The wikipedia article below is a reasonable place to start; just realize that even that article will have some controversy, and volume of words about something is not the same as validity.
To discuss creationism in terms of evidence would be typically considered wrong, as it is an issue of faith, a system operating outside of evidence and fact. There is no scientific evidence for creationism, but a great deal does exist for evolution, and as such it is considered scientific fact.
Evolution is based on the principle of natural selection and genetic mutations, the latter of which is observable in any species, simply by observing how children display the characteristics of the parents. Natural selection is easier to observe in animals, where one can see how animals with greater environmental advantage, such as a skin tone that inclines towards that of their surroundings, are more likely to survive and therefore breed, passing the characteristic down the line through inherited genes.
As evolution is based more on scientific facts and observations, I would argue for evolution. However, the argument between evolution and creationism isn’t based on whether one or the other has more evidence — as one poster already stated, creationism can hardly be proven at all. Some people might argue that there is proof, but most of them are simply fallacies. “Oh look at that beautiful animal, how can you even suggest that it came about from random chance? It is obviously the product of an intelligent mind!” And so on.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC