Evolution and Creationism: The Relative Strength of Supporting Evidence, Logic and Reason

by BlogSpotThinker
September 4, 2011
(Revised September 30, 2011)

Overview
Some appear to consider creationism to be less of a plausible theory than evolution and that creationism has less or no supporting evidence.

From the perspective of the scientific skeptic, the relevant scientific inquiry principles appear to be that (a) evidence of accurate explanations sometimes appears to be reasonably considered to be scientifically verifiable and that (b) evidence of non-factual explanations is believed to not exist, and therefore, to not be scientifically verifiable. The applicable scientific inquiry conjecture appears reasonably considered to be that, of any two competing theories, the one with more scientifically-verifiable evidence is probably the more factual. Apparently then, the experimenter would compare the scientifically-verifiable evidence of evolution and company and the existence of God and the results would appear to indicate more evidence for evolution. The scientific inquirer might interpret the result of this experiment to suggest that evolution is more factual than the theory of the existence of God and of creation.

Disparity of Evidentiary Contexts
A problem appears to be that the Bible appears not to claim to offer currently scientifically-verifiable evidence of the existence of God. The Bible appears to suggest that the nature of God extends beyond that which is humanly verifiable. Further, the Bible appears to suggest that belief in, relationship with and interaction with God is, at least currently, intended to be based upon faith, perhaps, supported by whatever humanly-observable evidence that exists. This would appear to skew the results of the aforementioned test misrepresentingly.

Apparent potential opportunity appears to exist for evidence requestors to perceive potential for this presented perspective to constitute an fraudulent evasive maneuver to avoid fulfilling evidentiary requirements due to lack of merit of the proposed claim. However, this claim regarding appropriate lack of typical evidence appears to have some logical and reasonable basis.

An apparently reasonable illustration appears to be that, if Person A suggests to Person B that Person A’s dolphin is faster than Person B’s dog and Person B suggests that Person A bring the dolphin to a big field so that the dolphin and the dog can race, Person A would appear to be considered to appropriately suggest that dolphins don’t do well in fields and that the dolphin environment is water. If Person A suggests to Person B that Person B bring the dog to the local lake so that the animals can race since Person A has heard that dogs can swim in water, Person B appears to be reasonably considered to appropriately suggest that dogs don’t swim as fast as dogs can run. An apparently reasonable perspective appears to be that a feasible way of running an experiment would be to attempt to allow the animals to show their potential in their respective natural environments and to compare the results.

Similarity of Evidentiary Contexts
In my understanding, evolutionary theory consists of conclusions drawn using scientific logic and reason to “draw lines between the dots” of physical observations such as bones, energy readings, formulas, etc.

Also in my understanding, the same appears to have been done with regard to God as Creator of human existence. As I understand it, similarly scientific logic and reason is used to draw a different picture using the same and perhaps certain other (apparently) scientific observation “dots” that seem not included in the analysis that concludes that there is no God.

Science’s apparently reported tradition of thorough testing and repeatable results appears worthy of respect. However, the possibility of repeating the same tests and achieving the same results that yield less than the appropriate representation of reality appears to leave less room for discounting the existence of God. Added to this appears to be the tendency to, nearly unconsciously, ignore a valid possibility when there is a tendency toward another one.

Belief in God and creationism appear to be characterized by some as mere assumption of God as the answer to all unexplained observation. Upon further review, however, science appears to utilize the same approach regarding evolution and other applications. Evolutionary theory appears to suggest that certain unexplained similarities between apes and humankind were theorized to indicate that humankind came from apes. The term “interpolation” comes to mind.

Science appears as incapable of testing for ape-to-man evolution as some seem to suggest it is incapable of testing for God’s existence unless scientific inquiry can observe a singular bloodline of apes undergoing a series of transformations resulting in a human. Using faster-scale, observable transformation in other entities to validate a similar ape-to-man transformation appears to represent no less a leap of scientific faith as believing in the existence of God whose humanly-perceived attributes and capabilities appear to exist in other apparently, scientifically-recognized entities.

Human Development Via Creation and Via Descendance from Apes
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that the apparently Biblically-suggested creation of humanity by God appears somewhat more plausible than the apparent suggestion that humanity descended from apes.

One apparently reasonable reason for this perspective appears to be that the apparently Biblical suggestion that God created humanity includes the apparent Biblical suggestion of the relationship between God and humanity and of the damage done to that relationship. This apparently suggested damage appears to provide the most comprehensive and apparently plausible explanation I have encountered for the apparently reported adverse history and condition of the human experience.

A second apparently reasonable reason for the apparent personal perception and suggestion that the apparently Biblically-suggested creation of humanity by God appears somewhat more plausible than the apparent suggestion that humanity descended from apes is that multiple apparently plausible alternative explanations appear to exist for apparently suggested similarity among living entities, including similarities in bone structure and DNA.

One apparently plausible alternative for said similarity appears to be breeding between less similar entities. Sexual relations between humanity and animals appears to be reported to exist to some extent today. Such sexual relations in ancient history that might have produced offspring with the traits of both sexual partners appears to be reasonably considered to be less than implausible.

A second apparently plausible alternative for said similarity appears to recognize the possibility that God, in the apparently Biblically-suggested account of creation, might have used certain design patterns to create similar, yet distinct entities. The Bible appears to suggest that animals were created prior to humanity. The suggestion that God might have selected the most useful body design yet implemented, and subsequently implemented an enhanced version in the creation of humanity.