Evolution Vs Creationism

Which better explains how life develops on Earth? The idea that DNA is not fixed, that changes occur in the genetic code which alters a life form from one generation to the next and that the environment determines which of those traits is best suited for the growth of the species and those without those traits either migrate to a different environment more suitable for them or die out.. or the idea that God created all the plant, animal and human forms and then..... well.... and then nothing... That's pretty much it. From then on, everything was fixed and unchanging.

Of course there is the potential "third theory" that says "Forget the God stuff, and replace it with some kind of intelligent designer" but basically it is the same as Creationism. Whether it is God, or a super-smart alien geneticist doesn't matter. Whether you get the gist of your ideas from the Bible or not, Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism. The only difference is the designer. Both still claim that evolution doesn't happen, that it can't happen because life is way too complex for any sort of "natural process" to be behind it or because there isn't sufficient evidence supporting Evolution.

So which story is the "right" one? Which one is the truth? Which one is false?

The truth is, it doesn't matter. There is one thing continually overlooked by most people in this debate. It is an important thing that ends the argument before it begins, and it's really simple. It just doesn't matter if Creationism is somehow true or not. It still doesn't belong in a science class and should not be taught to children as science, because it's not.

Religion decides on an answer and doesn't ask any questions. Science doesn't settle on an answer until most of the questions we have have been asked and answered. This is how science works. This is how it is expected to work even by non-scientists; You bring in evidence until it begins to look like something. You make educated speculations about it and test each speculation until you're left with only one that fits all the evidence. Then you call that your theory and hope it stands up to the scrutiny of every other scientist in the world willing to take a crack at it. Theory is a BIG word in science, not to be tossed about lightly. It means more than "I have this idea...."

Evolution has gone through this process. Creationism hasn't. This means that right or wrong, Creationism does not belong in a science class.... not because it is wrong, but because it is trying to cut in line. It's trying to jump from being an idea to being the truth without having to go through the part about testing. It certainly hasn't earned the right to be called a "Theory"

But of course it can't be tested. There is no physical evidence supporting Creationism and there is no physical evidence of a creator. The whole of the argument for Creationism hinges on Evolution being wrong and that somehow makes Creationism right. The continual refrain from Creationists is "Bring me the evidence.. Where is the evidence?" and "There is not enough evidence supporting Evolution" but even if that were true, it does not elevate Creationism to the point where it can take the place of Evolution. Evolution is a tested theory and Creationism is still an idea. You don't switch to Creationism if Evolution suddenly turns out to be wrong. You go back to the evidence and find something that fits what you have observed and test THAT. Nothing can change Creationism from an idea into a theory except rigorous testing of the evidence supporting Creationism, but we can't even do that because there is no evidence.

Yeah... yeah.... "Irreducible Complexity"... That is not evidence for Creationism. That is just another attempt to say that Evolution is wrong on the basis that the supporters of Irreducible Complexity" don't understand how something like an eye can evolve without help. Not understanding something (especially when there are plenty of people willing to explain it to you) doesn't count as evidence. I guarantee you that an Egyptian peasant in 2000 BC could not understand Nuclear Physics, but that doesn't make nuclear power plants suddenly stop working, and if not comprehending something means it doesn't exist, why do religious people always say that we are incapable of understanding God? Doesn't that mean that God should cease to exist for EVERYONE? or maybe just that no one (even priests) can say that he does exist? Irreducible complexity is proof of nothing. It is a statement of ignorance. Nothing more. It is simply saying "I don't know", which is fine. Saying "I don't understand" is the first step towards knowledge, but when you use that argument to invalidate an idea you are making a statement not only that you don't know, but that no one else CAN know. That is arrogant stupidity, not just ignorance.

"Teaching the Controversy" doesn't work either, because the controversy isn't among scientists. The controversy is between scientists and non-scientists, or between biologists and non-biologists that have let their religion (or a political agenda) blind them to the demands of the peer-review process and what scientific evidence really means. That still doesn't earn Creationism a place in a science class.

If Evolution is a guess, it is still the best guess there is. However it is a lot more than a guess. Whole medical industries have grown up around it. Scientists are doing things in laboratories with DNA and conducting genetic research that wouldn't be possible if Evolution was false. Many of the medicines we have that have proven capabilities (ie people are cured of an illness or even their lives saved because those drugs work) couldn't have been created if Evolution wasn't true. Did they just happen to get lucky? Just happen to do everything just right, when the knowledge they based their research on going back maybe a hundred years or more was false? It would be like saying that electricity is a myth. If so, then what is it that we are using to power all of our technological devices? It would have to be something that looks and functions exactly like electricity, has all the same properties and is affected by all the same forces.... yet not be electricity. That would be quite ridiculous, as is the notion that all of the observable data we have acquired on the evolutionary process, all of the testing done, all of the biological mechanisms that support the evolutionary process are somehow describing an entirely different process, one that fits with the appearance of a natural process but is actually directed by an invisible, insubstantial intelligence.Poking holes in Evolution is fine, as long as they are real holes, but the fundamental processes regarding Evolution work. You can call it whatever you want, but you can't say it isn't there and you can't say that how it works is still "mysterious" It's not. Are there still things we don't understand? Of course. That will most likely always be true, but the theory is still sound, and just because there are some people who don't seem to be able to understand it, that doesn't mean that those people can just replace it with whatever they want. That's not how science works. To debunk Evolution, you have to present something that fits the facts BETTER than Evolution. You have to top it.