Evolution or Creation

Maiden: I agree with you. If there is a god, evolution is certainly a much more fascinating way in which he/she/it would work... why would god need to meddle in every step of human development? As the almighty, wouldn't you be genius enough to create a way for live to evolve itself?

I'll say it, and I'll say it with authority... because I've yet to see anyone prove me wrong... staunch creationists don't have the slightest idea of the grand scale of evolution. They can't fathom a span of 4.6 billion years.. much less 7000. They don't understand the myriad intricacies of the science behind evolution entirely... protein folding, protein synthesis, DNA, RNA transcription, ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) energy production, biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, etc. and how much these factors have evolved in 4.6 billion years to go from simple electrochemical compounds to the vast forms of life that exist today.

The breadth of evolution escapes them, because they presuppose that the world only existed as long as judeo-christian recorded history. No matter what evidence you present, it's absolutely pointless... but one thing strikes me as odd... those sciences aren't flawed as long as they prove things Creationists don't object to... but if they prove evolution, then in those instances, the results or findings are wrong. How wonderful!

Self-referential reasoning... bring that up, and they don't even know what you're talking about. Self-perpetuating delusions... refer to their doctrine in this fashion, and guess what? They'll sidestep and try to argue about some other "holes" in your theory. Then, lay on the most conclusive, most recent evidence of evolution... "master genes" that control whole subsets of genes, and they have nothing to say... they simply skip it since there's no argument they can present against it... and even if they tried, they'd be in over their heads because they haven't the slightest clue of that which they're arguing against.

Point at holes in their arguments, and they'll make excuses... but they will point at one hole in an argument with 100 years of research and 50,000 other cogent points, and say the entire science of evolution is wrong.

Their idea of proving god is like the blind men and the elephant... they'd rather try to prove that which they cannot see with words which they cannot prove... than to use the evidence of god that exists in nature, every day, before our very eyes.

So, one wonders, why even bother? They're going to continue fighting cumulative logic and research findings with circular arguments that haven't grown past their original, narrow-minded perception of the world in the past two thousand years. Long after technology has helped restore sight to the blind, creationists will still lack the ability to see the god that's before their very eyes.

 

With all due respect snowdog, but all you sais is WRONG. You consider evolution science and creation faith. WRONG!!!! evolution and creation are both based on faith, evolutionist try to use circumstancial supposition and theory in order to "prove" their viewpoint. And evolution CANNOT be proven since there is NO evidence of it's existence or origin. So if you want to criticize creationists based on the fact that we use faith then criticize yourself since your theory is as "full of holes" as ours. The problem with you is that you keep arguing the same point over and over and over.... and you won't accept the fact that you have proven nothing.

Now if you want to stand on your faith on evolution, you are free to do so, but do not accuse us of basing our belief on the unproven when yours is as unproven as ours. But personally i would rather believe that MY ALMIGHTY GOD created me, than to believe that i evolved from a monkey, i am NOT an animal, but if you want to consider yourself one, then you are free to do so.

It takes faith to believe in the missing link, but i would rather believe in being a special creation of God.

 

R2D2: evolutionist (sic) try to use circumstancial (sic) supposition and theory in order to "prove" their viewpoint. And evolution CANNOT be proven since there is NO evidence of it's (sic) existence or origin...

Thanks for proving my point.

 

So you agree with me?!! WOW. SO we are both based on faith, now we are one step closer to figuring this out.

Thanks for proving MY point.

 

Um... no... my point was that if you think evolutionists try to prove evolution theory on "circumstantial supposition" as opposed to rigorous testing of numerous hypotheses and rely on faith, not scrutiny, then you haven't the slightest idea of what evolutionary science is.

Evolutionary science heavily involves a number of other sciences, and the whole of evolution theory is dependent on thousands of other hypotheses that are being independently tested and have been indepdendently tested for over 100 years. For those scientists upon whose shoulders the burden of proof rests, it is not as simple as looking at a news article and saying "Oh, here it is... WHAM! The proof of evolution!" That would not be scientific... and it wouldn't be objective... and it isn't at all how evolutionary scientists attempt to "prove" evolution theory... including, among other components, natural selection.

However, for creationists... it is as simple as "WHAM... it's in the Bible... there's your proof!" That is the difference between faith and science, PENA.

What you've proven is my assertion that creationists, such as yourself, don't know what the hell you're talking about when you're arguing against evolution on the basis that it's just a faith, and as unprovable as any other faith.

You can believe whatever you want... but you only exemplify my point by trying to poke holes in a science you've clearly demonstrated you don't know the first thing about. It would be like me saying that Jesus was the bastard son of a pimp because I heard it on the TV... and we all know the TV never lies because it was invented by god!

 

NO NO NO,you can hypothetically prove the possibility of evolution, which i don't doubt since we are changing everyday (evolution), but you CANNOT prove the origins, and that is what is based on faith and is debatable. The ORIGIN of the species has NO proof and cannot be proven, unless you have a time machine. Look in your science books and you will see that in theory EVERYTHING can be proven correct but that doesn't mean that in reality it did happen or will happen, that is where you are in error.

And as far a poking holes what about the ones you poke at creationists since your stance is that we use the poof theory and base ourselves on a Book, don't poke holes at my theory, and PROVE MY THEORY WRONG.

PROVE IT!!!!

 

I theorize that the world was created by Odin the All-Father. Prove my theory wrong.

 

LOL EXACLTY.

 

you CANNOT prove the origins

Oh no? There you have it.

1. Evolution has nothing to do with who or what created life and how it started... only how it evolved.

2. You have no idea of the tons of proof that do exist... so how can you assume there is none when you've seen but a speck of it?

That's like me claiming I know the whole Bible is crap after reading only one line in Leviticus.

 

The point I'm making, R2D2, is that it's extremely difficult (even impossible at times) to prove a negative.

If I told you that I saw Bigfoot, could you prove that I didn't? What about Batman, or Santa Claus--I know plenty of witnesses (kids, mainly) who'll swear up and down to have seen both. Can you prove they don't exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt? If not--and the odds are stacked against you if you try--then one can hardly argue that the "you can't prove it doesn't exist" argument carries any weight.

 

R2D2-:
With all due respect snowdog, but all you sais is WRONG. You consider evolution science and creation faith. WRONG!!!! evolution and creation are both based on faith, evolutionist try to use circumstancial [sic] supposition and theory in order to "prove" their viewpoint.

Not only are you wrong, R2D2-Pena, but you clearly do not understand science. Evolution is based on evidence. At one time, nobody thought that living things had evolved. Why did they change their minds? Evidence. The evidence that living things on this planet have evolved from a common ancestor is overwhelming, and there has yet to be discovered any evidence against this hypothesis whatsoever. That makes it a "fact," even though scientists always reserve some doubt about everything (even existence itself). That brings us to you thinking that scientists tried to "prove" their viewpoint (presumably evolution). In fact, scientists have been doing exactly the opposite, they have been trying (unsuccessfully) to disprove evolution. That's how science works. If something cannot be disproved in principal, then it is not science. Creationism cannot be disproved in principal (there are no possible observations that would disprove it), so it is not science. Evolution can be disproved in principal (e.g. find a fossil of a modern horse in Precambrian rock), so it is science. Of course, after more than 100 years of trying, evolution has yet to be disproved.

And evolution CANNOT be proven since there is NO evidence of it's existence or origin.

Nothing in science can be proven absolutely, but the common descent of life on earth is about as close as it gets. I don't know what you mean by evolution's "origin," but there is plenty of evidence that evolution has occurred and is occurring. What do you suppose convinced all those scientists?

So if you want to criticize creationists based on the fact that we use faith then criticize yourself since your theory is as "full of holes" as ours.

Creationism does not have a scientific theory, but anyhow feel free to point out one "hole" in evolution.

The problem with you is that you keep arguing the same point over and over and over.... and you won't accept the fact that you have proven nothing.

As I have already pointed out, scientists never "prove" anything, nor do we claim to. What do you mean by "you keep arguing the same point over and over and over"? You mean, like telling people over and over and over that the earth is roughly a sphere when they keep insisting that it is flat like it says in the bible?

Now if you want to stand on your faith on evolution, you are free to do so, but do not accuse us of basing our belief on the unproven when yours is as unproven as ours.

Evolution is science based on evidence, and creationism is not. Thus creationism does not belong in a science class. That doesn't mean that you must believe that we evolved, it just means that creationism is not science. It is instructive to note who is pushing for creationism in schools: religious and political organizations (not all, many religious individuals know that creationism is not science). Who is pushing evolution? Biologists. It is not hard to figure out what is happening here.

But personally i would rather believe that MY ALMIGHTY GOD created me, than to believe that i evolved from a monkey, i am NOT an animal, but if you want to consider yourself one, then you are free to do so.

Here we get to the heart of the problem: you want to believe that you are not an animal, you would "rather" believe that your god (and nobody else's, of course) created you special and different. It clearly has nothing to do with evidence, science, or learning about the world around you. By the way, biologists do not think that humans evolved from monkeys.

It takes faith to believe in the missing link, but i would rather bel

 

R2D2-PENA:
NO NO NO,you can hypothetically prove the possibility of evolution, which i don't doubt since we are changing everyday (evolution), but you CANNOT prove the origins, and that is what is based on faith and is debatable. The ORIGIN of the species has NO proof and cannot be proven, unless you have a time machine. Look in your science books and you will see that in theory EVERYTHING can be proven correct but that doesn't mean that in reality it did happen or will happen, that is where you are in error.

You are hard to follow here. Just to be clear, nothing in science is ever proven. Nothing. Not that I exist, not that the earth orbits the sun, not that life evolved here from a common ancestor. Nothing. There are many potential observations which could disprove evolution (that's what makes it science), but after millions of attempts none have been observed (that's what makes it a fact).

You also seem hung up on "origins." Are you referring to the origin of life (which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution), or the evolution of two (or more) species from one?

And as far a poking holes what about the ones you poke at creationists since your stance is that we use the poof theory and base ourselves on a Book, don't poke holes at my theory, and PROVE MY THEORY WRONG.

PROVE IT!!!!

am not clear on just what your "theory" is, but creationism cannot be proved wrong by any potential observation. That is why it is not science.

Peez

 

Im sorry but the theory of evolution and origin of the species are one, since the reason for both is the existence of man, and without one the other cannot exist, for they try to figure out how it all started, otherwise what would be the point.

Secondly many things are absolutes, so don't come to me with that crap about science not being exact, because gravity exists, and there is no doubt about it, the sun uses fusion to create flames, and if you poke me i bleed. So if you want to dispell the theory of how humans started on earth from creation, prove it. But at the same time prove how evolution played a part in it all, if humans originated from somewhere and evolved, prove it or show proof, and don't come to me with the dinosaur and bones crap, because they are as much valid as is the Bible.

Scientifically there is NO evidence of evolution or the origin of species, just like there is no proof of the Bible, therefore the position of faith kicks in, whether you "believe" in evolution or creation.

I never claimed that creation culd be scientifically proven, i have no ability to do so nor is there physical evidence that i know of. But you claim that evolution and the origin are scientific fact, but there is no proof of the origin and there is no way to calculate or to prove that calculation of the earth exisiting billions of years, because even scientific evolutionists have no way of calculating it.

As far as me believing the Bible and trying to prove it, YOU are believin darwin and using science to prove your point without any isolated scientific proof that is ONLY related to that subject, you conjure up evidence to support, which i can do to support creationism, but there is no isolated evidence in favor of evolution or the origin of species THEORY. So if all is theory then why is your position more valid than mine? Like i said before, if i am going to have faith on something i would rather it be on God than on me being the by-product of slime and then monkey.

Now if that is just evolution on earth then prove the existence of the universe.

I can use one valid statement from a very respected scientist who said that, creation is so perfect that only a God could have made it work, and that was Einstein who also proved that in the expansion of the universe, the earth is located at the center of such, which coincides with the Bible, in syaing that we are the reason that God created the universe.

 

Also Peez you proven the point that i was making to snowdog, in that he bagers creationist for their beliefs and ideas but he cannot be touched because supposedly he and evolutionist are immune to attack and they are coorect since it is "science".

 

Creation or intervention by supernatural beings is fantasy.

It's the arrogance that always gets me...they want Creationism taught alongside scientific theory, as long as it's Christian Creationism. (Because the others are the work of the "Devil.")

Why are they so upset when they learn we're animals? Arrogance. "I'm not a monkey!" Pff! We share a common ancestor. It's the same kind of thought that makes them believe laws never existed in human society before the Ten Commandments of the Hebrews. Until 20 or 30 years ago, that same mentality pictured Jesus as a Scandinavian.

Evolution is beautiful, a wonder...whenever I think about the connectedness of the universe and how we continually evolve I am staggered by it, I'm thrilled by it. We are part of the world, not apart from it, and that is wonderful, not corrupt, not evil, not fallen, not shameful.

 

Suit yourself.

End of line.

End of discussion on my part, i have better things to talk about. I'm tired.

 

rd2d pena you have proven the point at how think creationists can be. The proof of evolution has been laid out to you in very simple terms.
Evolution also does not make any claims as to why or who or what started the process of evolution. It simply shows the process by which it occurs. The other important thing you need to realize here is that evolution does not have a linear path or end point. We are not simply the end product of evolution. We have only been around 100,000 yrs or so in our current form. Even though it looks like evolution has become stagnant due to many factors, we may still change. Not only that but to consider humans the end product does a great disservice to all of the other creratures on this planet who are very much alive, in all the kingdoms.

evolution and your christianity should not conflict with one another. But if you try to teach creationiusm in schools you are once agian being arrogant in not taking into account people of other faiths or no faith at all.


and as far as comparing the bible to darwin, lets not kid ourselves. Evolutionary theory was brewing before him. Not only that but you consider dinosaur bones to be as provable as the bible. What are these fossils i ask you?

 

Hi, R2D2_Pena

you said:

Im sorry but the theory of evolution and origin of the species are one, since the reason for both is the existence of man, and without one the other cannot exist, for they try to figure out how it all started, otherwise what would be the point.

You are right about one thing: without life, evolution could not occur, and the theory of evolution would have no point. But it does not imply that the mechanisms decribed by the theory of evolution depend on how life appeared.

Now, the theory of evolution doesn't state that man is the ultimate state of evolution, so I don't see why the "reason for" it would be "the existence of man".

Secondly many things are absolutes, so don't come to me with that crap about science not being exact, because gravity exists, and there is no doubt about it

The existence of gravity cannot even be considered an absolute certainty. We cannot be 100% sure that our senses are trustworthy and that the universe we think we're living in is real. Think about Descarte's cogito ergo sum (or even better, read "Le discours de la méthode"), or think about the film Matrix.

Yet, under reasonable assumptions, such as the relative trustworthyness (is it really english?) of our senses, we can be reasonably confident that we exist.
Likewise, we need assumptions in order to be confident that gravity exists, and even more assumtions in order to have confidence in our models of how it works. And even now, we must admit that at the quantum level, our current models still have holes.

So no, no scientific theory can be "proven" with absolute certainty. This is why scientists look for evidence and not proofs.

if humans originated from somewhere and evolved, prove it or show proof, and don't come to me with the dinosaur and bones crap, because they are as much valid as is the Bible.

Could you explain me why the fossil record cannot be considered as a valid evidence for a theory of how species evolved?

Anyway, this is not the only evidence. Think of dna similarities, pseudogenes, etc...

Scientifically there is NO evidence of evolution or the origin of species, just like there is no proof of the Bible, therefore the position of faith kicks in, whether you "believe" in evolution or creation.

There no PROOF of evolution, but there is a lot of EVIDENCE for it. The only faith required is faith in the scientific method, i.e. in the assumptions behind science (that we can trust our senses, and so on): just the sale amount of faith required to trust any other scientific theory.

But you claim that evolution and the origin are scientific fact, but there is no proof of the origin and there is no way to calculate or to prove that calculation of the earth exisiting billions of years, because even scientific evolutionists have no way of calculating it.

There ARE ways of calculating the age of the earth, even if, like the rest of science, they are not absolutely "errorproof".

If you agree that science in general has any validity, then there is no reason to deny a priori the validity of such calculations. Do you deny that a forensic pathologist can tell the approximate date/hour of death with a reasonable error margin? There is no more reason to doubt that geologist can in principle give a reasonable age for the Earth.

(...) there is no isolated evidence in favor of evolution or the origin of species THEORY. So if all is theory then why is your position more valid than mine?

Because there IS evidence for it, much more than there is evidence for any model of special creation proposed so far to the scientific community.
Now I would really like to know on what ground you deny the evidence that 99% of scientists in this field accept as valid.

BTW, ALL of science "is theory"...

I can use one valid statement from a very respected scientist who said that, creation is s

 

Olivier, Sleazo, Nunquam, Peez: Excellent posts, all. I'm really tired myself of having to "prove" to creationists something out of scientific disciplines they barely understand, or have been open enough to study.

I have not met one single well-read, scientifically-adept, religious or nonreligious person who accepts creation theory as an alternative to evolution theory, after having been exposed to the sum total of evidence on each side. Furthermore, I have yet to meet a Christian who maintains their stance on literal creation once they have explored and fully understood the evidence that supports evolution theory (I used the word "supports" instead of "proves", just so the creationists don't throw their arms up in disgust of my semantics).

I've been pretty diplomatic thus far in that I've given cogent explanations for why creation theory has no place in science, and I've based those explanations strictly on the observations of the vagueness of creation theory itself, not by proving evolution theory. In order to prove A, you don't do it by disproving B... you first try to disprove A and see whether or not it can stand on its own merits. Likewise, I've never attempted to support evolution theory merely by disintegrating creation theory (despite the fact that, in the face of all the other faiths on the planet, Creation theory's support is paper-thin... literally).

How can I take seriously any argument against science coming from people who have no concept of the rigorous scrutiny through which currently accepted scientific methods have passed (thinking radiocarbon dating isn't the same for parchment as it is for fossils... simply because radiocarbon dating helped prove the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they don't want to believe it works for proving the authenticity of fossilized matter). How can I take seriously the arguments of people who don't understand DNA replication and RNA transcription properly... or the concept of hierarchical genes with "master control" gene sets. How can I not laugh when I see that most creationists think of evolution as linear, and not branching, and that evolution argues we evolved from monkeys? The only reason they believe the world is 6000 years old is based entirely on the fact that the Hebrews arose from a primitive culture 6000 years ago that had only begun to record their history at that time... nevermind the fact that Indus valley civilizations predate this by 1000 years, there are cave paintings that serve as recorded history which at first were found to be 10,000 years old, and now some more have been found as old as 40,000 years... and some of the most recent advancements in scientific technology, namely Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, radioactive nuclide decay, etc, have the most glaring proof in dating the fossil record and placing the world's age at roughly 4.6 billion years.

Mention any of these specific, advanced forensic evidences to a creationist, and they haven't foggiest idea what you're talking about... or how to even begin to refute their validity... so they cower back into scripture, asserting with circular logic once again that because the Hebrews began recording history only around 6000 years ago, and they (the Hebrews) were so egocentric they couldn't fathom that anyone else had beaten them at developing culture, therefore all of life hadn't begun until this band of scientifically-oblivious, superstitious, egocentric industrial-agriculturalists say it did.

The conclusion that I've come to, after having seen the ways in which creationists present and defend their argument against evolution (Note: I didn't say "defend their faith"... their faith has nothing to do with this debate, it's their blind assertion that evolution is false which I am debating), is that staunch creationists don't know diddley-crap about the science they so vehemently argue against. Period.

 

Hi Darth Snowdog,

I am seeking to learn exactly what you and other evolutionists mean by "evolution". Explain it in laymen's terms as much as possible. I admit that I am not a trained scientist, but I did take it in school like everyone else and have read and studied some. I am reading some books about creation and evolution right now to gain some knowledge.

Let's PROVE that we can have a good discussion that leads to understanding! I am willing to listen to what you have to say. And I am asking Christians and creationsists to study their science and, for the purposes of this thread, to refrain from using bible verses unless it is somehow crucial to your point. (There's plenty of other threads for biblical discussion)

And Snowdog, I ask you to refrain from making comments like "You don't know what the hell you're talking about", "You don't know diddly-squat about science", and that Christian beliefs are "egotistical" and "narrow-minded". I realize your frustration with creationists and some of the tactics they have used, but your comments like that do not help a conversation.

I also ask you to seriously consider objections to the theory of evolution. Afterall, if it is true then you have nothing to worry about. The facts will back it up and we will all learn something. If I ask questions then a simple reasonable answer would be appreciated.

Let's PROVE that we can be mature!

My first question is: Can you provide a complete definition of "evolution" so we can know exactly what we are talking about here.

 

Hi, Primetime_Jedi

Your post was adressed to Snowdog, but since you included "other evolutionists", "Christians" and "creationists" in your appeal to maturity, I'll take the liberty of giving an answer to your question.

Let's PROVE that we can be mature!

um... I'm not sure that this can be PROVEN, but I hope that this debate will be strong evidence for it

My first question is: Can you provide a complete definition of "evolution" so we can know exactly what we are talking about here.

It is difficult to find a clearcut definition of evolution, but I think that the definition given by Mr Futuyama is quite good:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

This definition was taken from the Talk.origin website

It is usually not so good to define something by saying what it is not, yet to avoid misunderstandings, it is important to note that:
_ evolution concerns the change of populations and not individuals.
_ the theory of evolution does not adress the very beginning of life: so if you want to adress critics about abiogenesis (which is IMO an even more interesting subject), you should keep in mind that this is not part of the theory of evolution.

Is this any different from the definition of evolution you had in mind?

(P.S: I'll be away for a few days, so won't be able to answer too soon)

 

Primetime_Jedi: Without delineating into the different schools of thought such as Naturalistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution, evolution, simply put, is:

"An unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

Source: "Statement on Teaching Evolution"; National Association of Biology Teachers.

EDIT: One of the resources the NABT used in arriving at their definition was the publications of Douglas Futuyama, one of which was cited by Olivier.

 

Olivier,

Anybody is welcome to respond! I didn't mean to exclude anyone.

Let's PROVE that we can be mature!

um... I'm not sure that this can be PROVEN, but I hope that this debate will be strong evidence for it

Haha. Me too.

Thanks for the definitions. I actually just read the one from the NABT. But the one that I saw was a little longer. It said:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Those two words near the beginning, "unsupervised" and "impersonal" tend to add some more meaning to the definition. I mean, you can at least see why Christians and other believers in God would get uncomfortable being taught something like this, right?

The evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson said "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."

Carl Sagan's statement at the beginning of his Cosmos television series was: "The Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be."

By definition, evolution subracts God from the process--at least according to how scientists have defined it. You can at least understand why some people react so vitriolically against the idea. I'm not now arguing for or against either position. I am merely showing how evolution has been presented by the scientific establishment.

 

How can we assume that God, if there is one, didn't mastermind the uniqueness of this self-perpetuating schema himself?

Also, how can we assume that God isn't behind all the seeming "randomness"... and, ironically, there is a certain predictability that scientists are now pondering about evolution and heredity... a notion that some genes "know" what combinations work and don't work.

I don't know how much stock I put in that, but scientists have found it valid enough of a question to explore... whether or not the "logic" of evolution and the choices that need to be made in light of the other factors are somehow hardwired into genetic code itself.

The very fact that scientists are exploring this possibility is proof enough that they are not closed off to the idea of God... or intending to disprove God. It also demonstrates that scientists are willing to challenge the conventions of their own discipline. Whereas creationists most often are not.

If it were not for questioning, scrutiny and tireless testing of hypotheses... evolution theory wouldn't even have come into being... and we'd probably still be trying to cure schizophrenia with bloodletting.

 

I'm going to try to keep this post as short as possible. For those interested, the arguments contained herein do not originate with me, although I find them to be very enlightening. These arguments are taken from an article called Evolution-A Philosophy, Not a Science by Duane T. Gish, associate director of the Institute for Creation Research.

Basically, Gish argues that the theory of evolution fails to fulfill the three basic tenets scientific theory. And these are:

1. It "must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be observed."

2. It "must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments."

3. It "must be capable of falsification."

The theory of evolution fails to fulfill any of the three.

Firstly, evolution has never been observed. Gish points out that leading evolution scientist agree with this point by quoting both Goldschmidt and Dobzhansky. (I myself am not much of a scientist so these names are perhaps not as meaningful to me as they would be to someone who recognizes them.)

Secondly, due to the impossibility of human observation mentioned above and because of the enormous quantities of time "required" for the process, evolution renders itself impervious to any meaningful, scientific testability.

And finally, the theory is not specific. That is, it is "capable of explaining anything." From cosmology to ethics, evolution has become the religion of non-believers. Like philosophy and religion, evolution can hide behind a curtain of complexities and unknowns when specific aspects of it are brought into question. Therefore, like belief in God, it cannot be falsified. It cannot be called a true theory.

There, I'm done. For those interested, I found this article in a little paperback book entitled Religion and the Natural Sciences, the Range of Engagement. No, this is not just a compilation of authors who believe evolution is full of crap. It is an anthology of excerpts of famous authors and leading scientists who present a plethora of opinions and points of view on the major issues of contention between science and religion. A very good read.

Oh, and for those of you who might become hypercritical, I am not trying to prove creation by disproving evolution. I'm not even trying to disprove evolution. (What kind of genius would I be if I could do that only using JAVA?) I am simply passing on Gish's suggestion that the theory of evolution is not in and of itself science any more than the theory of creation is.