Kids, School, and liberal Science?

[Metalhead]

I'm going with the used parts theory

[Daniel]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/28/your-take-5-reactions-to-bill-nyes-creationism-critique/?hpt=hp_c2

Commenters were fired up about Bill Nye, creationism and evolution.

August 28th, 2012

10:37 AM ET

Share

Comments (1,960 comments)Permalink

Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) – Bill Nye does not think that children should be taught to deny evolution, and a YouTube video of him explaining why has gone viral. The CNN Belief Blog's report on the video has generated around 10,000 comments and thousands of Facebook shares since Monday.

There were some broad themes in the comments, reflecting a debate that is largely unique to the United States.

While Christianity is booming in Africa, Asia and Latin America, creationism is not, Penn State University religious studies professor Philip Jenkins writes in his book "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South."

Here are five schools of reaction that have emerged in comments:

1. Those using this controversy to bash religion

Atheists love the Internet, as we've chronicled on the Belief Blog. While they may be a small portion of the population, they seem to make up about half our commenters. It was their chance to join with Nye and cheer him on:

midwest rail:

"If you're watching 'The Flintstones' as if it were a documentary, you're doing it wrong."

2. Those who say wait a minute, being a creationist isn’t necessarily being anti-evolution

Lots of folks from the theistic evolution camp came out to say that believing God was involved doesn't automatically make you anti-evolution.

SteveHeft:

"As someone who is a born again Christian, (senior) mechanical engineer in the technology industry, and a firsthand witness of the risen Christ, I just want to say that Bill Nye is on the right track. It is understandable that both sides seem to be entrenched in their own position, but did anyone ever think that both are correct, and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle?"

candyapple:

"I believe in God, I believe in creationism and evolution. I think that we all came from one man and one woman (God created), and I think that the human race has evolved from this paring. I am a Christian and I love science, learning about our world, and I appreciate the contribution that science has made. But my soul/spirit also need God's love."

Veronica13:

"FYI, 'Science Guy': One can believe in evolution and creation at the same time. They are not incongruent.

3. Those who say that science is stupid and that young Earth creationism rules

Young Earth creationists, who believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old, appeared to be out in force in the comments.

splovengates:

"As a creationist, why would I want to debate an evolutionist? It (is) all a matter of FAITH. You either believe, and have faith in, what Christians call 'THE WORD OF GOD' or not. No debate. TRUTH IS TRUTH WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

The people who perished in the Great Flood, in the Bible, didn't believe it was going to rain until it was too late. Better start knocking on the door of the ark before it closes."

L:

"Creationism isn't even taught in public schools. Evolution is. So if you want your children to have Christian beliefs, then you really need to home-school them or find a good Christian school. Unfortunately not the other way around!

Interesting:

"It seems to me that evolution requires just as much faith as creationism. You're just putting your faith in our human powers of observation and believe that what we have thought up based on those observations is correct. We've got a few hundred years at best, of scientific observation, that has now told us that one giant, explosive, random event started a chain reaction that, over billions of years resulted in humans, and flowers, and viruses, and dinosaurs. The belief that the unfathomable intricacies of every living thing on our Earth formed themselves completely at random seems just as fantastical to me as believing in a creator."

4. Those who say Nye should stick to his area of expertise

This tweet was the most polite remark we could find on this subject. Other comments and tweets, not so much.

Greg:

"Thanks Bill ... but leave the teaching of my children to me. ..."

Belief Blog editors

• ✔
  
  

@

CNNbelief

27 Aug 12

Bill Nye slams creationism says its not appropriate for children and will be gone as a theory in a "couple centuries"

on.cnn.com/PimQul

Peter Allan @

watsup1101

@

CNNbelief

Bill Nye is looking for publicity by beating a dead horse.

27 Aug 12

• Reply
  
  
• Retweet
  
  
• Favorite
  
  

5. Those who say CNN is cooking up controversy where none exists

Lots of people suggested we were generating a story instead of covering one.

Tony Montana:

"Another example of CNN's mostly one-sided reporting. No wonder Fox is (No.) 1. Hopefully CNN will put on both sides in the future if for no other reason than their ratings. Parts of the Bible are dated and contains metaphors. ***SCIENCE IS SIMPLY AN OBSERVATION OF GOD'S CREATION.*** Humans did not make the solar system, billions of stars in billions of galaxies. 'ET' didn't make the universe either. Even if 'ET' did what made 'ET.' "

For the record, plenty of other news outlets covered this story, pointing out that Nye's video was posted on YouTube just before the Republican National Convention opened. Turns out that Nye taped the segment awhile back and had no say in when it would be released.

Thanks for chiming in. The comments are open here, and you can always hit us up on Twitter @CNNBelief.

Eric Marrapodi - CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting correlation between

atheists and democrats. Not as many

of either group, but they tend to

both be disproportionately louder

on the Internet than other groups.

Wonder why?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daniel]

They accept new thoughts and ideas more readily. While conservatives stick to there newspapers, radios, and televisions.

[Daniel]

J/K btw.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Every tribe has its creation myths. "The lightning spirit struck a mudhole" is about as good as any.

[BigK]

I agree that both sides require nearly equal amounts of faith in order to believe them in totality.

[Smith]

Bottom line is the teacher is teaching opinion science/politics outside of the approved curriculum of which they are not allowed. Teachers exist to support me in the education of my children and in this she is failing. I do not exist to support teachers.

Just because most of the world holds a certain view doesn't not necessarily make it right. Truth is truth and stands on its own merit. It is only lies and ignorance that needs consensus and mass indoctrination to survive. That goes for erroneous science as well as erroneous religion. Just because there is ignorance in both does not negate their truth values and compatibility

Thank God that Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, De Vinci, Edison, Tesla, NASA, SKUNK Works, and Christopher Columbus didn't bow to the whims of the accepted limitations of "modern science". We'd still be trying to figure out how to keep the sun from running into the side of the earth.

[mikegideon]

Bottom line is the teacher is teaching opinion science/politics outside of the approved curriculum of which they are not allowed. Teachers exist to support me in the education of my children and in this she is failing. I do not exist to support teachers.

Just because most of the world holds a certain view doesn't not necessarily make it right. Truth is truth and stands on its own merit. It is only lies and ignorance that needs consensus and mass indoctrination to survive. That goes for erroneous science as well as erroneous religion. Just because there is ignorance in both does not negate their truth values and compatibility

Thank God that Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, De Vinci, Edison, Tesla, NASA, SKUNK Works, and Christopher Columbus didn't bow to the whims of the accepted limitations of "modern science". We'd still be trying to figure out how to keep the sun from running into the side of the earth.

Public schools. If you ride the bus every day, sooner or later you're gonna sit in some unidentified goo.

[Smith]

Public schools. If you ride the bus every day, sooner or later you're gonna sit in some unidentified goo.

Haha! That's why we take them and pick them up.

[piercedan]

On the original topic: I've spent time researching the lines of evidence for man made global warming. What I found was a disorganized mess that made it impossible to form a strong opinion in either direction. Ultimately, I was left with the question, is it possible? From what I have read, yes, it is possible that man could impact the climate enough to accelerate a change in climate. Is it happening now? Possibly to some degree, as we are and have been causing the release of a lot of stuff into the environment and atmosphere that otherwise wouldn't normally be there.

The issue for me really is that I can't be sure that the information for or against it is being given without an agenda, and therefore given honestly. It really made me sick to see Al and the like trumpet global warming as some impending doom while trying to set up the system to profit themselves greatly. It just seemed like a big cash grab. I mean, selling carbon offsets? Really? What an A-hole.

I'm all for protecting the environment. I think we should proceed with caution. We should find ways to minimize our impact on the earth. It must be a priority to keep the house clean, so to speak. It just makes good common sense to be sure we know what we are doing. But let's leave the knee jerk political BS aside and do some real objective science to find the answers. We the people want to know if there is anything to this issue. Stop making it so dang hard to find out, you dogmatic political tools! Science should be Apolitical.

[sigmtnman]

FWIW. My degree is in Geology. While I am not proud of it, there was a time in my life where I was an agnostic mostly due to the false dichotomy presented by the dogma of modern science. After learning enough varied topics it made it made it easier to understand that Genesis fits very well with the how some scientific theories explain the creation of the universe and life. It really only takes understanding time dilation, dimensions and frame of reference for religion and science to coexist.

To seriously oversimplify the concept, one really need look no further than computer programming and holograms or particularly the popular sim video game to understand that it is possible for a person to create something from nothing and then splendor in watching it grow.

Professors and graduate students feverishly preach popular theories, while selectively using research data to support further theories based on them. At the same these folks ostracize anyone who questions or challenges these popularly accepted theories, stifling true science and understanding. They can not risk their reputations and the golden goose of grants.

As far as the fossil record, having studied paleontology, I'd suggest folks study up on the cambrian explosion.

Edited August 29, 2012 by sigmtnman

[atlas3025]

Wow...a lot to catch up on.

A few thoughts. You must make her understand that adults make mistakes. The words of teachers and preachers should not be taken as Gospel...see what I did there?

I was taught by a college professor that when you die, you should be taxed at 100% because it isn't fair that some should have inheritance while others don't. I pointed out that such a plan would kill motivation for many who want to leave a legacy for their children, and that it is human nature to want to leave something behind, whether a legacy of passed on knowledge or wealth. He responded that it was nonsense that people wanted to leave legacies, and that he didn't have any desire to. I asked him why he became a teacher then. The bell rang and I never got an answer. The reason there are so many liberals is because they don't question their school teachers, then they grow up to a media which manipulates facts to support flawed positions. The same would probably happen if the Right were in control of schools and the media, but they aren't.

There is little to no proof of Darwin's theory of spontaneous evolution. There is plenty of proof for natural selection, which he fostered as well. But when they say "the missing link" they aren't talking about a half monkey-half man...they are talking about a half anything-half something else. Darwin said that evolution would be comprised of random mutations most of which would fail, while only a few succeed. We only find fossils of those that succeeded for very long periods of time. The fossil record should be full of failures...of one offs that had no cousins before or after...but we don't seem to find them. We don't find monkey's with gills, or lizards with 4 eyes. Also, his theory can't explain an eyeball. For the eyeball to exist, it would have had to function to give an advantage to its host, and be passed on and retained. That means that on one critter, there was no eyeball...then on its offspring BAM...an eyeball that works well enough to give advantage. The problem is the complexity of the eyeball...it has a lot of parts, even a poorly working one...if they don't all develope at the same time, you don't get an advantage. To explain the eye ball problem, the supporters say "well, just assume there was a light sensitive patch of skin, and it developed from there". You can't just assume the beginning. That is no different than religion.

Same thing with the big bang theory. A giant ball comprised of all the matter in the universe exploded....ok...where did the giant ball of all the matter come from? They say, assume it was there from the beginning. Doh!

I love science, and am a big believer and supporter of it. It MAY all turn out to be correct. But even if it is...how does it kill God? It may kill religion as we understand it...but I believe in a God that can do pretty much anything...even build a universe that works through proven scientific principles...possibly through evolution.

[atlas3025]

As far as the fossil record, having studied paleontology, I'd suggest folks study up on the cambrian explosion.

IIRC, isn't the cambrian a counter argument to those that say the fossil record is too spotty to be used as evidence AGAINST evolution?

Hoping I don't have to go spend a day reading about it again.

EDIT: Pre-Cambrian, with its examples of many soft-bodied specimens is what I am thinking of.

Edited August 29, 2012 by atlas3025

[piercedan]

Wow...a lot to catch up on.

A few thoughts. You must make her understand that adults make mistakes. The words of teachers and preachers should not be taken as Gospel...see what I did there?

I was taught by a college professor that when you die, you should be taxed at 100% because it isn't fair that some should have inheritance while others don't. I pointed out that such a plan would kill motivation for many who want to leave a legacy for their children, and that it is human nature to want to leave something behind, whether a legacy of passed on knowledge or wealth. He responded that it was nonsense that people wanted to leave legacies, and that he didn't have any desire to. I asked him why he became a teacher then. The bell rang and I never got an answer. The reason there are so many liberals is because they don't question their school teachers, then they grow up to a media which manipulates facts to support flawed positions. The same would probably happen if the Right were in control of schools and the media, but they aren't.

There is little to no proof of Darwin's theory of spontaneous evolution. There is plenty of proof for natural selection, which he fostered as well. But when they say "the missing link" they aren't talking about a half monkey-half man...they are talking about a half anything-half something else. Darwin said that evolution would be comprised of random mutations most of which would fail, while only a few succeed. We only find fossils of those that succeeded for very long periods of time. The fossil record should be full of failures...of one offs that had no cousins before or after...but we don't seem to find them. We don't find monkey's with gills, or lizards with 4 eyes. Also, his theory can't explain an eyeball. For the eyeball to exist, it would have had to function to give an advantage to its host, and be passed on and retained. That means that on one critter, there was no eyeball...then on its offspring BAM...an eyeball that works well enough to give advantage. The problem is the complexity of the eyeball...it has a lot of parts, even a poorly working one...if they don't all develope at the same time, you don't get an advantage. To explain the eye ball problem, the supporters say "well, just assume there was a light sensitive patch of skin, and it developed from there". You can't just assume the beginning. That is no different than religion.

Same thing with the big bang theory. A giant ball comprised of all the matter in the universe exploded....ok...where did the giant ball of all the matter come from? They say, assume it was there from the beginning. Doh!

I love science, and am a big believer and supporter of it. It MAY all turn out to be correct. But even if it is...how does it kill God? It may kill religion as we understand it...but I believe in a God that can do pretty much anything...even build a universe that works through proven scientific principles...possibly through evolution.

I was taught by a history teacher that pizza was really an invention of people in the US during the Great Depression. Yes, not everything teachers say is true. And sometimes what is thought to be true at one time is shown errant later. That's the way human knowledge works. We build upon our past understanding with the light of new discoveries.

The whole idea of spontaneous evolution is not supported, and indeed, not claimed by science. Evolution is a slow process guided by natural selection. You won't see "monkeys with gills" because there has never been one. What you see is a slow emergence of traits through long periods of time. The eyeball argument, on the surface, sounds valid, and actually is a good question. But with some research into the subject and some honest inquiry, one can discover that this argument has been thoroughly answered. It is a recasting of the irreducible complexity argument or the watchmaker argument.

If you really want me to explain how an eyeball can slowly develop over the course of 3.5 billion years of evolution on this planet, I can. But I would rather you spend the time to find counter arguments put forth by science supported by evidence. I have already. As a matter of fact, I've read numerous books both for and against evolution. I once was a "young earth creationist" and espoused my beliefs fervently. I've preached, given bible studies, evangelized, and proselytized. I have supported apologetic arguments and enthusiastically propagated them to others. And then I sat down and researched. It changed my world. It changed my mind.

What I found was that science has evidence. Not just philosophical arguments that point to a thing and say, "Whoa, that is so complex, God must have made it". That kind of reasoning holds no explanatory value. The question always remains. If it is so complex that only God could have made it, who made God then? For he must be a complex being and to have such complexity, whence did he?

As for transitional fossils, they are ALL transitional! There is not spontaneous emergence of species, it is all gradual. Just like you are different from your father, and he his, and so on. Each generation has small differences from the last. Viewed from a protracted period of time, differences become more evident. Once you stretch your view out to geological time frames, i.e. hundreds of thousands of years, you see that the creature from then bears marked variance from the creature now. The reason you don't see modern whitetail deer fossils in the strata from two million years ago is that the ancestor of the whitetail was alive then, and the modern iteration was still two million years in the making.

There, now the can of worms is open a little wider.

Edited August 29, 2012 by piercedan

[Daniel]

[Daniel]

[E4 No More]

I don't know how anybody can dispute the fossil records. Evolution is not my field of expertise, but explains to me what they have found. I wish somebody could tie it all together.

It's called the precambrian layer. Check it out. Fossils above, but none below. That no workie with evolution.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So if they teach creationism in 7th grade general science class at equal unbiased status alongside evolution-- I suppose the introduction would state that some people think the universe was created. Where does the course module go from there?

The module ought to "prove" creationism. It would be dumb to spend a week supposedly teaching creationism, if all you do is rant that evolution ain't right. In order to be factual scientific, you need replicable evidence how the universe was created, who created the universe and why did the creator(s) bother? Hearsay and superstition are not welcome in science classes. They are welcome in certain subject matter but ought to be avoided in science classes.

Perhaps a ground rule that the evolution week can't even mention creationism or say anything critical of creationism. Similarly the creationism week can't even mention evolution or say anything critical of evolution. What scientific evidence will the creationism week teach in class? What evidence-based theories will be presented to explain who created the universe, why the creator did such a silly thing, and how did he do it exactly? For that matter, will the week teach WHEN creation took place? Will the creationism module show scientific evidence that the creator did his work long ago and far away, 6000 years ago, or last week?

The "equal modules not allowed to criticize each other" would be the kindest way to equally present the topics. You could alternately present a week of "pro-evolution" evidence, followed by a week of "anti-evolution" evidence, followed by a week of "pro-creation" evidence followed by a week of "anti-creation" evidence. That kind of course arrangement would make the preachers wish they hadn't pushed to teach creationism in science class. It would be a bloodbath.

[Daniel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian

[Smith]

So if they teach creationism in 7th grade general science class at equal unbiased status alongside evolution-- I suppose the introduction would state that some people think the universe was created. Where does the course module go from there?

The module ought to "prove" creationism. It would be dumb to spend a week supposedly teaching creationism, if all you do is rant that evolution ain't right. In order to be factual scientific, you need replicable evidence how the universe was created, who created the universe and why did the creator(s) bother? Hearsay and superstition are not welcome in science classes. They are welcome in certain subject matter but ought to be avoided in science classes.

Perhaps a ground rule that the evolution week can't even mention creationism or say anything critical of creationism. Similarly the creationism week can't even mention evolution or say anything critical of evolution. What scientific evidence will the creationism week teach in class? What evidence-based theories will be presented to explain who created the universe, why the creator did such a silly thing, and how did he do it exactly? For that matter, will the week teach WHEN creation took place? Will the creationism module show scientific evidence that the creator did his work long ago and far away, 6000 years ago, or last week?

The "equal modules not allowed to criticize each other" would be the kindest way to equally present the topics. You could alternately present a week of "pro-evolution" evidence, followed by a week of "anti-evolution" evidence, followed by a week of "pro-creation" evidence followed by a week of "anti-creation" evidence. That kind of course arrangement would make the preachers wish they hadn't pushed to teach creationism in science class. It would be a bloodbath.

I find your confidence in your position interesting.

So yo think its a better idea to look at some evidence, ignore what we can't explain or contradicts that, and then make a broad assumptive guess that in violation of all KNOWN scientific properties of physics and biology that it all just happened by random chance?

So I get that some of you find it hard to believe in an eternal being who brought order out of chaos, but I just can't wrap my head around the idea that you think it is more plausible to believe in an eternal universe that happened in one random chance to violate it's own principles and create order out of chaos and then hold it together in order to develop life. Talk about faith!

At least my eternal being has a name and I can know him.

[piercedan]

It's called the precambrian layer. Check it out. Fossils above, but none below. That no workie with evolution.

There are fossils from the Precambrian era. How can you say things like this without spending a second or two investigating what you are saying?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I find your confidence in your position interesting.

So yo think its a better idea to look at some evidence, ignore what we can't explain or contradicts that, and then make a broad assumptive guess that in violation of all KNOWN scientific properties of physics and biology that it all just happened by random chance?

So I get that some of you find it hard to believe in an eternal being who brought order out of chaos, but I just can't wrap my head around the idea that you think it is more plausible to believe in an eternal universe that happened in one random chance to violate it's own principles and create order out of chaos and then hold it together in order to develop life. Talk about faith!

At least my eternal being has a name and I can know him.

Thanks Smith. I don't have a position. I think science is a useful tool for certain tasks but seems entirely inapplicable to some of the most interesting human questions. Using science to discover "why are we here" would be like using a hammer to wire up an electronic circuit. The hammer is a fabulous tool but not a very good wiring tool.

However, education in various subject matter is teaching the rules of the game. Accounting and calculus are both incredibly useful numerical games and fabulous inventions. You teach the rules of accounting in accounting class, not the rules of calculus. And vice-versa. Calculus doesn't disprove accounting and accounting doesn't disprove calculus, but they are different games to learn.

Science ain't theology. Science classes ought to teach the rules of the science game. Teach the rules of the theology game in theology class. Facts and theories are routinely falsified, modified or enhanced. Facts and theories must be taught in science but it is more important to teach "how to play the game" than what is "known to be true" at this moment in time. Ye olde, "Don't give the man a fish, rather teach him how to fish." Or alternately, "Don't give the man a fish, rather teach him how to apply for food stamps."

If you teach creationism in science class, it has to be evidence-based and follow the rules of the science game. If you teach creationism in philosophy or theology class, you get to follow different rules. But in science class you need to focus on evidence "proving" creationism, rather than spend all yer time "disproving" evolution. How did the creator create man and when did he do it? What evidence "proves" the date and method? Science can't really "prove" anything except in a provisional statistical sense, but it is a good shorthand concept.

I personally don't know how the universe came to be and don't expect to know. I'm not even cheering for one side or t'other. The conceptual problem with a creator, is the "who created the creator" infinite loop. Turtles all the way down. But it might well be turtles all the way down for all I know.

For all I know we are running in a computer simulation that was rebooted from backup a few milliseconds ago. In that case, did the computer simulation just randomly happen or was it created? If it was created, are the creators also virtual running in their own computer simulation or are they non-virtual? Once we trace the creator chain up to the original non-virtual universe where the computer was built and programmed, did those creators just randomly happen or were they created? If they were created, then did their creator just randomly happen or was he created? Or maybe the creator's creator is also virtual running in some higher level's computer simulation?

Just sayin, none of that is science. Creationism in science class needs to be evidence based. IMO the evolutionists have more evidence but I could be wrong. Show me the evidence of who created us, when, why, and how. Following rules of science.

Outside of science class, you can follow other rules.

[Mike.357]

If you are taking her to church and instilling a belief in a diety you are already well on your way to "explain to a 9 yr old that science isn't as absolute as she is told."

Just IMO.

I wish I could give you an "up" vote, you'd have several from me here lately.

[Smith]

Thanks Smith. I don't have a position. I think science is a useful tool for certain tasks but seems entirely inapplicable to some of the most interesting human questions. Using science to discover "why are we here" would be like using a hammer to wire up an electronic circuit. The hammer is a fabulous tool but not a very good wiring tool.

However, education in various subject matter is teaching the rules of the game. Accounting and calculus are both incredibly useful numerical games and fabulous inventions. You teach the rules of accounting in accounting class, not the rules of calculus. And vice-versa. Calculus doesn't disprove accounting and accounting doesn't disprove calculus, but they are different games to learn.

Science ain't theology. Science classes ought to teach the rules of the science game. Teach the rules of the theology game in theology class. Facts and theories are routinely falsified, modified or enhanced. Facts and theories must be taught in science but it is more important to teach "how to play the game" than what is "known to be true" at this moment in time. Ye olde, "Don't give the man a fish, rather teach him how to fish." Or alternately, "Don't give the man a fish, rather teach him how to apply for food stamps."

If you teach creationism in science class, it has to be evidence-based and follow the rules of the science game. If you teach creationism in philosophy or theology class, you get to follow different rules. But in science class you need to focus on evidence "proving" creationism, rather than spend all yer time "disproving" evolution. How did the creator create man and when did he do it? What evidence "proves" the date and method? Science can't really "prove" anything except in a provisional statistical sense, but it is a good shorthand concept.

I personally don't know how the universe came to be and don't expect to know. I'm not even cheering for one side or t'other. The conceptual problem with a creator, is the "who created the creator" infinite loop. Turtles all the way down. But it might well be turtles all the way down for all I know.

For all I know we are running in a computer simulation that was rebooted from backup a few milliseconds ago. In that case, did the computer simulation just randomly happen or was it created? If it was created, are the creators also virtual running in their own computer simulation or are they non-virtual? Once we trace the creator chain up to the original non-virtual universe where the computer was built and programmed, did those creators just randomly happen or were they created? If they were created, then did their creator just randomly happen or was he created? Or maybe the creator's creator is also virtual running in some higher level's computer simulation?

Just sayin, none of that is science. Creationism in science class needs to be evidence based. IMO the evolutionists have more evidence but I could be wrong. Show me the evidence of who created us, when, why, and how. Following rules of science.

Outside of science class, you can follow other rules.

Lester I agree with your premise, but you still only see one side. Evolution needs to prove itself and it cannot (macro) just like creationism. There is just as much evolution "fact" as there is for creationism. They may even coexist. To say one needs to prove itself to the other is errant in either direction.

If I have to prove an eternal God, you have to prove an eternal universe. I propose it is far simpler to understand an eternal creator who creates than an eternally neutral universe that suddenly and randomly creates something from nothing.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Smith