence without concern for this particular “science-myth” that is paradoxically life denying.

I don’t think it works like this, because there are so many ways in which the universe might not have supported ANY kind of complicated life at all: if the initial density had been much more, the universe would have collapsed again quickly in a ‘big crunch.’ If it had been much less, everything would have flown apart so fast that complicated things like galaxies and stars and planets wouldn’t have formed. If the balance of physical forces had been different, the universe would only ever have contained hydrogen….

So the argument is that if the universe wasn’t precisely the way it is, any complicated beings like us would be impossible. Not only that, but the tunings of the physical laws appear to be highly improbable. So yes, we exist because the laws of nature are as they are – but the fact that they are as they are is a very unlikely ‘coincidence.’