Home > Creationism Group > Discussion Board

The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.

Yes, neither is a proven theory, but almost all scientific information agrees with the theory of evolution, and much of modern biology depends on the predictions made by the theory of evolution.  Isn't that a lot of evidence? 

-DTV

Please visit my blog at www.dtvons.blogspot.com.

There is a major difference in the way the word "theory" is used when you look at the two. Anyone can have a theory about anything; the difference is in the level of support in evidence. A scientific theory has to account for all known facts in that area. If something new is discovered that is in conflict with an accepted scientific theory, the theory either is modified, or the "fact" may turn out to be not really a fact. Creationism doesn't do this--it picks and chooses from available information that happens to not disprove creationism, and ignores the rest. I could have a theory that everything in the world is green, and if I only look at plant leaves and Granny Smith apples, I have proved my theory with the same level of rigor as creationism. And THAT is why religion should be left to churches to teach, and science to the schools.

I believe in Intelligent Design, which allows for evolution but also recognizes that some higher power directed the evolutionary changes. For me, that higher power is God.

'Intelligent Design' is not a scientific theory. Evolution does not display any evidence of 'a guiding hand'. Evolution is full of pointless evolutionary changes as well as beneficial ones. In fact nearly all evolutionary changes to DNA are negative and the animal in question quickly dies. There is no 'higher power' steering evolution. Evolution stumbles blindly upon happy accidents.

All the attempts by the Creationists to shoe-horn their 2000 year old bronze age 'Genesis' story into a scientific theory have failed. Intelligent Design is religious propaganda, is it not science.

From Post1 ... "The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution)."

Sorry, but you're simply parading your ignorance. The 'Theory' of evolution is similar to the 'Theory' of Gravity or the Theory of electro-magnetism.

You are confusing 'theoretical' ideas and practical science. The factual evidence of evolution has been observed in the fossil record over and over again. And the abstract theory has been succesfully used to predict the existence of 'theorectical' species which have later been discovered in the practical fossil record.

Go to your local natural history museum and look in the display cases at all the fossil. Do those fossils look 'theorectical' to you? Are they in some way 'not real'???

You have been the victim of Creationist propaganda. Evolution is not 'theoretical'. It is demonstrably practical. ALL creditable scientists (and most intelligent religous leaders) fully endorse the 'theory' that we evolved.

http://theory-of-evolution.net/

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1244.html

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050818hutchison.htm

http://www.discovery.org/a/7271

The problem is Creationists can't allow their explanation to be wrong. You can't convince them of what is true because they refuse to listen. They enter the 'argument' already permanently dedicated to their bible story. So it is not debate. It is just talking at a brick wall.

If this really were an open, scientific debate then the Creationists would very quickly concede. But they can't, so they have to try to explain the unexplainable. Take for example their attempts to use the story of Noah's Ark and The Flood as a scientific explanation for the fossil record. It is so pitiful that only the unscientific could give them credence. And that is the real truth about creationism; it is put forward by the scientifically illiterate. Creationists are not scientists.

Hi Linda. :-) In response to you offering a link to the Discovery Institute....

"In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

You are spreading propaganda. The Discovery Institue has been repeatedly shown to be intellectually dishonest and has no scientific credibility.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute

In reply to #9: And you're not spreading propaganda? Until someone can prove that there is no God, I'll have to stick with my team.