Do you believe more in creation or evolution?
'Both' is the best one word answer.
I'll extend my response when I find the time.
EXTENDED RESPONSE...
Do you believe more in creation or evolution?
This question is often used [not necessarily by you since I'm not familiar with you] to determine if someone is religious or an atheist.
Does a person belong to Team A or Team B?
I rarely discuss my religious beliefs and purposefully attempt to avoid doing so in this post.
I will however answer the question the best I can even though I realize that whatever my answer is I will be placed into one of the two designated slots.
Either I'm ignorant or I'm enlightened depending on whether I am perceived to be on the same team as the specific individual making the determination.
I consider Darwinism a theology because although those who ascribe to it would reject my observation, it seems that as with religions in general, a measure of faith is required to extend Darwin's theory to the beginning of time.
...If there is a beginning of time.
Faith and 'science'?
Every discovery seems to creates new questions.
Human knowledge seems to be ever-expanding and yet there is unquestionable uniformity.
If there is intelligent design then what preceded it?
If evolution can explain all things then what initiated it?
There is little difference between the two questions.
Neither can be answered, so in the absence of evidence faith is required for both.
Merely being able to contemplate these questions is in itself evidence in my opinion.
If you reject the idea of intelligent design then you are necessarily restrained into accepting nearly linear evolution.
If there are any extraordinary leaps, however that is defined, then it seems that it would deviate from a purely genetic-based natural selection theory.
As an extreme example...Two blue flowers producing a red flower would be acceptable, but two blue flowers producing a puppy would likely make people question the theory.
I think genetic replication and mutation is indisputable and that natural selection plays a role in the origin of new variations of life on earth.
I suppose that means that I believe in Darwinian theology.
However, contrary to those who seem to believe that ions ago two carbon atoms got together on a whim and decided to make something out of themselves, I think it is more likely that a windstorm blowing through a junk yard could assemble a car.
In addition, I see too many examples of natural phenomena, biological complexity and innate behaviors that are non-linear and genetically unrelated to the point of being non-congruent with Darwinist theology.
Keeping with the junk yard analogy...
At least in a junkyard, the parts are already there ready to be assembled instead of needing to be created from dust and the other elements.
Parts designed and built by the intellect, creativity and conceptual retention capabilities of humans that can hardly be completely explained simply by referring to electrical impulses within a complex organ like the brain.
The nature of unrelated raw materials and the ability to extract and manipulate their form allowed for the parts to be fabricated.
Natural phenomena such as light, electricity, magnetism, gravity, inertia, the Venturi effect, friction, compression, expansion & contraction, hydraulics and pneumatics, etc. are required for the machine to be fabricated and to work, yet how were the rules that govern these phenomena determined in such a way that they are so compatible and exploitable?
Science can explain how a wirlwind is created and can identify the factors required, but science is yet to explain the derivation of the specific factors and the rules that govern them.
I know, the question is about evolution verse creationism.
There are so many examples of what appear to be non-linear and genetically unrelated behaviors and anatomical examples that to me, it seems unreasonable that a member of one of the two teams cannot possibly understand why those in the other do not agree.
A good example is the Monarch butterfly.
Its common metamorphosis like many insects from a caterpillar is example enough.
But how is it possible that every fourth generation over the period of a year could have its life extended so it could migrate thousands of miles by the millions to a specific location in Mexico where the previous three generations, that lived a mere month had never been?
How is it possible for a brood of cicadas to evolve in unison to spend a great number of years as nymphs underground before emerging, mating and dying?
There are other more common biological examples.
Evolving reproduction systems require that males and females of a species involve in complimentary ways to survive.
The same is true for symbiotic relationships.
Why don't some generally favorable attributes for survival proliferate across a vast number of species, such as self-pollinating plants or organisms like the flat worm that require no sex partner?
Why are some plants and animals nearly the same worldwide?
Why do some plants and animals seem immune to evolutionary change over vast stretches of time?
Many advocates of darwinism attack religion in an attempt to prove evolution.
Why is this necessary?
What is the point of attacking personal belief systems in order to prove that some view is conclusive understood scientifically?
