quote:
Creation is based on evidence as well. (other than the Bible) but when you look at the evidence, do you not disagree with the "conclusion" come to by creationists? The same applies here.. The evidence is there.. it is real, but the interpretations of what it means is based on ones faith in their world view. I see something different than you when I look at the same evidence you have for evolution.
No, it's not a difference in assumptions about the world. It's a difference in the assumptions about how to get to the truth. Creationism follows the path of religious apologetics. Start with conclusions and try to defend them. But it is bad apologetics, which doesn't take into account consistency or properly investigating the facts or even honesty. Creationism not only isn't based on evidence, it doesn't even accept the value of evidence, when it points in a direction creationists don't like. Creationists are notorious for misrepresentation, for repeating falsified arguments - and for attacking opponents.
Just look at the ID movement. For all its claims to be more scientific than previous creationist efforts it's reduced to inventing claims of persecution and invoking the Nazis in a big guilt-by-association smear. So much for evidence !
Science starts with the evidence. Evolution wasn't a "revelation" - it was a conclusion, an explanatory model. Science is all about building up a consistent picture of the world. Amd that is why science has succeeded where creationism fails.
™ Version 4.2
