is evolution more credible than creationism?

Question

is there more evidence for evolution or creationism?
(btw, I'm for the first one)

Answer 1

You have touched upon the chicken / egg conundrum. Some may believe that man evolved from lower life forms. That is the crux of where intelligent design gains credibility. This is of course a very plausible explanation for where the lower life forms came from in the first place. That is a question not adequately addressed by evolutionary theories. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to deduce that both theories can coexist and be valid.

Answer 2

First of all,one must compare Evolution to Creationism. Evolution is a theory (as opposed to a fact - Gravity by the way is also a theory, but we consider gravity as fact because we don't all fly off the face of the planet). A theory can be tested through experimentation and/or observation, and only becomes a fact when no evidence to the contrary is found. To date, there are volumes of works concerning genetics, fossils, physiological and embryological studies, etc that do hold it up. At the same time, there are also a number of studies that do not support the evolution. With evidence both for and against Evolution, it will always remain a theory rather than a fact! But to answer your question, because Evolution can be tested, and these tests and results can be replicated, it fits within the Scientific Method of investigation, and therefore IS a credible science. On a side note, while evolution deals with how life has changed and diversified through time, it has NOTHING to do with how life first began! That is still a complete mystery, with some theories in the process of being tested. Creationism by contrast is based on faith. There is no evidence to back it up other then what is present now, and writings in religious scriptures from all over the world - and these stories are incredibly diverse from one another. There are no tests which can be run to confirm or deny the existence of a greater power responsible for creation. Because of these omissions, Creationism cannot be tested via the scientific principle, and as such IS NOT SCIENCE! To answer your second question, certainly there may be more respondents of religious inclination to the contrary. In talking with other's about evolution, I have often been shocked as to how many people truly do not understand the concept, and obviously see it as contrary to their faith. Without an understanding of the basic principles that are applied to any branch of the sciences, many will go on faith just because it doesn't require the lengthy process to observe and test!

Answer 3

If you consider creationism the idea that every species that ever lived was alive when the earth began and no species ever evolved from another, and evolution the idea that species evolved over time from common an ancestors, evolution is far more credible.

If you consider creationism the idea that a superior being intervened with natural inorganic material and processes to create life, and evolution the idea that life began as a random event, then I would say that both ideas are equally credible.

The idea that the earth was created all at once 6k - 10k years ago is ridiculous. The idea that there is no possibility of God, and everything just happened by chance is arrogant.

Answer 4

Yes, there is more evidence for evolution that creationism. That's what makes creationism inconsistent with science. It is based on the authority of a text that was supposedly inspired by a supposed God, whereas evolution is a theory that was proposed to explain observed evidence.

Real scientists keep trying to find out the truth about how nature works. They come up with theories along the way to try to explain the evidence, continuously revising their theories to fit in with new evidence, and it's understood that the theories will change as they learn more. Not so with creationism, which is based on written opinions that are not to be revised or questioned.

But it's still up to the individual whether they choose to believe in creationism, it's just that they can't point to scientific evidence to support it, only that they choose to believe a story that some people wrote.

Added later:
FYI, I don't personally see evolution as inconsistent with creation by God. If God did create everything, He had to accomplish it by some means, didn't He? It might as well have been evolution as some other means. Some think of the biblical account as the only version "available" for those who choose to believe in God as the creator - why should this be so? And there's no point in denying the evidence for evolution as if this will somehow prop up the case for God's existence or power.

The tendency of early societies to invent explanations for natural phenomena makes it easy to see how creation stories arose, and the influence of the church through the ages and people's fear of not conforming easily explain why they endured.

But people are free to choose to believe in something there's no evidence for. I imagine there are plenty of things that we don't have evidence for yet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. However, whatever the belief, it is pointless to pretend there's evidence for it when there's not, or feel pressured to make a case for something that does not stack up :)

Answer 5

There is *no* evidence for creationism, there is only what some people put forward as evidence *against* evolution.
Bear in mind also, that evolution does not preclude the existance of any supernatural creator; it only precludes a *literal* interpretation of the bible!

Evolution is a scientific fact - it just means that populations change in quality over time, and this has been observed time and again, under both laboratory conditions, and "in the field". In fact, it is the basic principle behind breeding of different varieties of animals and plants.

The theory of speciation by natural selection is, as are all scientific theories, not 100% proven (it never can be). But is is the best, and the most widely accepted, scientific theory for the given data.

Answer 6

Evidence for either is usually judged with a bias one way or another. Rocks and fossils do not come with a date stamp on them and dating methods are based on inaccurate suppositions. There is quite a bit of compelling evidence for a much younger age of the earth and solar systems but anything that does not agree with accepted theories is arbitrarily thrown out to protect the theory...it's not very objective. It's all a belief system either way...there's no real proof for evolution from lower life forms to higher life forms and no scientifically observable evidence that life can start on it's own to begin with. You have to believe in the theory of evolution which is merely "naturalism" or the belief that all things happened from a natural rather than a super-natural origin. The impossibility of life starting on it's own is reason to believe in a creator which is becoming more and more evident.

Answer 7

At a risk for getting into a big religious debate, yes. Evolution has some basis in scientific fact. Creationism is only based on belief in the teachings of the Bible and is based on religious faith.

If you believe in science = evolution.
If you believe in the Bible = creationism.

There are people who believe in both (using creationism to explain the Big Bang Theory), but as it stands now, there is no proof that creationism is the way it happened. The Bible is only true if you believe it; there is no proof that it was written thousands of years ago except blind faith.

Answer 8

Credibility is a subjective matter. To me, Evolution is more credible. No need to explain why because it is just subjective.

So I will now answer the question that I wish you would have asked. Which one is the best scientific theory?

A good scientific theory must satisfy the following two requirements:
1. Falsifiable or testable by evidence: There is evidence supporting it and one can imagine evidence falsifying it even if it does not exist at the time.
2. Must make interesting new predictions

Evolution satisfies 1 because there is evidence that supports it such as the fossil record. One can imagine evidence falsifying it, if for example the fossil record contained the same species as we have today. If that was the case, one would have strong evidence against evolution.

It also satisfies 2 because it predicts new things such as: Species adapt to their environment. It is a known fact that antibiotics have led to bacteria that can resist them. Evolution allows us to predict that if we continue to use the same antibiotics or antibacterial agents long enough, we will be responsible for the evolution of bacteria that can resist them. This prediction is currently being experienced.

There is a common biology experiment for medical students where they grow a colony of flies and they proceed to breed the flies for various generations over a course of weeks in order to evolve them towards some traits. This is a prediction of evolution that is observed in college labs every semester.

Creationism is not falsifiable. In order to be falsifiable there would have to be some specific thing one could find that would disprove it. For example: If creationism suggested a specific mechanism by which the "Creator" created things, one could then find evidence of such a mechanism (Say, for example, molds or blueprints, or tooling equipment for making people, or any of the tools that are required for intelligent creation of stuff as we have come to know it) Because creationism does not suggest a specific mechanism then one can neither claim to find evidence supporting it nor denying it. If my version of creationism was the norm, then it would be very easy to show the theory as having no evidence, because there are no blueprints or molds for making creatures that we are aware of. But my version of creationism is fictitious and only useful to illustrate the point.

Creationism does not allow making any new predictions. Such predictions would have to be impossible without creationism and then suddenly become possible with it, and then they would have to be testable and turn out to be true.

It is up to the proponents of creationism to either give it up (as it makes no sense whatsoever) or if they want to, find falsifiable and testable evidence that supports it and find predictions that it makes.

It is commonly claimed by proponents of creationism that complexity can only arise from intelligent creation. Sadly for their theory, this is a good example of falsifiable evidence. I think that a snow flake is a good example of a complex object that turns up that way because of understandable physical principles. The wavy pattern on the sands eroded by winds is another one. The spherical shape of planets is yet another one. Many simple processes can produce complex things. but before we come to understand how they occur, they remain mysterious. So far, it has proven more useful to understand them rather than dismissing their complexity as arising from intelligent creation. As our understanding grows, maybe one day we will understand how the brain works and how life can be sparked from raw materials and lightning.

If none of this logical reasoning convinces you, then here is the one last thing I am going to add: Creationism is one more attempt at shoehorning God into science. It has the feel of a child who is arguing with a parent insisting that there is a monster under his bed, every time the parent presents evidence against the monster the child responds with an excuse: "But my monster is invisible" "It only comes out when you are not here" "It can become very very tiny in an instant" and so on.

this kind of arguing is obviously childish and the result of overactive imagination. There is no monster under the bed, until you can show otherwise.

Answer 9

Creationism has a specific meaning - That is, a lot of Christians take the stories in the bible literally - A lot of people reject the stories because they believe they are meant to be understood literally - Neither Judaism nor Roman Catholicism ( and possibly other Christian denominations) support the idea that the bible is meant to be read in a literal way.......

The accounts of creation in the bible are meant to be allegories... check this out http://www.helium.com/tm/193526/would-respond-sandra-flakes

Anyway - there is a lot of Christians and other religious thinkers who don't see a problem with a world created by God where evolution was/is part of that creative process........................

Answer 10

There's a lot of misunderstanding on this issue. To really understand it and make an intelligent decision requires a willingness to do some research and reading, and a level-headed, open-minded, objective look at the facts. Sadly, these qualities are often absent in those on both sides of the issue.

It particular, most believers in evolution don't realize they haven't been given the whole story. Many think evolution is proven scientific fact, when in fact it's only a theory with alarmingly little scientific evidence to support it, held up mostly by a lot of speculation and unsupportable assumptions. So they end up holding to essentially a religious belief in evolution with virtually nothing scientific to back it up -- ironically, exactly what many of them ridicule creationists for doing.

On the other hand, most creationists think they have to throw science out the window in order to hold their beliefs, when in fact an honest look at unbiased scientific knowledge supports many points of their beliefs.

The vast majority in both groups are only repeating what they've been taught, and have never researched it on their own, taken an objective look at the facts they find, done a little analytical thinking, and come to their own conclusion. I wonder how many will give me a thumbs down for this answer without even bothering to spend a half hour on the link below?

There's lots of good info on the web about this topic. The link below is a good starting point.