Hi BRUm As a veteran of online religious discussion, I can say that there are a number of certainties pertaining to the creationism versus evolution argument. Number one being that the vast majority of religious folks who object to the scientific theory of evolution do so from a position of embarrassing ignorance. Where I do not normally speak in broad generalizations about any group, what considerations must we afford a group of people that are promoting a clear agenda to have their religious beliefs usurp scientific principle? The scientific theory of evolution does in fact meet the criteria of being referred to as a scientific theory. It is demonstrable and can be tested, has been observed in both natural and controlled environments and further meets the criteria of inevitable proveability, depsite our failed efforts as a species to complete the fossil record. The points of attack for those who would attempt to further the religious agenda seem to be the word "theory" and a continuous introduction of aspects that are not part of the scientific theory of evolution. The use of the words "accident" or "random" are biggies in convincing those who are untrained in the sciences as well. (With the primary mechanism of evolution being the process of natural selection, since when have selection and random been synonomous?) We quite often hear the phrase: "it's only a theory" which in effect blurrs the use of the word theory further between common English vernacular and the scientific meaning of the word. Most people mean "hypothesis" when they say theory outside of scientific use but we commonly use it in its place. On the other hand, the scientific use of the word theory without exception means a hypothesis elevated to the level of theory because it meets the specific criteria necessary for this status. For brevity I will not list the criteria but you would think that anyone who wants to enter a discussion on this subject would at least be armed with this knowledge. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it even fails as a scientific hypothesis. If the criteria is broadened as many creationist have attempted to do, to suit its acceptance as a scientific theory, the new loose criteria would also now encompass all of the pseudo sciences. From fortune telling to astrology. Probably the most ridiculous aspect of the debate is the very fact that the scientific theory of evolution does not purport to explain our origins, at least as the sole propagating factor, as so many are insistent upon. Instead it attempts to explain how we have developed into the creatures that we are which is more than a subtle difference. Where the fossil record is incomplete, all that is needed for the theory of evolution to be valid is the "creation" (yes I used the word because we simply do not know how it came about) of the first carbon based cell. That's it, the very instant that the first carbon cell came to be was the exact moment that the theory implies the natural selection process began. There is nothing "random" about what took place afterwards. Certainly there is much to learn, we must also make the concession that we will never know everything pertaining to our origins as a species but if our choices are an incomplete fossil record in tandem with some proveable scientific facts versus the fairy tales as found in the impossible chronology of the book of Genesis . . . let us stick with the facts. It is the year 2007, let us not have the ignorance inherent within religious agenda impede our progress towards this knowledge as it has for so many centuries of our existence. I'm finished now.
Oh dear, I sense hypocrisy coming on.. if Darwin's theory isn't relevant to today because it's a couple of centuries old, then how can it be possible that Jesus' messages or "theories" are relevant today, when they're ~2000 years old. Gomeza: Thanks for your deeply analytical and mature comments. I do not have a problem with Creationists, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but those who are, and blatantly ignore various facts and are too lazy to research and wish to impose it upon others, receive no respect from myself, the average person's logic or most from the scientific community. I find your post interesting, and wish more people would take your efforts.