Difference between revisions of "Creationism vs. science"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Reference: ...in public education)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
* [[Disagreement over the origins of humankind]] is probably where the corresponding [[evolution as a theory of the ascent of humanity|evolutionary explanation]] is the most controversial, as it contradicts the Biblical creation story on both the above issue (the origins of life) and the creation of humankind.
 
* [[Disagreement over the origins of humankind]] is probably where the corresponding [[evolution as a theory of the ascent of humanity|evolutionary explanation]] is the most controversial, as it contradicts the Biblical creation story on both the above issue (the origins of life) and the creation of humankind.
 
* There is also much [[criticism of evolution]] in general.
 
* There is also much [[criticism of evolution]] in general.
 +
===Notes===
 +
Apparently "disagreement over the common ancestry of all life" is an issue as well; to be researched.
  
 
==Related Pages==
 
==Related Pages==

Revision as of 23:01, 14 December 2006

Overview

This page compares the scientific theory of evolution against the various informal theories which hold that the Earth and all life thereon was created as an explicit act ("direct creation"), typically by a supernatural entity who is most commonly stated to be the Christian God.

Most discussions of evolution vs. direct creation essentially amount to criticisms of evolution, with direct creation (interventionist) theories offered as being much more sensible and reasonable by comparison.

Disputes involving evolution

Notes

Apparently "disagreement over the common ancestry of all life" is an issue as well; to be researched.

Related Pages

Links

Reference

Debate & Editorials

News

Quotes

  • From StarTribune.com interview with Lee Strobel: "Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process. But even scientists say the universe had to begin somewhere. Then you look at genetics, cosmology, physics and other fields. From there we can extrapolate that there had to be an immaterial, powerful, intelligent cause to the universe coming into being. The evidence defies a coincidental explanation. And random, undirected evolution precludes a creator calling the shots, so there's an intellectual disconnect for me. Also, Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator."