Darwinism or Creationism?

Creationism is fine as long as you approach it as faith-based. It's only once it is used as a science does it become dishonest. It is not science.

As a product of science, Darwinism does not pretend to know everything, or to be the ultimate answer. It is always up for question or even being discarded if the evidence demands it. Creationism, on the other hand, claims to have the answer, end of discussion. Yet it can produce no proof other than "if we discount everything else, it must have been this supernatural being for which we can offer no evidence".

That might satisfy some people, but I'll take Darwinism. It may not be perfect, but at least it starts out in reality.

Definitely Darwinism

Darwinism/evolution.

Darwinism of course. It may not have been proved conclusively but any gaps that exist are surely due to lack of surviving knowledge and evidence. Humans have lived on this planet for such a minute amount of time that it has been in existence that a lot of the "missing links" will have been destroyed. If a photo album misses out a year of someone's life it does not mean nothing happened then, just that there is no visual proof. Things have changed,that person has moved on, evolved if you like into the person in the next photo. Hope you like the analogy!

As for fairytales, surely the best has got to be the big bearded man in the sky making a planet just for fun and inhabiting it with lovely fluffy animals and humans intent on destroying it!

Darwinism. It's too beautiful not to be true.

What is creationism anyway? Surely it means something different to each person that thinks it sounds like a good idea.

I would like to forward my theological opinion that Genesis is an ancient description of evolution and therefore, people that argue for creationism or intelligent design are simply not careful readers of scripture.

I base my opinion on the first two chapters of Genesis.

The creation story says God created animals and then human beings. But the story of the garden says God created Adam and then the animals to be Adam's companions. God created Eve when no animal was found to be an acceptable companion for Adam.

It is apparent to me from these texts that Adam was created before human beings but then progressed (in some mysterious manner - I say evolution from a single cell being) to be the first man.

For those who argue that Adam was created fully as a human male (including penis), I have to ask, what was Gods intent for Adams genitalia while He created the animals to be Adam's companions?

Anyway, Darwin's contribution to science is natural selection, not evolution which was around long before him. And, although natural selection theory has some holes, it doesn't have to explain all evolution to be a valid explanation of how many genetic decisions are made.

Also, who's the wisenheimer that says natural selection isn't part of God's plan?

Have you ever read Rupert Sheldrakes ideas on this? Take a look at the book 'presence of the past'. It is rather interesting. I don't go along with creationism but I don't altogether go with Darwinism. too much is unexplained. However, the whole point of a scientific theory is that it is tenable until the facts prove otherwise, or a theory that better fits the facts is propounded.

As someone with a Biology degree, I have to answer Creationism. The genetics and biochemistry of a human being are way too complicated for Darwinism to exist.

I believe in evolutionary biology and believe Darwin's work is a large and major contributor to that theory, but my belief is much broader than Darwinism covers. Many, many, many people, experiments, and observations have contributed to the theory of evolution, which is why it is such a well supported theory, not just Darwin's work.

This is a question that has been asked over and over again, but personally I believe in a kind of combination. Providence to get things started, darwinism to keep it going.