I will begin by asserting that my comments should not be construed as an argument in support of, or against either Creation or Evolution. I am simply an observer relative to this debate. Creationists believe in microevolution but reject macroevolution (evolution beyond the species level). One argument they put forth is that if macroevolution is a fact our museums should be overrun with transitionary forms. Not a bad argument in my opinion. The transitionary forms that evolutionists claim to have identified are extremely few and not without challenge from not only outside of, but also within the evolutionary community; it may evidence but not irrefutable fact; certainly not in keeping with strict scientific protocol. Microevolution can be observed, macroevolution cannot and this is, at least in part, an offense for the creationists. Absolute certainty relative to creation or macroevolution is elusive at best and requires belief based upon reasonable postulations in both arenas. It is not intention to be redundant but, relative to both camps, “real evidence” “proves” nothing.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 15:02:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015