How plausible is evolution as compared to creationism?

Answer 1

Romans 1 v. 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Answer 2

I don't know how far we've come in the study of abiogenesis (the beginning of life on Earth), but biologists are confident we will be able to explain it in the future.

But evolution is not just slightly more plausible than creationism; it is the only scientific theory that is consistent with the evidence! It was a strong theory that put it all together when Darwin introduced it; it predicted DNA as carrier of genetic information; and it has steadily gained evidence ever since and is now one of the most solid scientific theories! Compare that to creationism, which works the other way (deduction first; then you select the evidence that happens to support it and ignore the rest).

Answer 3

Some say creationism is a 'theory'. I disagree. In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. For scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. Creationism (i.e. intelligent design) has none of this. It is a fairie tale, a work of fiction, a myth. Evolution is not only more plausible, logical, and reasonable....it is proven fact. While we may never know completely the full extent of evolution, it is without doubt a fact.

Answer 4

First: I'm actually both a scientist and a devout and practicing Christian, so I firmly believe that science is me studying what God created, so I see the two as connected.

First off: "Evolution" is way to wide of a term to lump into one category with a simple yes or no.

From my perspective: If, by "Evolution," you mean the idea that organisms grow and change over time and adapt to surroundings, I would say that YES, that is true. Not only is it a proven scientific fact, but it is supported by the Bible. We have Africans, Europeans, Asians, etc.. people living in all parts of the world, and they all look VERY different. Yet the Bible says they came from TWO PEOPLE. Two people that looked one way, yet their ancestors spread out all over the earth and their appearance changed and grew. Evolution in the Bible? Yes it is.

However if you mean "evolution" meaning the idea that the earth formed itself, and there is no God, no creator, but life just "arose" on it's own, then that's a little more difficult.

Second: On creation. The Bible says that God created mankind from the dirt, or dust of the ground. Well, hundreds of years ago they thought that biological material (ie, human flesh) was some magical material, that totally different from any other non-living material. Well, we found out through SCIENCE, that flesh is nothing but carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, Water, iron, salt, etc... you get the picture. The same materials that are in the dirt. So we ARE made from dirt.

So if by "Creationism" you mean, "God formed man out of dirt,"
And by Evolution you mean, "The dirt slowly came together on its own and just formed itself into a man, but it took millions of years, so that makes it possible."

I think the first is much more logical, plausible, and consistent with what we have observed in the earth. We have never seen spontaneous generation, but we have seen invention and birth.

I think God created living beings, with the ability to evolve.

I'm not saying that it's not a remote possibility for materials in the dirt to form themselves into an organism, I'm just saying that in the last few thousand years that we've been practicing science, we've never seen anything like that happen.

Answer 5

Evolution is more plausible, in a scientific sense. Creationism has the same basis as religion/God, so it will seem infinitely more plausible to believers. The fact that evolution has been proven, in my opinion, makes it not only more plausible, but the only possible option.

Answer 6

The premises behind macro-evolution is fact, any respectable scientist will tell you that. Creationism is impossible, ruled out, with only 3% of scientists still working on it at all, and the number is actually less than that, as that is just the number who are not evolutionists.

Fish please tell me your not serious...
I'm not even going to go into the monkey statement, because that is early high school level biology.

Scientists do not try and disprove religion, their is no bias in science, unlike religion. Of course religions that were made up thousands of years ago will eventually get disproved in nearly all facets, it's common sense. They were working with a limited knowledge of the universe back then.

Answer 7

Evolution is MUCH more plausible. It has evidence to back it up. (Ahem - Fossils!) All creationism has is a book of stories that are just as fantastic as tomes like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

Answer 8

Evolution is a fact. It requires only what we know to exist (DNA, mutation, natural selection, and lots of time).

Creationism is religious mythology. It requires a god and magic, neither of which have been proven.

I guess that makes evolution infinitly more plausible.

Answer 9

Why do you keep harping about such a trite subject ?They are inter-connected in that creation is the Big Bang which nobody seriously denies, irrespective if you believe its cause is random or deliberate as in Genesis, and evolution is what has brought the universe where it is now !

Answer 10

Scientific evidence supports evolution, whereas creation is a common mythical theme among most all religions.