The idea that the account given of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis is literally true can only be embraced by the genuinely ignorant or by those who have auto-lobotomised themselves. If one insists on taking seriously the theological problem raised by interpreting Genesis in a modern context, finding a respectable solution is not hard.
Bearing in mind that for many centuries Christian biblical interpretation began from the position that the meaning of the Bible was allegorical and not literal, it is easy enough simply to claim that the account in which God made the world in six days was never intended to be taken at face value; it is simply a poetic manner of expressing the literally incomprehensible power of the Almightly.
For those who prefer a more 'scientific' approach, one can argue (in a way that is in no sense incompatible with the first view) that modern cosmology and evolutionary theory have only increased our appreciation of the majesty of creation with respect to its subtlety and complexity. Our mathematics, physics, and biology bring us closer to the 'mind of God' and should humble us in proportion as they do so.
There is no need, in other words, for there to be any conflict whatsoever between science and religion if the nature of both is correctly appreciated. What is pathetic, hilarious, tragic, and dangerous all at once is the effort to pretend that they represent mutually exclusive alternatives. It is pathetic, because it involves a refusal to engage with the evidence; hilarious, because of the weakness of the reasons put forward in its defence; tragic, because it will always suffer defeat in a serious intellectual contest; and dangerous, because it holds out the possibility that serious intellectual contests may be eradicated.
Of course, militant atheists also make this mistake; Richards Dawkins is a example here. Even if one does not believe in the truth of religion, one should nevertheless judge it not only by its content but its effects; if it helps people lead lives that are more subjectively meaningful for them, and provides them with a positive and constructive outlet for their energies in the world, then well and good.
In other words, one can accept that the assertions may be literal nonsense and still see some value in the practice itself. One may certainly regard the majority of such individuals as trapped at the level of picture-thinking, but on pragmatic grounds one might as well also leave them be - it is rather mean to disturb them when they do no harm and may even do some good as a result of their beliefs.
But for the creationist, the preservation of subjective meaning within its own sphere is insufficient. They will insist that if there is an apparent conflict between the Bible and the results of scientific inquiry, the former must prevail. Again, this presents a challenge for liberalism, because there is generally no persuading such people of their errors, theological or scientific. It does not matter to them that they are in defiance of all the known findings of cosmology regarding the age of the universe, or that all the ever-increasing fossil evidence in favour of the evolutionary hypothesis counts against them, or that all we know about genetic transmission and the structure of DNA shows their claims to be literally false.
Creationists are not, in other words, analogous to Eritrean tribespeople persisting in immemorial customs; this form of irrationality is actually distinctively modern and Western. It is wilful; it cannot be excused by inherited purity taboos that have come down to them from time immemorial. It is a much more recent development. Unfortunately, in dealing with them, Western governments have not taken the sensible position adopted by the Eritrean government in addressing their own peasants; instead, they have sought to propitiate them. Admittedly, we are faced here with a mutilation of the mind, not of the body; but it is a mutilation nonetheless, a deliberate and self-inflicted wound to the reason.
Apparently Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-Presidential candidate, is on record as believing in the literal truth of creationism. If so, this is yet further evidence of intellectual corruption at the highest levels of American politics and society. Not, it must be said, that any was needed after the cretinous and mendacious tenure of George Bush, who by any account must be the worst American President ever to hold the office. One can only hope that the Americans, who currently suffer more than any other Western society from this insidious sickness at odds with both true piety and true science, have the internal resources to overcome it. Otherwise we may face a return to the very worst aspects of the medieval era (the desperate and futile Catholic defence of geocentrism is the obvious analogy). Indeed, we potentially face a condition of which many of the best minds in the medieval world (such as Aquinas, whose commitment to rationality and logic was exemplary) would rightly have been ashamed.
