I just now stumbled upon this article. Give it a read! I found it very interesting that (1), someone is actually standing up for creationism and (2), that Simon Underdown believes Creation "is not something that fits within the mainstream of science," and evolution does. Evolution itself is a religion just as Biblical Creationism. They are both BELIEFS, so how is evolution more scientific than creationism?
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Origins has nothing to do at all with Science; it's actually within the realm of history. Both evolution and Creationism take the same scientific evidence and arrive at different conclusions based on two (very, very) different worldviews... Saying that Creationism isn't scientific simply means that Evolutionism shouldn't be called scientific since there is just as much, if not more, faith involved in the latter.
ReplyDeleteThink about it.... something (or Someone) had to start it all, there's no denying that. Nothing doesn't come from nothing. That's pure science. So what is saying that something came from nothing, and over billions of years figured out (by random chance, of course) how to come alive, reproduce, and survive by randomly evolving itself into all sorts of different things, etc., etc.?
A certain chapter one of the book of Genesis might shed some light on the issue (along with a peak into Romans 1 to see how so many "scientists" today are simply fulfilling biblical prophecy...)!
Precisely, Chad. One cannot say that Creation is a religion and evolution is not, because they are both beliefs. No one was there to witness either. Now, we happen to have quite a bit more evidence for creation than evolution because evolution has never had a viable peice of evidence, but they are still both "religions".
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, Chad!