As a believer in creation (ID) it seems to me that the evolution hypothesis attempts to build its case from the 2nd floor up. It cannot reasonably explain the origin of the "primordial ooze" from whence all life originated from.
Evolution does not need to explain origins. Any of several different origins could just as easily have led to the evolution that we see.
Something does not come from nothing.
How do you know?
All life and the perfect order of the universe could not have come into existence by random chance.
How do you know?
There probably will never be a "scientific model" for creation that will satisfy the other camp since any such model would be deemed religious in nature and not "superior" to the "accepted" evolutionary model.
What we have seen to date is that religion relies on dogma and scripture and the like while science relies on evidence, and evidence that has been well-tested. Religion ignores or denies any evidence that contradicts dogma and scripture, while science changes theories to accommodate any evidence that contradicts previous theories.
I guess the bottom line is it takes faith to believe either argument which ironically makes evolution a form of religion. Creationists have nothing to lose...if we're wrong then we all die like dogs and this life is all there is...
No, the bottom line is that religion relies on dogma and scripture and the like while science relies on evidence and testing that evidence to produce theories. Religion sticks to dogma and scripture no matter what, ignoring or denying anything that contradicts belief, while science changes as the evidence requires. There is no faith required for science, just evidence. In that,
science is the exact opposite of religion.
I hope you stick around; you might just learn something here.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.