evolution vs. creationism?

Question

is anyone else offended with the notion that creationism could pass as a scientific theory?

Answer 1

Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.

Evolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.

There is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

There are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.

Let me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

I would say go to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.

Answer 2

Creationists always want to equate the status of evolution with that of creationism. The problem with this is that evolutionary theory is a predictive theory with an absolutely vast catalog of evidence that agrees with it. Creation theory is not a theory, it is a fable, which has no evidence at all to back it up, just the conjecture that "oh...gee...stuff is complicated. How about if it all just magically came to be by some process we can't possibly figure out." Takes a lot of the pressure off the old noodle doesn't it. To say that belief in either one requires faith is intellectually dishonest. Blind faith, in the absence of a scintilla of evidence is the realm of religion alone. Oh, and there is no actual debate on this among actual scientist, that is, people with a doctorate in something other than divinity.

Answer 3

YES! I don't think creationists really understand what science is, and they certainly don't understand what evolution is. There is no other explanation for arguments like "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and "If evolution is real, how come pigs can't fly?" (I swear to God, I saw that in a Creationist pamphlet once.)

My favorite argument is the one that says evolution is "only a theory", and so it shouldn't be believed. I suppose nonscientists can be forgiven for not knowing that in science, a theory is actually a statement with a lot of evidence backing it up, and a hypothesis is what most people think of as a theory. But what makes me laugh is their assertion that evolution hasn't been proven, so creationism must be true. After all, you've got a two-thousand-year-old book written when science was nonexistent and mental illness often went undiagnosed. What more proof do you need?

Answer 4

Yes, creationism should not be passed as a theory, since a theory is ALWAYS proven with EVIDENCE!! There is no scientific evidence for creationalism.... So how can it be called a theory?

Evolution on the other hand, is backed up with an assortment of scientific evidence. From the fossil record, to biodiversity, its impossible to ignore evolution, as creationalists choose to do.

Answer 5

Creationism is not Science therefore it should be taught in a separate class...

If things can't be explained by Science it doesn't mean it's not the Truth...

In fact, there's NO evidence of Evolution at all... The fossils that have been found don't explain evolution - How can you explain the "Homo Erectus" have evolved into "Home Sapiens" which have evolved into "Humans"? No one can.... which is why there's a big hole about the "Mechanism of Evolution"

Evolutionist strongly believe that Evolution took place yet they can't explain of "How it evolved" - No evidence that can prove the "Natural Selection" is valid....

An Evolutionist once said that a dozen of Blue Flies were exposed to radiation in the Lab, days later, their offsprings looked so different and so Evolution was at work.... My question is: Young children in Ukraine who were born with one eye, no limbs, big skull, big tumor at back, thyroid cancer, etc... caused by the exposure of radiation from the Chernobyl Nuclear disaster is an evidence of Evolution?

Bottom Line:
We really don't know the whole Truth - No one can explain of how life had begun...
Believing in God is a "Personal Issue" - you don't need evidence to believe in Him...

As a Creationist, I'm also a Science Rat...

Cheers :)

Answer 6

I answered this question on my wifes account under Kathryn and got shot down. I just wanted to add that their is still huge debate going on right now with Christian scientist(Theres a lot more than you think, not just Dr. Ken Hamm) and evolutionist. There are also a lot of middle grounders using "Inteligent designer" because they dont want to cross over to the side of "God made the universe theory". Even when I was not a Christian evolution seemed pretty bonk with no solid evidence. Yeah I looked and read and did my own research on both sides. Even back then I looked around and saw a creator not a form of brilliant evolution. Things are pretty biased but feel free to do more of your own research, rather than listening to what youve been told. Im not mad, just concerned at some of the answers back that seemed relatively uninformed of the facts available for both sides.---Ben Wheeler

Answer 7

There is nothing scientific to back up creationism. Not a single thing. Prove to me that there is a god that had some hand in putting us here, and I'll consider creationism. Until then, there is more evidence pointing towards evolution.

Answer 8

I personally would love to shoot and stab anyone who believes creationism is a "science". But let me make cogent argument before the Feds come to track me down ;-P

Where's the scientific method? You know, the most basic science thing you ever learn? Your hypothesis about the world being created by God: okay, but where's the proof that led to that hypothesis? And how are you going to test it fools? Creationism by God blindly ignores facts. I mean come on, the Bible says the world is around 4000 years old. OOOOKAYYY.

But the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's another story.
http://www.venganza.org/

Answer 9

I'm very offended. Creationism is part of a religion and is NOT a scientific theory, therefore it has no right to be in science classes. I would have no problem with it being taught in religious education classes though, as long as it is taught as part of a belief system, and not as fact.

Answer 10

No because a lot of scientist are saying there is a lot of problems with the theory of evolution and they dont want to say God did it but the new politically correct term is like creative designer or something like that. It sounds like the debate is just getting started because of new scientific study based on genes and mutation. Besides they didnt say scientific fact they said theory the same as evolutionary theory. Both take faith, science will eventually prove one and discount the other.