A few thoughts on the evolution vs. creation "debate"…
Show me the flaw of my logic.
~by Nate Burchell
A theory cannot be used to disprove a theory. Creation and evolution are both theories. neither has been proven, and neither disproved. To argue against creation on the grounds of evolution is ignorant. Likewise, it is ignorant to assume creationism can be used to disprove evolution.
Some people mock creation, saying, "SINCE evolution, THEN creation cannot be," or vice versa, "SINCE God created the earth, THEN evolution cannot be." Both are faulty logic. The correct statements, since both creation and evolution are theories (and therefore neither can be accepted as 100 per cent scientifically proven bona fide truth and law) would be "IF evolution, THEN creation could not be," and, "IF creation, THEN evolution could not be." This seems to put both arguments in perspective. You cannot use your unproven argument to disprove another theory. Once one theory or the other is proven, the remaining conflicting theory (or theories) will immediately die. Until then, however, they do not serve as acceptable proof in arguments.
Both sides of an argument must agree on the validity of the proof. Too often the creation-evolution debate begins with the creationist saying, "God created Adam from the dust, therefore he couldn't have evolved from an ape," to which the evolutionist replies, "man evolved from an ape, therefore God could not have created him from dust." As you can see, this form of "debate" is full of faulty logic and only serves to convince EACH side of their own correctness, both using their own theory as proof of their own theory. Astounding.
How then, should the debate be conducted? How about SCIENCE? IF creation is true, THEN true science will not conflict with it, and should support it. Likewise, IF evolution is true, then true science will not conflict with it, and should support it. The problem we run into here is that modern "science" has jumped the proverbial gun on evolution. Evolution has, without being proven as true, become intertwined into what many consider science. This violates logic, as stated earlier. Evolution cannot be assumed until it is proven. (Some defend the scientific necessity of having a model to use, but in the capacity of a debate, this is still a theory and therefore vulnerable to challenge by scientific findings). Many perceive evolution to be scientifically stable, or even proven, based on a form of science that assumes evolution. (Again with the circular reasoning). However, science is not about what we assume, but about what we know. We cannot assume evolution and use that to "prove" or even support evolution. This holds true with creationism.
Essentially, true science cannot prove a theory that answers this question of origin. Science demands experimentation, documentation, and repetition of identical results, neither of which can occur in the "origin of the universe" question. To prove creation, one would have to create another universe separate from this one. To prove evolution, one would have to leave this universe and wait for one to spontaneously become. This particular slice of science cannot be proven because the original circumstances will never again exist.
If it cannot be proven, why debate? The universe as we know it is here. It became one way and only one way. This means either creationism or evolution is false. Maybe both are false. Maybe we will never know. Maybe we will know. To discount a theory because it seems ridiculous "SINCE your theory is true" is folly. The correct theory, be it known or unknown, is completely true and completely reasonable. The truth exists, and does not conflict with itself.
We are not objective enough in this quest. There is too much "research" and "debating" done with the assumption that one unproven way can be held as correct. We need to start asking, "What do I know?" instead of, "What have I been told by people who say they know?" I am not writing this to argue for or against creation or evolution. Rather, I am defending sound reasoning. Everyone has the right to believe what they do, but once they start attacking other beliefs, they need to do it in a logical way, instead of entering the argument assuming they are correct. I am addressing both sides of the debate here.
I think it is interesting to realize how difficult it was for Galileo, Kepler, and Newton to finally convince the scientific community of Aristotle's misconceptions. They were not popular for questioning the mighty Aristotle, and politics battled evidence for quite some time. When blind devotion to a scientist stands in the way of scientific inquiry, something has been lost. Has the scientific community put Darwin before the evidence?
If the only defense you have of your theory is that educated people claim it, you need to reexamine. Education doesn't make you right about something you cannot prove. You might indeed be correct, but not merely because you have a degree. Having a degree does not give you credibility on an issue no human can fully comprehend. I urge you to stand back and look at what you believe and why. There is scientific evidence that doesn't logically lead to the conclusions that are so easily passed off as science. Before you participate in this great debate, make sure you are not using "proof" that assumes you are correct.