Is Darwinism more reasonable or Creationism more logical?

Answer 1

There's tons of evidence against Darwinism, while Creationism has never been really proved wrong. People simply choose not to believe in Creationism, and they think that is enough. There is a piece of evidence against Darwinism that shows there had to be something that created at least the smallest organism. Although i forget what it was called (it was a couple years ago), basically it shows how the smallest organism, the flagella, is way too complicated for it to evolve from a simple cell. A flagella is a single-celled organism that uses a tail to move around, rotating it at high speeds like a propeller. Further investigation of the tail idicates that it is made up of many many parts, almost 50. Darwinism and natural selection states that each of those part would have had to come in the exact sequential order, at exactly the right time in the organism's history. If the actual tail were to come before the motor that runs it, the tail would have been rejected as "uneeded" and there would never be a flagella, at least for millions of years. There had to be something that created the tail, and everything else as well.

Answer 2

A great question, one that Darwin's idea went to court to defend. Creationism, is of course, a philosophy or belief, and Darwinism is a theory or science. Everything in the heavens, in the earth, and in all the dimensions of physics was created by a power or system that can be resourced to the idea of Creation. It is hard to argue against the fact that a pure unstoppable energy spit out what is in front of us today.
Darwinism relates to the evolution, or development of any and all species, including elements, plants, and animals. Evolutionary science points out the beginning of involvement and in many cases predicts the end. (Note that in some cases interference can prolong and indeed reverse the end.) Recent science has shown us a rapid unfolding of facts that consistently changes evolutionary history, and brings us to a newer preception and a clearer reality of evolution.
It seems that Creationism and Evolutionism are in the same arena. It took creation to start evolution. Creation, from the pure energy, did not take hold and then stop. It continued to move and to evolve.
Certain idealogy will present it as Creationism vs. Evolutionism. Hard liners on either side restrict vision and deny discovery. Many scientists in the field admit that each side must be considered and neither side can be denied. As well, many theologians agree that the discovered facts of evolution cannot be denied.
To answer your question: Both Darwinism (Evolution) and Creationism are reasonable and logical in light of our present preceptions of reality.

Answer 3

You have left out another option -- both can be correct, as they are not mutually exclusive.

Creationism says that God created man out of sand (or dirt, depending on the respective interpretation). Without the use of modern scientific devices and theories offering up electron microscopes and particle physics, the smallest unit that can be used as a common representation of a particle (be it an atom or a molecule) is a grain of sand -- so, the use of such a metaphor within Creationism is quite appropriate, and demonstrates a sincere level of thought for that era.

The only difference between Evolution theory and Creationism (which has suffered a mild transformation in the form of the current push for Intelligent Design), is that Evolution further explains the aspects of the time involved to change the individual molecules into the complex being that we call a human. Evolution is by definition, change over time. Creationism does no address time in a specific nature -- the "days" in the Bible are not necessarily 24hr periods, but are themselves metaphors for a segmented time framework.

Although Creationism can be thought of as a condensed version of Evolution, it was never meant to go much further than to show that humans are an intrinsic part of nature, created from its very basic structures. With its many flaws, Evolution is currently the best tool we have to dive deeper into the process by which God created mankind.

Lastly, please do not refer to the general Evolution theory as Darwinism. Although Darwin made some significant contributions, and provided a healthy source of debate, he is only one of many, many contributors to the field, and he was not the first. Modern Evolution theory does not fully subscribe to the points that Darwin provided.

Answer 4

Darwinism is not the opposite of Creationism that your question implies. The opposite of Creationism you are looking for is Evolution. Creationism and Darwinism can co-exist.

Darwinism, simply stated, says that "The fittest survive". For the most part, in the natural world, this is true. In human society, however, this is a very subjective statement. We take care of our week, for good or bad.

So to the letter of your question, an answer is not possible. Those that do answer it, are clueless.

Answer 5

Both alternatives can co-exist. If you define creationism as the "creation of the universe" and not the earth, then one doesn't eliminate the other possiblity.

In fact, if you look at the big bang, you can see it is a lot like a seed that was planted. A seed can produce many things, and have many alternatives as an outcome. Thus you can evolution and a creation.

Now creation, as in a wholly constructed Earth in seven days. Not bloody likely.

Answer 6

Well Darwinism is fantasy land and Creation from the hand of God more logical..

Answer 7

Darwinism rocks. It is so very logical. But all these religious stuff about creationism doesn't even prove anything. Just look around yourself, everything there is, has evolved.

Answer 8

Darwin's actual theories had a lot of things that didn't make sense. However, his ideas lead the way for what is the current theory of evolution. It is a lot easier to look at the world around you and see how different species were able to adapt and evolve than to think that everything just magically appeared. The whole concept of God or a god just doesn't make any sense to me. It makes sense that people hundreds of years ago came up with a god concept in order to explain what they didn't understand...but now we have a good explanation, and people are still hanging on to the "magic" theory. I don't get it.

Answer 9

Dear XYZ,

Creationism is the truth. If Darwinism is correct, then how come we do not see it occurring? Everything was created after its kind and that is why, we cannot cross apes and humans, or reptiles and birds, or horses with donkeys, and get viable, reproducing progeny.

Answer 10

Creationism is only logical if you firmly believe in the literal translation of the bible. Oh wait, aren't there two stories of creation in Genesis? Hmmm...