Both or neither.

truthdetector:a study in hubris key word--belief. real science is based on and backed up by actual evidence that even if you don't believe in it, it is still there. assumptions in the laboratory are either supported or rejected based on exeperimental evidence, not belief. when a hypothesis is proven false, we either change the hypothesis and experiment again or we throw it out and say "well, the evidence shows that such and such does not happen." creationist claims as well as religious beliefs are still around in spite of the evidence. what we know in science is backed up by countless experiments and observations that pose actual explanations for natural phenomena. the bible explains nothing. it provides suggestions for behavior, but it is not a field guide. i don't need faith to know that i share 98.8% of my DNA with a chimpanzee. i don't need faith to know that every organism on this planet uses the same four nucleotides for DNA and the same four nucleotides for RNA. i know that whales and pythons had legs at one point in their family bush. i know that no human fossils have ever been found with dinosaur fossils. etc., etc. etc... the point is that evolution is a robust theory supported by tons of evidence from many scientific disciplines and in the 150+ years that it has been around, evolution has never been disproven. in fact, the more people try to disprove parts of the theory, the stronger the theory gets. however, archeological evidence does not support the claims found in the books of genesis or exodus or, for the most part, the entire OT. a better explanation for the stories in the OT (and the NT, for that matter)come from the mythology and the political climate of the eastern med, middle east, and christian rome as well as the misguided clergy of the middle ages. to remain true to disproven ideas requires faith. science does not.