What we have here is failure to communicate

After spending some time now in the Creation vs Evolution debate I noticed a funny thing after a while – the two sides seem to simply not be hearing one another. I have tried to figure out why and here is my theory:

Young Earth Creationist theology is like a tower of bricks. Every belief is like a brick, each one balanced carefully on top of the other, each one in perfect and complete support of one another. Therefore, no brick can ever be moved, removed or shifted in any way because then the entire tower will collapse from top to bottom. That is why every brick must be defended at any cost – because if say there were no dino’s in the ark then you are also saying that Jesus did not die for our sins.

Science on the other hand is more like tiles being laid out to form a mosaic on a floor. Thing is, no one knows exactly what the pattern is supposed to be, but the scientists piece it together as best they can from the data they have (in this metaphor, lets say the shape and colour of the tiles). Now they know its imperfect – in fact they expect it to be – so every now and then they will try rearranging some of the tiles or someone will notice one of the tiles has a flaw and is starting to crack so they remove it and use a new tile in its place. But none of this destroys the entire tile floor. At no point will someone say “Wait, this tile doesn’t work, let’s dig up the whole floor and start from scratch.”

I think the miscommunication arises when one tries to use the tower way of thinking on the tile way of thinking. How many times in these types of discussions do you hear a creationist saying something along the lines of “Hah!! I just moved one of your bricks, now your entire tower has collapsed!!! Lol!!” and then the other side goes “Huh??? What does that have to do with the point I’ve been making??”

Also there is the matter of character and founders. Creationists often attack Darwin, as if destroying Darwin would destroy evolution. Once again this proves that they are using an entirely different paradigm than the people they are debating. Lets say you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Darwin was a drunken racist, does that destroy his theory? No! Honestly, if you were to learn that the inventor of the wheel was a cannibalistic pedophile serial killer would you go back to walking? Surely not! A person’s scientific achievements have nothing to do with strength of his character. Besides, no one follows Darwin – not like Christians follow Jesus. He just made the discovery, he is not the foundation stone the entire field is built on.

Until everyone learns to understand the way the other thinks I think we are all doomed to go around in the same old circles for ever.

Think this is a valid theory? I am open to correction!