Darwin yes, but a revelation?

There's no getting around that fact that the work of Charles Darwin is immensely influential in our society today. Whether he is actually right or wrong at this point is practically moot. However, the fact that such powerful conjecture exists creates enough of a schism to make really grease the 'science vs. religion' slope. I have studied the evolutionary theories of Darwin in not only this, but other classes as well, and if there is one observation that I can clearly make, it is that there seems to be no unbiased sides in this argument.
Personally, I have very little in the way of religious beliefs. I had no religious background growing up (save for a youth group that I visited sparsely), and in my maturing years have made no strong connections with any religious affiliation – except maybe Pastafarianism, which is a story for another day. If I were pressed on the issue, I would most certainly fall in favor of Darwin's theories, simply because I favor a reality in which we as a race has created what endowments we now posses through our work, sweat and tears, instead of them being righteous gifts presented to us by a higher power. A sort of self-elitism if you will.
But before we can really question whether or not we are evolving or static, we must first realize just what evolution is, or in this case, is considered to be. As a literary major, I find that a large portion of every argument depends on an individuals accepted definitions. In order to argue with one another and actually make any progress, we have to be clear on the ideals that we argue. Let me make a point now; I understand the theory of evolution to be a process of trial and error, through which living organisms mutate and inadvertently become better adapted to life because of it, therefore creating a sub-species which gains dominance in their environment. Looking through the list of required readings, I found myself to disagree with many of the things considered here to be 'evolution'.
One of the most popular articles on this list (in my opinion, at least) is the piece Is Google Making Us Stupid, by Nicholas Carr. In his article, Carr (and several of his contemporaries) discuss the affects they finds use of the internet to cause. Carr himself states that, “the Net seems to be chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation” (Carr, Is). He suggests, based on personal experience and similar feedback from several other individuals, that the format of research that the internet provides has caused his brain to become 'habitual'. Effectively, he is now particularly suited to reading many smaller, simpler sources, and has become less adept at analyzing larger, more complex works. While this sounds very probable to me, I am not quite sure why it has been included in a list pertaining to evolution. From what we understand, this affect on Carr's brain is no more that a habit or trained pattern. It certainly isn't a mutating of genes, and it clearly isn't occurring at the suspected rate of evolution, which supposedly takes thousands of years. It raises an interesting point, but I don't consider it to be a relevant argument in this context.
Another article I find question with is titled Get Smarter, by Jamais Cascio. Cascio's piece discusses the explosion of a super-volcano which occurred 74,000 years ago, the after-affects of which threatened to wipe out the homo-sapien population. Similar to Carr's article, Cascio suggests a change in the fundamental activity of the human brian occurred because of this eruption. Unlike Carr, however, Cascio asserts that the decision to enact such change was made voluntarily.

According to Calvin, the reason we survived is that our brains changed
to meet the challenge: we transformed the ability to target a moving
animal with a thrown rock into a capability for foresight and long-
term planning. In the process, we may have developed syntax and
formal structure from our simple language. (Cascio, Get Smarter)

While I can readily back the assumption that environmental adversity caused the need for evolution, I find the belief that homo-sapiens made the decision to evolve quite ridiculous. As I stated before, I believe evolution to be a simple mutation becoming an advantage in later generations due to it's unexpected helpfulness. The idea that a group of people might make a collective decision “get smarter” simply would not work, especially 75,000 years ago. Cascio then goes on to apply this to our current position as a society, saying that we may we need to become collectively smarter to deal with looming disasters. This idea seems more probable in the fact that, as a society, we have the means to tinker with ourselves and possibly create the outcome Cascio suggests. But for a people as primitive as early homo-sapiens, to take such initiative seems to me to be more a question of issue of society and understanding than physical evolution.
But more important than any issue of simple mis-communication is the issue of science vs. religion itself. In the article How to Teach Science to the Pope by Michael Manson, one of the issues covered is that of evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins opposition to religion. In the eternity of the article, Manson discusses the Pontifical Science Academy, and those strides that they have been making in the scientific world, despite the accepted stereotype of science and religion being at odds with one another. Several scientific ideas that had once been thought to be contradictory of God are now being reevaluated, and while evolution is still disapproved of, it is a science that many are coming to terms with. When addressing he subject of Dawkins and his book “The God Delusion”, astronomer and planetary scientist for the Pontifical Academy Guy J. Consolmagno was quoted in saying, “He has an excellent reputation as a scientist, but he isn’t a theologian” (Manson, How to).
I feel that, in beginning to find that sort of acceptance, humanity is working twoards a harmony of these two ideas. Earlier in this piece, I said that I was in favor of Dawrin's theories of evolution of religious texts. However, that isn't to say that life itself did not come about because of some higher power. Just because I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve doesn't mean that a God didn't create some form of life, and then allow for evolution to follow in his wake. I guess what I'm getting at is the fact that, while I don't enjoy the idea of being a faithful sheep to a being greater than myself, I can't ignore some of the amazing complexities that exist in the world around me without wondering if they have an designer. To illustrate this, I present to you the following excerpt from the BBC documentary series Planet Earth.



Personally, I find it astonishing that such basic organisms as molds and fungi could possibly become so varied, without some sort of greater guidance. Even in the example illustrated by Cascio; if not evolution, then what spurred the homo-sapien population to get smarter? I see the merits in evolution, and I certainly believe that it should be considered hard scientific law, but if that means that the possibility of a god is taken out of the picture altogether, then I guess I'm really not sure.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. The Atlantic. 2007. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Cascio, Jamais. “Get Smarter”. The Atlantic, July/August 2009. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/intelligence

Mason, Michael. “How to Teach Science to the Pope”. Discover Magazine. August 18, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=