  Well, I've got no school tomorrow, partially the reason why I'm staying up at 11:30 to blog. Well, SAs are all done. Everything went pretty well, except for Emaths paper 2 and amaths paper 1, not that I'm weak in maths, but surprisingly chinese and chem went pretty well. I'm really very tired, but I'm trying to see how punk it can be to stay up till this hour, while most people my age would have their eyes half-open at 6 tomorrow. Aside from that, I hardly brief you (the reader) on my life inside here, because now I'm in an intellectual mood, so no time for that. I've been reading. One book, it chronicles the discoveries of people trying to find the real age of the world.
And I really can identify myself with some of the guys mentioned. My stand towards "creation science" has been very much darwinist, but more towards theistic leanings. I think I've done a post on this a while back. I have been very much influenced by Rene Descartes, he is, after all, the first darwinist. (that idiot just put his name, no intellectual property rights at Descartes' time. ) Descartes' brand of darwinism or evolutionary creation is very much theistic, and is very much in line with what I believe.
Descartes likened the Earth and God as a clockmaker and his clock. Like the watchmaker analogy I mentioned earlier. God created a clock, but the clock functions by itself, yes, the source is God, but the clock is self-operational, this process in which the clock operates is characterized by cycles. But clocks are static, they move in a predictable, fixed pattern just like a never-ending cycle. There is one flaw about this analogy though, (well, analogies basically aid in delivery nothing more. ) is the fashion in which time moves. I have already given up hope (for the time being) to pursue this branch of metaphysics, because we can never truly define the nature of time, and besides, human beings are pattern-seeking creatures, we tend to seek and derive patterns, for something random or otherwise.
While I cannot support any hypothesis on time (not that I have any at the moment. ), we can never truly define the ontology of time. Ok, after digressing a little, let's back on track. How is the relationship with the clock and the clockmaker? What characterizes a clock are cycles. But what characterizes the Earth? Evolution, evolution characterizes the pattern in which Earth moves. Going back into the ontology of time, well, I can say that it is evolutionary and that's all. Anthropological and paleontological findings would nonetheless prove this to be so.
I don't believe in abrupt creation and appearance, neither do I believe that God fashioned the Earth. God created a mechanism for the Earth and the universe for it to fashion by itself. What characterizes my stand on creation theology and natural philosophy? God did not create the universe in its finest detail but instead, he created a mechanism which allows the universe, including our Earth to create itself, which included the finest details. I have to reiterate my stand here, in no way is my stand atheistic. Creating a mechanism in which the Earth and universe would create itself is definitely more difficult that creating the Earth by itself. Natural or seemingly unnatural or coincidental phenomena used to explain the creation of the universe is in now way accidental.
It is part of a thought out mechanism and this mechanism is designed by an intelligent creator. The universe is like a clock, it moves and functions by itself without any interference with the clockmaker whatsoever. Sure, the clockmaker detects flaws in it and corrects it if it poses a threat to the operation of the entire mechanism. Natural counter-arguments to the design argument are simply highlighting the rusts and the little bit of decolouration or corrosion in the cranks of the mechanism. I don't believe that God intended for the world to be perfect. Maybe I'll elaborate this if I get into aesthetics.
And one more thing I have to highlight. About the bible and creationism. By no means I take the blibical account of creation to be literal. It is simply metaphorical, not as some "moral lesson". But I'm an old earth believer. By stating the creation account to be literal, it is setting yourself up against all accounts of paleontology and biology. The blibical account corresponds with humanist theories of creation, most notably evolution, while the validity of human "creation is still being hotly debated, even within me right now.
And also, some christians do state that the bible talks about the roundness of the Earth. But really the belief that the Earth is flat is in fact some Newtonian bullshit (yes, that guy who came up with gravity thought the Earth was flat, try telling your physics teacher that....), among many others which only led people to believe that the Earth is flat, only for a brief period in history. A great part of Europe believed in that, save for Paris which was progressive in its intellectual pursuits. But people thought the Earth as round before that and after Columbus. The calculation of pi can prove this.
The Israelites, Babylonians as well as people around the Middle eastern region especially were searching for the value of pi. And part of this search included finding the diameter of the Earth, or in their cases estimation. Guess what? The Israelites trailed the furthest back with pi=3, while their counterparts had more accurate calculations, 3.1, 3.12 and the like. The bible is by no means a reliable account for natural philosophy, really, or maybe it boils down hermeneutics. The earth evolved, God did not create the Heavens and the Earth, he indirectly created it. But more accurately, he created a mechanism to facilitate its creation. That's what I believe, and this mechanism is governed by the laws of nature, of physics and the like. 
