quote:
Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.
No, that's not accurate.
Science-minded people end up accepting the ToE for the same reasons they accept the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Atomic Theory of Matter; it is the best explanation science has so far come up with to explain the observed evidence. ALL of the obsserved evidence. The observation of evidence comes first, and theory is developed to explain the observations. Then predictions are made to test the accuracy of the theory.
By contrast, Creationists/IDists generally ignore a great deal of evidence, or begin with the conclusion they would prefer. This religiously-based desired end result is not derived after observation of the evidence, but before. They then twist and cherry pick the evidence that bolsters their preferred outcome and ignore the rest. There is no predictive power in Creationist's work at all, since they don't ever test their theories against reality.
quote:
Which one does the evidence better support? Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option?
There are, literally, billions of pieces of evidence that support the ToE. It is the
body of evidence from around a dozen different fields of study that all point towards it having happened, and it continuing to happen.
There are none that support special creation.
Of course, that does not prove 100% that special creation didn't happen. However, it really, really, REALLY appears as though evolution did, if you look at all of the evidence.
quote:
Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.
No.
quote:
Neither can be experimentally proven -it is an historical concept that is not provable by either side.
Since evolution nor science are involved in trying to disprove religion, I don't see what the relevance is of the above statement.
Science is a great tool for figuring out natural phenomena in the present and in the past. Things that happened in the past leave evidence of their happening. This is true of crime scenes, and it is true of evolution. Every time you look at the night sky, you are looking far, far into the past.
™ Version 4.2
