why debate evolution and creationism both are theories? neither is science.?

Question

unless you were there you cannot know for sure.

since carbon dating is not accurate how do we know the age of fossils?

science is observation if you look though a powerful telescope you can see evidence of the big bang which in my opinion is proof that creation is a valid theory

Answer 1

the fossil record and the geological record is all the proof needed for evolution (no, it's no longer just a theory). If you need more proof, evolution has been observed in primative organisms as well...organisms that live short lives and thus spawn many generations in a short time span.

creationism...well, that's a matter of "faith"

Answer 2

The word theory is a common misconception to the general public. To a scientist, a theory is a hypothesis which has shown to be true by numerous observations and repeated experiments, and is thus, accepted by the VAST majority of scientists in the field. That does not mean that there are no questions still to be answered. Scientists also talk about the Theories of Plate tectonics, Special Relativity, etc. of which there is no dispute. The only dispute for evolution is due to religion.

To the public, theory means someting that is doubted (an guess). This is certainly not true with evolution. On the other hand, there is no evidence (either observations or repeatable experiments) to support creationism. It is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word-just faith in a book written many years ago.

Answer 3

Well they are both theories, but evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is a religious theory.

There's a lot of debate about this precisely because no one will ever know for sure. If we could prove absolutely that one theory was true, we would teach it and there wouldn't be anymore debate about it.

However since we can never know for sure what the correct answer is a lot of proponents of creationism or intelligent design like to have their theories added to scientific curriculum regarding the origin of life.

But, while evolution can never be proven absolutely, it is the only scientific theory describing the origins and progression of life on this plant and has stood up to roughly a century of scientific scrutiny. (It's about as much in doubt in the scientific community as the theory of gravity, which can also never be proven absolutely.) Teaching evolution along side creationism, which is a religious belief, or intelligent design which is a hybrid of the evolutionary and creationist theories, devalues the rigorous scientific testing evolution has been put to.

So most scientists will tell you they are against creationism or intelligent design, because they're against teaching it in science classes; while most creationists will tell you they're being persecuted by the scientific community because they aren't teaching it alongside the scientific theory.

Answer 4

I asked this question in the philosophy section and I was wanting a creationist view point. So, if the creationist won't go to the question I will bring the question to you.

What do you think scientists are doing? Do you think scientist are hiding away evidence or misinterpreting it? Do you honestly believe that a person of science does not want to be well known for discovering the evidence that disproves evolution? We teach of Boyle and Einstein and you assume that all other scientists today do not want generations of people to learn the theory of their namesake in the future. Moreover, science is always willing to change and take on new ideas. They come around all the time. So if an idea was thought through and has support, it is accepted. If it wasn't there would not be volumes of scientific journals.

Answer 5

While evolution happens over time scales that are impossible to observe, the process does leave behind amply evidence of it having occured. So, you are quite wrong in thinking there is equal relevance to evolution, a scientific theory founded upon and backed up by evidence, and creationism, a religious fantasy with no scientifically valid evidence.

Answer 6

Creationism is not a theory. It is a myth. There is no evidence whatsoever for "creationism", only beliefs.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution in the fossil record. There is also new DNA evidence which supports the fossil record.

Do you believe there is such a place as, say, Moscow, if you have never been there to see it? Do you believe diseases are caused by germs even if you have never seen one?

Answer 7

Okay, the short answer is that you're wrong. Really wrong. The long answer is below. And kudos for the creativity man. If you have any more "original" questions, they're answered at the site that I cite.


"Claim CA221:
(In response to any claim about the history of life) Were you there?
Source:
Ham, Ken. 1989. Were you there? Back To Genesis 10a (Oct.), http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=670
Response:
Yes, because "there" is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today.


If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.


A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim baseless (tentatively, as someone else may be able to answer). If the answer is subjective -- for example, if it rests on the person's religious convictions -- you know that the claim does not necessarily apply to anyone but that person. If you can not understand the answer, you probably have some studying to do. If you get a good answer, you know to take the claim seriously."

FURTHERMORE:

"Claim CA610:
Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 196-200.
Response:
Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.


How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.


Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.


Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.


Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
Links:
VonRoeschlaub, Warren Kurt. 1998. God and evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
References:
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. 1982. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
Ruse, Michael. 2000. Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. National Post, 13 May 2000. http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/A/eyring_2_2.htm
Sober, Elliott and David Sloan Wilson. 1998. Unto Others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. "

Answer 8

Creationism is mythology and a celebration of belief in the supernatural. It has no basis in science and is outside any reason for debate as it is accepted as faith (for some reason).

Evolution is a "scientific theory" (and a beautifully elegant one at that!), of similar scientific credibility as gravity....another example of a scientific theory.

PS....radiological dating techniques are actually very accurate and we know the age of fossils through those techniques as well as other methods (what rock layer they were found in, etc.). That is actually an interesting aspect of "Creation science"...apparently, oddly enough, they don't believe in radioactivity! Presumably because there was not a large discussion of radioactive decay in the Bible....or was there, did I miss it?

Answer 9

Evolution is a scientific theory. There is considerable observational evidence for it.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no evidence for it. None whatsoever. Zip zero zilch nada bupkes.

End of debate.

Answer 10

Actually no, evolution is a scientific theory where as creationism is a hypothesis at best. Evolution is science and science based, and creationism isn't.