evolutionism or creationism? why?

Answer 1

Basically, creationism is a pseudo-scientific mentality where some religious people early on, before the scientific method became widespread, decided that THIS was the way things are...kinda like, the Fairy Tale version of reality!

By the time they could say OOPS!
I guess we were wrong about that.
It was too late.
Their position already had appeared in print...

So, the next best thing they could do, was to say "This is my story, and I'm STICKING to it"...

Answer 2

I must say, I've always found that evolution just makes more sense to me. The fact that there is more evidence than faith helps too, since I'm a bit of a skeptic. (also a bit of a lapsed Catholic.)

I love creation myths, don't get me wrong. I think the fact that everyone on Earth has a slightly different take on creation makes me appreciate solid evidence that much more.

Answer 3

I like how Ken Ham put it:

"Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions."

Answer 4

I think both are likely from personal experience. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that evolution is a fact and natural selection is the only valid scientific explanation. I also "know" from personal experience there is more to us than a purely physical being but can only plead ignorance about the soul or creation. We are certainly physically related to other animals and traditional religious beliefs are incorrect about that aspect.

Answer 5

Creationism is vague...but any creationist idea that worms its way into a textbook is a sham. The idea of religion is believing. One should never need to create evidence for religion. On the other hand science and evolution is discovering and requires evidence. For something to be taught scientifically, it must have evidence.

Answer 6

Evolutionism mainly, but I feel that there had to be an unmoved mover. So I guess I believe in blend of both ideas.

Answer 7

I believe the story of creation as told in the Bible. I don't know how many hours were in each of the six days God used so anything is possible. If evolution did occur, the first organism still had to come from some where.
While we are on that subject, I bet there were two interactions that created life. The egg doesn't come from one chicken (it has to be fertilized by another, male) but a chicken comes from one egg.
With all the factual things in this world to learn, why argue about those things that we don't yet have knowledge of.

Answer 8

Evolution is not a belief, therefore does not qualify for an -ism. It is a fact based upon repeated testing, independent of my personal belief.

Creationism is not empirically testable which is a realm outside the scope of science. It is a philosophical debate going back to Thomas Aquinas, therefore belongs in a philosophical discussion.

Answer 9

Evolutionism.
Creationism doesn't make any sense.

Answer 10

creationism-
cuz if lets say the big bang theory is correct and everything started with 2 chemicals or organisms colliding then i ask you: where did the chemical come from? how was that made? were there two cells that collided and BANG! there is one of the 2 first chemicals that caused the big bang? if so- where did THAT come from?

it had to have started somewhere... people are so fast to try to disprove creation with these other theories that they dont look over their major details: how it started.