Evolution v creation why is either one correct? be scientific!!! why is one wrong?

Answer 1

you cannot be scientific in explaining creation.

Answer 2

Interesting question. I think I shall begin with the methods of reaching these ideas.

Theories are made to explain facts and to make future predictions. To lead up to theories takes mountains of evidence and scrutiny over time. The scientific method is used. It is important to realize theories are NOT facts. Theories are always open to change when legit evidence is suggested. Evolution is a mechanism to explain the continuation of life and can be used to predict other outcomes. It undergoes scrutiny by the scientific community. Creationism/Intelligent Design does not seem to work this way. First, it cannot be used to make predictions. The answer is always, that is how things were made. Secondly, at least some of the creationists do, do not submit their findings to the scientific community but rather straight to school systems through political connections (check out Dover trials). Admittedly, there are creationists who are not religious but actually provide evidence that evolution may not be the mechanism. I cannot speak against their evidence for I do not have the refuting evidence to state their cases are wrong but some answers have been provided to disprove some of the points that creationists bring up (Irreducible Complexity, Blood clot system, bacteria flagella).


The point I am trying to make is that, science leaves the door open for further scrutiny. It should not be stated that so and so theory is correct just because we came up with it. Accompanying a theoretical statement should be evidence or references to support it so that it does not become a "I think I am right and you are wrong" battle. From the scientific point of view, claims should be made with evidence to support it.

Another point is, science is not final in its discoveries. Some things cannot be explained by science because we lack the capability to research it. But what science does not know can only be answered with, " I dont know." Better to admit not knowing than making a definitive "I know" and be wrong about it.

Evolution is not 100% as there are missing links but just because evolution has holes, doesn't make creation correct. They are not mutually exclusive. However, what does not bring down evolution will only strengthen it as a theory. More evidence, the better.

Answer 3

Both ideas of the origin of life have many supporters, and even a few in between. Much research has been done by supported of both sides, yet honostly what you believe as correct is all about opinion, because neither can be directly proven, though evolution is more supported by scientific research through fossil records, mathematical analysis, and comparisons with the current organisms. Creation is something regarded as religious, since it assumes a supernatural being, something physically impossible to falsify, and since impossible to prove right or wrong, is attacked by scientists (ironically since they cannot prove it). The only scientific proof a creationist can use is proof that evolution did not occur, which is the goal of most Intelligent Design groups, often using the arguement of "irreducible complexity."

Answer 4

I would have to say evolution simply because of genetics. If tall people kept breeding more than short ones the race would become taller. Creation is a nice concept but I like to think the human race has improved itself in some way. Genocide also proves the evolution theory in that if you kill all the strong of a nation you will be left with a weaker gene pool and wipe the race out.

Answer 5

Lets put one thing straight first.
PURE Science and PURE Religion do not contradict each other
Evolution is a Scientific THEORY it is NOT Pure Science.
God has Created Rules and follows them.
God is Logical he does not contradict himself.
There is only ONE True Religion.

Evolution is a theory that all living creatures evolved from some a common evolutionary ancestor.
Evolution also states that this creature evolved from rocks and rain. the reverse steps are
animals and plants - single celled organism - prehistoric cell and mitocondria and chloroplasts - ooze that contains building blocks of life - rocks and acid rain - lava and gases from volcanoes.
that is what unpure-science claims you evolved from
Evolutionary Theory also is missing too many pieces to make a detailed map or picture. like making a puzzle with only 0.1% to 1% of the pieces. doesn't work period.

and since religion gives the only other alternative i'll have to go with the belief that we ARE created by God.
after all how does a quatinary biological programing language (DNA) that works actually come into existance by accident.
there is too much order in the universe for it to have just happened.

Answer 6

To be honest you are asking us to discuss two separte concepts with the same language. Evolution is a THEORY (which I happen to accept) that links organisms found historically in the geologic record with what we find today in the world. The idea being that evolutionary scientists are trying to find the origin of life on earth. Creation on the other hand is an entirely religious idea as is Intelligen Design. The individuals who accept these ideas primarily use the bible as their filter for viewing the creation of life on earth. Because of the way these ideas are viewed, there is no way to scientifically compare Creationism and Evolution. The only way to compare them is from the standpoint of those who accept evolutionary theory as a religious idea saying that God had nothing to do with the creation of the world and life on it. As both a Christian and a Geologist, I accept Evolutionary theory, because it fits the information we find in the Natural Revelation (the world around us) and my interpretation (which could be wrong) of Special Revelation (the bible). The reason that one, or both has to be wrong is that they are opposite each other regarding the ultimate origin of life on earth. I think that any scientist would be hard pressed to look at the world around us and say that there is no God who has had his hand in the works; however, we have no way to prove it scientifically.

I will add my two cents on Creationism and Intelligent Design while I am at it. Creationism is to me blind to the world around us that God created. The Bible does not trump the world arounds, only our interpretation of it, which can be flawed as can our interpretation of the bible. In my mind Creationists are the ostriches of the world, burying their heads in the sand to prove their faith.

My problem with intelligent design is different. While I agree with many of the things believers of this are saying, I feel that many of them are Creationists in disguise. What I see is people saying that because we dont yet know how something works or in this case evolved, we cannot know it and therefore it must be due to the direct intervention of God. To say that because we do not know something , we cannot know it is the height of human arrogance and very much a lack of faith in God.

I dont know if I answered your question, but I hope that I offered some insight.

Answer 7

The Cambrian fossill record shows most of the main kinds of animals existed together as well as bacteria with NO repeat NO predecessors in the fossil record. Best explained by Creation
since evolution doesn't really even try to explain it.

Absolutely NO and I mean NO observable method that allows one kind of animal to turn into another. NOT natural selection, NOT mutation, NOT puncuated equilibrium, Nada, Zilch.
Evolutionists can theorize all they want but thats not proof.

The most simplistic organism is a bacteria requiring 600 protiens of which each protien has 100 ammino acids. So all 60,000 ammino acids must link up in a specific order and how can the protiens exist if they need all 100 amino acids to be present? Creation is the best answer.

DNA is the worlds most complex code and even with supercomputers it has not been all decoded. It is not possible to get a random sentence of a code to be written by itself (only in the theoretical realm where eveything is possible) much less a series of information that takes up volumes of an encyclopedia set. Again, creation by a super intelligenceisa better explanation.

There are built in limits in breeding animals or cross breeding plants. You get variations but always breeding dogs brings about just dogs and cross breeding plants brings about just plants. Evolution loses here again.

Back to DNA. It regulates how something will grow and therefore nothing will grow into something different than the same kind of thing being grown. Evolution loses again.

Mutations are a result of a loss of biological information in a cell but there is no way that new advanced information can be created in a cell which would be needed for something to be able to change into something else.. Windows 98 did not mutate into windows XP. A computer programer designed the upgrade as well as the first. Evolution loses again.

The only true OBSERVATION about evolution is micro evolution (small change) where one kind of animal or bacteria can change or "evolve" but it stays the same in kind. The Aid's virus keeps changing but it remains a virus. Dogs are related to wolves but you'll never get a pig from them. Evolution is supported here but ONLY as far as microevolution goes which is not Darwinism. Creationists accept micro evolution.

We are really talking about "Darwinisim" not being true when we talk about evolution. Mciro evolution is factual but don't get fooled by someone who says that evolution is a fact when they are really talking about macroevolution (big change as in a dog changing into pig) which is "Darwinism".

I think thats a good sample and please note that I did not really quote from the Bible (which I do believe in strongly) to show that empirical science goes against Darwinsm.

To those who quote the talkorigens website for rebutal- there are so many satements made there that "suppose" certain things have happened. And to say that not all science uses observation is to undermine the Scientific method which is necessary to verify findings especially in the boilogical area. Again no explanations are given for how the Cambrian strata of fossils arrived there- at least I don't see any and any answer would be speculation anyways because it was in the past when no one was wrote about it. All of those various fossils of different phyla found together are best explaned by catastrophism (probably the world flood) since fossils are generally found after they have been covered by sediment (water and soil or rock). A few years ago several cases of speciation was reported by different scientists. It turns out now that they exagerrated their claims and so when some Darwinists come out with new claims it is often best to wait till cross examination of their findings is possible to get the right information. This is where the scientific method also comes in handy. So we have to ask Darwinists, do they accept the Scientific Method? If not then they are outside the realm of empirical science and have entered into PHILOSOPY.

Answer 8

There simply is no question among serious scientists that evolution and natural selection are among the most important intellectual achievements in human history. "Creation science" is an oxymoron which has no real meaning. The Christian Bible is a beautiful document and a wonderful story, but as science it is complete BS.

"The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

" Nevertheless, the teaching of evolution in our schools remains controversial. Some object to it on the grounds that evolution contradicts the accounts of origins given in the first two chapters of Genesis. Some wish to see "creation science"--which posits that scientific evidence exists to prove that the universe and living things were specially created in their present form -- taught together with evolution as two alternative scientific theories."

"Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. And most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins."
The National Academy of Science

"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years; it has documented many specific events in evolutionary history; ... The methods, concepts, and perspectives of evolutionary biology have made and will continue to make important contributions to other biological disciplines..."

Answer 9

The fact that evolution has occurred is completely and totally proven by the fossil record. Fossils of millions of species have been found, from 100's of millions of years of history on earth. They show evolution of form.

Creatonists take two fossils and say aha! where is the missing link between these two? When it is found they say aha! but where is the missing link between that one and the first one. They constantly change the rules to try to create the impression of their being significant gaps in the fossil record that disproves evolution. There are not! Take a step back and look at the history of life on earth and you see nothing but evolution.

Added to this is an overwhelming abundance of other evidence for evolution (see link 1).

Creationism is a deception by some desperate american fundamentalist christians. It is NOT science. They continue to espose false and disproven claims, with the aim of deception, or because they are ignorant of science and have been decieved themselves. Link 2 refutes a lot of them.

Scientists have no need to believe that evolution is true, yet 99.99% of paleontologists and biologists do. In contrast, fundamentalist christians have a desperate need to believe that evolution isn't true.

Answer 10

Evolution has been demonstrated time and again with primitive life in labs. However, the mechanism behind evolution (ie, natural selection) is still up for debate.

Creationism was an attempt to explain where we come from by people living thousands of years ago.

Answer 11

lmoa..
no one can say that either is "wrong" or positively "right".. i personally have no idea what i 'know' but ibelieve in evolution... there is the whole cromagnum-neandrethal man thing.. evolution doesnt say that we come from monkeys,, monkeys can be a completely seperate species.. but can you really say that ape men were.. they are just like us.. just bigger and uglier.. is that persuasive evidence?