The Big Purple Elephant

Mathew Chapman's "God or Gorilla" took a very opinionated approach to the topic of evolution. Though Chapman seems to be very comfortable with having a biased point of view, he does do a good job of representing both sides of the topic. Unfortunately, the Christian side of the case seems to have been outlandish enough not to provide him with much material, but it seems that an attempt was made. What I really enjoyed about the article was not the facts involved, though, or even the stance on the topic that Chapman takes, but the moral underpinnings of the debate in general.
The argument over evolution has been going on for a long time, though recently it has seen a resurgence. While the vast majority of US citizens believe in evolution, the few who oppose the theory are vehement enough that they manage to get heard often, if not taken seriously. Unfortunately for them, the legal system of the United States requires hard as the basis for making decisions, which is much more the science side's expertise. Even so, theory's opposition has strengths as well. For example, it is easy to find places in Darwin's theory where not everything is explained. Scientists hate this fact, and spend hundreds of hours attempting to explain the holes in the theory. On the religion side, however, it is common for those at the forefront of knowledge on the subject to simply shrug, give an excuse as to why they don't know. This is a common practice of religion and is one of the fundamental reasons that religion exists, which is that if something can't be explained, religion will be confused for you.
Chapman spends a bit of time talking about this phenomenon. For example, while interviewing Rev. Groves, Chapman puts a bit of emphasis on the fact that though science admits that it doesn't know things, religion usually also can't explain the chinks in its armor. This is what I find to be most interesting about the debate, and about the article as well. Neither side of the debate is really fundamentally right, as both have their flaws, but while the science side of the argument is focused on itself, the religion side is focused on bringing down the science side. All of this results in a very messy debate, and one never can tell what outlandish claim will happen next.