Quote:
|
If you compare creationism and evolution and subject both theories to the scientific method, the conclusion one arrives at is that neither can be proved. For the scientific method to be applied, one must be able to design a method that can test a hypothesis and this methodology can be indepentently reproducible
|
Creationism is not a scientific theory-evolution is. Proofs are for math, not science. In addition, no credible scientist doubts that evolution occured; the theory (the how it happens) has scientists debating (gradulism, punctuated equilibrium, etc).
Quote:
|
Evolution is about the relationships between all living things - past and present. But the phylogeny (a family tree, so to speak) cannot be reproduced. The fossil record is fragmented and the relationships between species are open to speculation and interpretation. Even the classification of existing species today are still being rewritten to reflect new evidence or relationships.
|
All evolution is, is a change in alleles over time. The fossil record-despite what creationists maintain-is complete enough to the point where it is obvious that evolution has indeed occured. Also, species isn't really a definitional thing-the outside edges of species are generally fuzzy.
This is to be expected of course, because we all came from one glob of goo way back when, so naturally there is an interconnectiveness.
Why do you think the DNA of chimps and humans is so closely related?
Quote:
|
That said, I do believe that the science behind evolution is much firmer and the evidence, albeit cercumstancial, is convincing. My personal searches through the creationist sites (at a friend's urging!) has revealed shoddy science and articles that ammount to what I take as personal attacks against Charles Darwin!
|
Evolution is not a denial of God, nor is it the abolishment of the Christian faith, in fact the majority of Christians have no problem with inerrancy.