There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're God. What kind of a universe would you make? Aquinas, not knowing about inertia, thought that God's constant input was required to keep the universe from popping back out of existence. This is because Aquinas was an Aristotelian, and therefore believed that all things naturally "wanted" to return to a sort of "default" state. That's why things fell: they liked being on the ground. It was home. Aquinas's theology told him (and the science bore this one out) that the universe hasn't always been here, so for Aquinas, "existence" was not the default state of the universe. So, applying Aristotle's methods, if the universe's default state isn't existence, it should naturally return to non-existence, unless some force is applied to prevent this. That force, said Aquinas, is God.
This all makes a kind of sense, as Aristotelian arguments tend to, but it turns out that the premise is flawed. A few hundred years after Saint Thomas was writing, Newton got beaned by an apocryphal apple and worked out that things don't fall because they like the ground. It's the falling that requires a force, because, in the absence of an external force, things tend to stay where you put them.
Which means that, even if the universe still required a miracle to set it in motion, it does not require a continuous miracle to keep it in motion. Now, some people might say that this detracts from the glory of God, since in this view, the miracle of creation happens just the once, and does not require a continuous miracle to keep it here. But I think Aquinas would have approved. Why? Because Aquinas was acutely aware of the fact that God is really good at His job. That's how he proves that God didn't outsource the creation of the universe. Sure, a persistant universe only requires one miracle as opposed to infinity miracles, but it's a much better miracle. Would you create a universe that required constant effort to keep it from popping out of existence? Would God?
Aquinas also says something else interesting about God. He says that God doesn't break the laws of the universe. But surely God can do whatever He wants, right? Well sure. But He's the one who made the laws. If He ever found himself wanting to break them, that would imply that the laws weren't the way he wanted them, which would, in turn, imply that he'd botched the job. And God did not botch the creation of the universe, because, as previously stated, He is very good at His job.
You might have noticed by now that we're well on our way to deism. Because all we really need out of God is the one big miracle right at the beginning that summoned the universe into existence. Anything God were to do afterward would be tantamount to a patch (Critical Update: God has released a Hotfix to address security issue KB 2 Cor. 2.11), and would imply that God hadn't done adequate beta testing.
Fortunately, there are ways out of this line of thinking (Good old Free Will to the rescue), but that's really beside the point. Personally, I am not a deist, but for the purposes of this argument, I will assume that the universe would appear essentially the same to us whether it be the product of the god of deism, the god of theism, or, for that matter, no god at all (at least, to those persons who had not received the gift of the Holy Spirit).
My point is this: when God created the universe, he did it right. Which means that He set it up in such a way that it did not require constant divine fiddling to keep it in order. It is no less miraculous, no less amazing, that God should create a universe with physical laws which give rise to a system by which a whole lot of hydrogen can, given enough time, eventually turn into advanced lifeforms like engineers than it is that He would create a universe that all works and hangs together, and then goes back later and God-blasts humans directly into existance. In fact, it seems even more amazing to me. Which do you think is a greater feat of engineering? Cobbling together a widget, or inventing a machine that produces widgets? Whose name comes to you more quickly, the first guy to separate cottonseed from fiber, or the guy who invented the cotton gin [2 points]?
So, no, people who believe in evolution aren't de facto atheists, and we'd really like it if you'd stop calling us that. And evolution isn't opposed to God, or even to Creation (insofar as "God zapped the universe into existence out of nothing). The only thing it conflicts with is one fairly particular -- and peculiar -- interpretation of scripture. And no, it doesn't dismiss scripture out of hand. Only a bizarre interpretation of scripture whose proponents insist is "literal" (No, it's not. The Bible is a mixture of parable, history, metaphor, and editorial. Self-proclaimed "literalists" don't take everything in scripture literally, they just use the term to give force to their own interpretations). "God would have said something about us coming from monkeys," I've heard. Well, how clever of you to know what God would have done. But more to the point, what exactly would you have Him say? Scripture isn't a biology textbook. In order for a concept like that to make any kind of sense at all, Genesis would need a 200 page preamble explaining the basic principles. Have you ever noticed how much the bible doesn't say? It doesn't say a lot about the other planets, or about computational linear algebra, or nuclear physics, or quantum mechanics, or the Americas. Or football. Sagan pointed out that the absence of evidence isn't the same thing as the evidence of absence. The Bible isn't a blueprint for the universe, it's not trying to be. In the best case scenario, it's just a summary of those things God judged relevant to our salvation (In a less good case, it's a heavily editorialized transcript of what some devoted people might have thought God wanted us to know that bears as much resemblance to actual revelations of Divine Will as your average FOX made-for-TV movie).
Those of us who believe in evolution aren't trying to oppress anyone's beliefs. But Creationism, Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and all the other titles it goes under isn't science. It shouldn't be presented as science, it shouldn't be presented in the context of science, and it shouldn't be presented on the same footing as real science. I deny all the claims of anti-evolutionists: evolution is not de facto irreconcilable with religion; even if it was, this wouldn't mean that you had to choose sides. But most importantly, I deny that faith is served by ignoring the evidence of science. I don't mean that "you have to choose, so choose science." I mean that you don't have to choose, and ignoring the evidence of science isn't just bad science, it's bad religion. Really. When you start saying "Yes, science says this happened, but that conflicts with scripture, so science must be wrong," you're ignoring the reality of the world. That's not religious devotion, it's lunacy -- and it's borderline heresy.
When I was very small, my mother, whose religious education was a little spotty, but probably well inside the mainstream, told me that God created man because He was lonely. Of course, that doesn't jive well with our notion of a perfect God, and it's not really supported by scripture. I can't exactly recall where I got this notion, it was either in my "Philosophy and Theatre" class or my class in St. Thomas, but my understanding of why God created man is this: we are here to witness the universe. Not, as some have concluded from similar starting points, specifically to be impressed by how cool God is (God, being perfect, does not need us to stroke his ego), but because, having created a whole universe, God thought it was proper and fitting that there be someone around to enjoy it. As a writer of sorts, I rather like the idea of God as a Divine Novelist, though like all analogies to God, it's not a tremendously accurate one (But, as Aquinas himself said, when we speak of God, we must perforce only ever do so analogistically). If the universe is God's novel, we're the readers -- and if you're a good writer, your goal is less for the audience to read your book and think how great you are for having written it, and more for them to read the book and, well, like it. And understand it. What I see a lot of the big religious arguments turning into these days is a lot of people who like to go on about how great the Author is, but who keep skipping over the bits in the book that are too complicated for them. God created the universe. Evolution is one of the things he put into it. And it's a really, really amazing book. I recommend it to all my friends. I like to think that the Author wanted me to read it, not just leave it on my shelf and admire the binding, and I hope He's pleased that I've taken such a deep and critical interest in it. I've even written a few book reports on it.
Oh, and that quote at the beginning? From the man who killed God himself: Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, a pretty interesting monograph on the big Book.
Here are some other people who have thoughts at least as good as mine on the subject:
http://iamachristiantoo.org/?p=194 points out that the rejection of evolution is based on fear, not faith
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/07/creationism_sna_2.html has something to say on the rejection of reality in the name of faith
http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/118585.html on the matter of God performing tiny continuous miracles to keep the universe afloat, and why this is a lame idea.
