Evolution or Creationism, who's right. Neither can be proved 100%...?

Answer 1

A better question is why ask the question.

Growing up in a somewhat conservative environment, I was early exposed the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate. Having a father who was both a minister and a physicist, I was well supplied with books on various angles of the topic. As I've grown older, I've come to realize the full polemic force of the debate, as well as it's destructiveness. As I once commented (somewhat rhetorically), "What purpose does this kind of question serve? Does it heal any wounds? Promote Peace and Good Government? Stop Global Warming?"

I've also, more recently become aware of the sheer artificiality of the debate. Humanists who accuse their Christian opponents of only seeing things in black & white, are guilty of same in setting up a dichotomy between evolution and Biblical literalism. Likewise, even Christians who affirm an interpretive approach to Scripture will dig in their heels in this issue.

Ironically, it was not always this way. I was interested to learn that Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873), said to have made a fool of himself in a debate with Thomas Huxley (accounts of which, turn out to be entirely apocryphal, having been first written 38 years after the alleged encounter), actually was an early reviewer of The Origin of Species, and had no problems with the general principle of natural selection. About his review, Darwin wrote to botanist, J.D. Hooker, that "it is uncommonly clever; it picks out will skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly." (Francis Darwin, "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", ed. 1896, vol 2, Appleton & Co., New York, pgs 117-18)

I was also interested to learn that William Paley (1743-1805), wrote a book called "Natural Theology" in which essentially advocated that all Christians should be scientists, because in Nature, one sees up close God's Handiwork. So why the current antagonism? From what I've been reading, it appears to have been provoked by a number of people with an axe to grind against faith in general and Christianity in particular. The real wedge issue was the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, which was a set-up. The ACLU actually advertised in newspapers that they were looking for someone willing to challenge Tennessee law, which had, in practice, been mostly ignored up until that point. Forty years after the Civil War, it was as much of a States' Rights issue as anything else. The fallout, however, has been devastating, and has done more to solidify the binary nature of the debate than anything else.

I found the following passage particularly interesting:

"Although it has recently become remarkably lively, I would prefer not to participate in the current debate over the logical and empirical status of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, to adequately understand the real basis of the long-standing conflict over evolution, we must see that the aggressive public certitude of Darwinians has been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory. Problems that were obvious even to Darwin have not been overcome after more than 150 years of effort. My reluctance to pursue these matters is based on my experience that nothing causes greater panic among many of my colleagues than any criticism of evolution [1]. They seem to fear that some might mistake them for Creationists if they even remain in the same room while such talk is going on. [T]hat is precisely how "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), hoped intellectuals would react when he first adopted the tactic of claiming that the only choice is between Darwin and biblical literalism. Indeed, Richard Dawkins, who holds a chair at Oxford devoted to the public understanding of science, has frankly asserted that "even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory ... we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories," carefully limiting the latter to the crudest possible Creationism and to antique Lamarckian genetics. [2]

"However, just as one can doubt Max Weber's Protestant ethic thesis without declaring for Marxism, so, too, one may note the serious shortcoming of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory without opting for a six-day Creation, or indeed for any rival theory - modern physics provides a model of how science benefits from being willing to live with open questions rather than embrace obviously flawed theories."

"Evolution and Religion", pg. 176-7 in Chapter 2 of For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark, Princeton University Press, 2003

[1] I was advised by several colleagues that to criticize evolutionary theory would damage my "career". This merely hardened my resolve to suffer no more of this arrogant occultism.

[2] Dawkins, 1986, pg. 287

Answer 2

There really isn't much evidence of creationism, but a lot for evolution. Believing in creationism requires a belief in G-d. Either you accept the concept, or you don't. If you do, you will find any scientific evidence interesting and not proving anything either way. Who is to say that G-d's 7 days wasn't a million years to us. I found that it is easier to believe and just be spiritual rather than be involved in any single religion. Good luck

Answer 3

I see the place you're coming from, yet please understand that evolution is a theory supported by potential of a preponderance of evidence. No actual scientist might say it replaced into one hundred% actuality, it in simple terms has a intense hazard of being maximum suitable. the version between the evolutionary theory and creationism is this: once you follow the belief of creationism or clever layout to it fairly is logical end, you ultimately ought to throw up your hands and say "I incredibly have faith." once you follow the learn of evolution as far as you are able to flow, you (whilst you're a reliable scientist) get your hands busy and say "now what's the nest testable question i will ask to discern this out even further." So it fairly isn't any longer a count of dropping evolution, this is an argument of many times thinking and checking out. the fear-unfastened concepts of evolution are so properly supported by potential of evidence as to be fairly confusing to refute. i think of the actual question that (knowledgeable) human beings have is with reference to the commencing place of existence. This begs the question "what's existence?" i'm no longer even specific, logically, that this a valid question. in simple terms my techniques.

Answer 4

neither can be proved 100% but creationism is faith only,
while evolution at least has some physical proof!

Answer 5

Evolution has an immense amount of evidence to support it while creationism has none, cannot be proven false, and works fine as evolution anyway.

Answer 6

The evidence for evolution is compelling, the evidence for creationism is non-existent....so the debate is over, we have the fossils.

Most fossil intermediates in vertebrate evolution have indeed been found. A clear line of fossils now traces the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans. The fossil evidence of evolution between major forms is compelling.

Answer 7

Creationism can't be "proved" at all. No matter what you might have heard, or what people may post after me, no serious science talks about "proving" creationism. It is merely faith, whereas evolution is Science

Answer 8

Why not both?

Say "someone" created the universe, but the method they used to get us to this point was evolution. Evolution can show us a great path that we took to get to this point, but it cannot show us how it all got started.

So it could be both. Cheers.

Answer 9

That's right, so why discuss it further?