An analysis of evolutionists and creationists views on creation of the world

Why bother with a flood when he could just wish the evildoers out of existence? Why drown all the world's babies and kittens?

An analysis of evolutionists and creationists views on creation of the world

Evolution as fact and theory Critics of evolution assert that evolution is "just a theory," which emphasizes that scientific theories are never absolute, or misleadingly presents it as a matter of opinion rather than of fact or evidence. Evolutionary theory refers to an explanation for the diversity of species and their ancestry which has met extremely high standards of scientific evidence.

An example of evolution as theory is the modern synthesis of Darwinian natural selection and Mendelian inheritance. As with any scientific theory, the modern synthesis is constantly debated, tested, and refined by scientists, but there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that it remains the only robust model that accounts for the known facts concerning evolution.

For example, in common usage theories such as " the Earth revolves around the Sun " and "objects fall due to gravity" may be referred to as "facts," even though they are purely theoretical.

An analysis of evolutionists and creationists views on creation of the world

From a scientific standpoint, therefore, evolution may be called a "fact" for the same reason that gravity can: Under the colloquial definition, the theory of evolution can also be called a fact, referring to this theory's well-established nature.

Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists. Strict proof is possible only in formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, not natural sciences where terms such as "validated" or "corroborated" are more appropriate. Thus, to say that evolution is not proven is trivially true, but no more an indictment of evolution than calling it a "theory.

Level of support for evolution An objection is often made in the teaching of evolution that evolution is controversial or contentious. This goal followed the Institute's " wedge strategy ," an attempt to gradually undermine evolution and ultimately to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The scientific consensus of biologists determines what is considered acceptable science, not popular opinion or fairness, and although evolution is controversial in the public arena, it is entirely uncontroversial among experts in the field.

The Discovery Institute has gathered over scientists as of August to sign A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism in order to show that there are a number of scientists who dispute what they refer to as "Darwinian evolution.

These objections have been rejected by most scientists, as have claims that intelligent design, or any other creationist explanation, meets the basic scientific standards that would be required to make them scientific alternatives to evolution. It is also argued that even if evidence against evolution exists, it is a false dilemma to characterize this as evidence for intelligent design.

It is argued that evolutionary biology does not follow the scientific method and therefore should not be taught in science classes, or at least should be taught alongside other views i.

These objections often deal with the very nature of evolutionary theory, the scientific method, and philosophy of science. Relationship between religion and science and Scientism Creationists commonly argue that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science.

Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith[34] and that supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand. The argument that evolution is religious has been rejected in general on the grounds that religion is not defined by how dogmatic or zealous its adherents are, but by its spiritual or supernatural beliefs.

Evolutionary supporters point out evolution is neither dogmatic nor based on faith, and they accuse creationists of equivocating between the strict definition of religion and its colloquial usage to refer to anything that is enthusiastically or dogmatically engaged in.

United States courts have also rejected this objection: Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it.

Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v.

Arkansassupra, Willoughby v. May 18, ; aff'd. Texaff. Statements that are not falsifiable cannot be examined by scientific investigation since they permit no tests that evaluate their accuracy. Creationists such as Henry M. Morris have claimed that any observation can be fitted into the evolutionary framework, so it is impossible to demonstrate that evolution is wrong and therefore evolution is non-scientific.

Haldanewhen asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied " fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates.

Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals.

If not, then common descent is falsified. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found. Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed, but these amendments and falsifications have uniformly confirmed his central concepts.

The Case Against Creationism, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher specifically addresses the "falsifiability" question by taking into account notable philosophical critiques of Popper by Carl Gustav Hempel and Willard Van Orman Quine and provides a definition of theory other than as a set of falsifiable statements.Studies & Actions of the General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in America.

Theistic Evolution

REPORT OF THE CREATION STUDY COMMITTEE [27th General Assembly ().]. Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows. As you can see from the ‘dates’ in the above table the lava flows that were less than 55 years old were given dates from , years to million plus or minus 20 thousand years.

What is young earth creationism? Does the Bible truly teach that the earth is young, only around , years old?

Religious Quotes and bumper stickers

God’s creation of the world with apparent age, and Young earth creationism views Genesis as a historical record of what actually happened, not an allegory or metaphor. Young earth creationism interprets the words. the world is a creation that is absolutely dependent for every instant of its existence on the will and grace of evolutionary creationists view evolution as a “knitting” process that results in a world which cries out that it is “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Indeed, the .

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the.

A worldview is an outlook on life, or a view of the world, derived from a philosophical axiom or presupposition. There are two basic worldviews, each with its own underlying assumptions. One system of thought has natural processes alone as its basis, the other, creation by worldviews are becoming increasingly polarized due to the increased emphasis on teaching evolution in public.

A Biblical Case for Old-Earth Creationism