I'd like to characterize the opposing sides.
Evolution is an explanation that scientists have arrived at through measurement, experiment and hypothesis. First came the observations, and then came the theory, which was then revised as new information came to light.
Creationism, began with a conclusion ("God did it.") and worked backwards, looking for physical evidence that supports it. It accepts as a given the claim that the bible is completely accurate, and it refuses to probe deeper into a glaring question: "If God did it, who created God?"
Regardless of one's spiritual views it seems to me that the first process I described is vastly more reliable than the second.
I can't think of any other example of a widely held theory that was arrived at backwards. In this sense it seems apparent that creationism is fundamentally tainted, and that an unbiased judge (unfamiliar with both Darwin and Deuteronomy) would have to side with science.
Thoughts?
2007-11-01
22:21:36
·
6 answers
·
asked by
relaxification
6
in
Biology