Give me more time to think and I will come up with an answer. But…
#1. It must match my worldview
#2. It will prove me right after all
#3. I will not have to consider your argument because I am smarter than you are. { I have a science degree }
There is something interesting that happens over and over again and that is the fact that any worldview is a faith based view. First of all let’s lay down a foundation for a view point. At the outset of this article we posed an answer to a question yet there were stipulations. This is typical of anyone who climes to be somewhat intelligent or educated. They do not want to believe that they missed the mark by very far. If one is forced to believe they missed the mark by a great margin that would be a crisis and very detrimental to any scientist. As humans we continually try to identify with the world around us and in every situation we find ourselves. Rethinking conclusions is something unpleasant for anyone but when someone stakes their whole career on being right such the pain is obvious.
What is wrong with being rational? Rational thinking indeed has its benefits but even such thinking can prove to be a real challenge when introduced with real scientific evidence. It can be a real mind boggle when we try to entertain thoughts of the universes beginning, especially when all evidence seems to support that claim. So can we conclude that rational thinking is wrong? Of course not especially when being rational endorses such qualities like patience. Rational thinking is scientific thinking and just like science it does have its limits. Scientific things do exist that do not have a rational answer.
“There is no right or wrong answer” is such an ambiguous statement and any passionate person on either side of the arguments will not be satisfied with just lame claims. This sets the stage for losers and winners in the “creation verse evolution” arena. Who has the most satisfying answers to the evidence presented? Gloves are off let the arguments begin and may the best man win.
As with any debate, there must be a structure laid out that brings some kind of order to the process. That being stated the structure of our material will be as follows. First the evidence will be presented and then we will have the secular evolutionist point of view and then a creationist point of view. The interpretations will be left up to you the reader and me the author. We will start with best evidence for evolution and then best evidence for creation and go back and forth in our exhibits.
Evidence:
Exhibit #1 – Tree of life. Different creatures closely resemble other creatures and as you continue to compare their similarities they generally grow more distant but can be connected by some sort of mechanisms. Example horses, zebras, donkeys resemble each other. Tigers, lions, cats in another group. Yet, Dogs and jellyfish have fewer things in common so they would be placed further apart on this tree of life.
Evolutionary explanation: Common Decent – The scientific theory that all living organisms descended from one common ancestor. Their claim is proof in the fossil record. They point to the evolution of horses, whales and others.
Problem:
#1 their conclusion is that everything produced offspring in the fossil record.
#2 their conclusion is that since one resembles another that it must of come from the one that is similar to it. This is a fallacy because if the entire world was destroyed today it would be inappropriate to conclude that the bigger horses descended from the smaller horses in a fossil record etc.
Creation explanation: The tree of life exists nowhere except in the imaginations of the evolution enthusiast. The differences are more important than the similarities.