Evolution or creationism?

Question

personally i support evolution but i have a debate coming up at my school and would like to hear what some other people think. if you could please back up your opinions with facts and present a valid argument, not just "it's creation cuz god says so".

Answer 1

Evolution.
Too much to explain here, but here are some of my favorite sites.

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/misconceptions.shtml
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/faq.shtml
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml
http://www.creationtheory.org/
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/02/16/the-differences-between-science-and-faith/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wellingtongrey.net%2Fmiscellanea%2Farchive%2F2007-01-15+--+science+vs+faith.png&frame=true (Can't help but include this.)

And a good book: "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism" by Tim M. Berra

Answer 2

Well if provability is important to you then creationism is completely out the window. It is an assertion made religious folks and based on a story from an old book. There is positively no evidence to support it as fact. To believe it requires faith and a strong affinity for supernatural beings. Evolution on the other hand has no agenda. It's not some dogmatic statement that claims to know the alpha and the omega. It's a theory that has developed based on observable evidence. It is flexible enough to adapt to new evidence that in discovered. Try saying that about creationism.

Answer 3

You can "consider" some thing you desire to, adding that evolution is a "faith." However, believing anything does not make it actual. I neither consider nor disbelieve in some thing. I take the whole thing as conditionally actual or conditionally unfaithful situated at the proof and arguments for or towards. One of the main variations among evolution and faith is that the previous calls for best the normal global, while the latter calls for a entire supernatural realm of God and Satan, demons and angels, djinns and afreets, and something different spirits a certain faith chooses to populate that realm with. In a personal and/or parochial university, I haven't any drawback with faith being taught. I attend a personal Catholic university, and despite the fact that I am now not a believer, I haven't any drawback with the faith publications (2) that I am required to take. However, that toleration ends with regards to public faculties, which might be paid for with taxpayer greenbacks, and which scholars need to attend with out alternative, and irrespective of their devout or religious ideals. Further, even as it can be actual that some of the Founding Fathers have been Christians (despite the fact that a number of the such a lot outstanding weren't), this nation used to be in no feel situated at the Christian faith. That isn't hypothesis, however is naturally enunuciated in files such because the Treaty of Tripoli (I'll go away it to you to appear that up). The thought of "freedom of faith" approach now not best the liberty to train your faith, however the freedom from having another faith compelled upon you. This could be precisely the case within the situation you describe, with public faculties educating categories on Christianity. This could be tantamount to an status quo of faith, that is expressly forbidden through the First Amendment to the Constitution. I understand you believe that evolution is one way or the other a "faith," however it isn't so through any ordinary definition of that phrase. It takes greater than "believing in" anything to qualify it as a faith. And except, as I have already famous, accepting the truth of evolution does now not require perception.

Answer 4

Evolution is describing a self-contained process of nature. Creation is describing a created process of nature. There is a point where they can "theoritically" come together, i.e. God creating nature to be self-contained. It makes sense, to me at least, but some people don't like it because it is not observable, duplicable. But I say, every time I think about it, it makes sense to me, evolution and creation one and the same, in perfect harmony, just two ways to describe the complexity of the univesre.

Answer 5

I do not firmly side with either since I have not greatly studied the matter, but my school's instruction of Evolution was so poor that I do not have any logical evidence to support it, the only defense I can say is, "Many scientists believe it" but since scientists have trouble predicting the weather tomorrow I do not think that is a very credible source. I've only read one book defending Intelligent Design and its arguments were convincing but much of it was far over my head, I began to merely scan it once it started talking about microbiology. Too scientific for me. I prefer history.

Answer 6

There is no issue here.

Possibly something to bring up.

Consider Quantum physics, no-one is pushing for Newtonian physics to be taught in schools and university as if it is truth, it is a useful approximation but Quantum theory has superceded it. I never see religious types questioning a theory which is nowhere near as supported by the facts as is evolution. Creationism is an emotional response by people who have their certainties threatened is not science and has nothing to support it, not one honest Biologist in a thousand rejects evolution.

Answer 7

I asked a question on this yesterday about a bucket of dirt and was told that it dealt with abiogenesis.
(This is what a shovel of dirt has)
Each shovel of soil holds more living things than all the human beings ever born. Lots of species are still waiting for scientists to identify and name them. This is a world where fungi lay traps for thread-like worms. Bacteria dine on toxic chemicals. The smaller the creature, the stranger are its habits

Evolution deals with single cell. There are plenty of single cells in dirt.

But no one who agreed with Evolution could give me an answer, so I'm with Creationism

Answer 8

All the following have been proven to be true by man and his own science ! Fact : Matter cannot create itself from nothing ! Fact : You cannot create order out of disorder ! Fact : Knowledge cannot create itself from nothing ! Fact : In order for knowledge to exist at all , there had to be an originator of knowledge ! Fact : You can only increase knowledge from knowledge that already existed in the beginning of creation ! Fact : Man and his science til` this day cannot create a DNA molecule , which is the building block of all life on earth as we know it , so it had to be created as order can`t be created out of disorder ! Fact : Man and his science also knows that a protein molecule can only be created from another protein molecule , again , had to be created by knowledge that existed from the beginning ! All these facts are here for one to see that the random theory of evolution has no basis. When all is said and done , it all goes back to the originator of all things in Genesis 1 : 1.. In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth

Answer 9

I personally believe in both, although my creationism isn't the Biblical version.

If you do have an omnipotent being, who needs to create a proverbial watch, obviously that watch is going to have gears. To create a perfect being, mechanisms need to be in place to make sure that perfection endures over time. How can a species with no mechanism to adapt to a changing environment be perfect? What's perfect for one setting may be a hindrance in another.

Answer 10

A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.



For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred - natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.



The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, "For 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" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."



Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.



However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject Creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a "scientific" explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."



If Creation is true, then there is a Creator to Whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the “religion” of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, "scientific" explanations of fools.