What is all the hullabuloo over today when it comes to discussing where we came from, as well as where every living thing around us came from? Why is it that there are those that don’t want the theory of Creation taught side by side with the theory of Evolution?

To start with, what exactly is the difference in the two? The first thing that will be used against Creation is that it is religious material, and we can’t forget the "rule" of "seperation of church and state." Well, for starters, this "rule" was contrived by the Courts, so it isn’t law, and secondly, Creation science is only religious if you make it religious in the classroom.

Creation science taught in the classroom is no different than the theory of evolution. Creation science, with the religious aspect taken out, is nothing more than one group of people’s reasoning of how we and all that is around us came to be. How is that any different than what the theory of evolution is? Is that not also a group of people’s reasoning of how we and all that is around us came to be? So what’s the beef?

Well, personally, I think the beef is with the whole concept that anything but evolution would even be considered as an alternative concept as how man came to be. That would take the limelight away from something that science wants to push as "fact" when there is no evidence to support it as such. Many people who are forced to study this subject never give it a second thought. They are simply yes-men to get through a course, receive a credit and go on with life. But some, such as myself, aren’t so willing to just let things slide by without asking some questions.

Simply because I want to know the fundamental answers to questions that have yet went unanswered, to some who are more educated than I, make me appear or seem intolerable.

But taking into consideration both the theory of evolution and the matter of the theory of creation, religion can have more to it's meaning than an adherence to God and Biblical teaching. It is also described as:

This could be easily applied to both theories of mankind’s coming into existence to where he is today. Therefore, the following statement could be told as true fact, if one cares to read and understand the English Language. The theory of evolution is taught and held in such high regard in the scientific community and with some science teachers in our school systems, according to the definition applied above, it can be considered religious science.

Would we be able to classify the theory of creation as a HYPOTHESIS? Again, Merriam-Westers’s Collegiate Dictionary states that when using the word hypothesis, which is a synonym of "theory", it implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. A tentative explanation would mean an explanation based solely or mainly on tenets, in this case those would be religious tenets. Merriam-Webster describes tenet as "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true, especially : one held common by members of an organization, movement, or profession", such as the members of the religious organizations, movements, and professions.

Now, could you apply the same paragraph above to the theory of evolution? Try it, but where it has the words religious, replace them with scientific.

At best the theory of evolution is based on scientific conjecture. But one thing is sure with both the theory of evolution and creation science, since neither have been "scientifically proven" and neither are beyond reproof, both have one major thing in common. One has to put FAITH in either in order to BELIEVE either.

In order for anyone to believe either the theory of evolution or the theory of creation, one must put a certain degree of faith in either, because neither are provable in the scientific field. Merriam-Webster’s defines belief and gives three different definitions:

In the first stages of the theory of evolution, when it first began it's introduciton into the scientific field with Darwin's studies presented at it's early stages, definition three would more fit the situation. Although, evolutionary changes were still a mystery, and all of Darwin's notes were based on speculation, therefore, a great deal of definition number two must also be heavily leaned on to support all of Darwin's work in the scientific community.

And even still, in science today, it seems that definition number two is even more so relied upon to support the theory of evolution, because some of the original works have been proven wrong, and also because some new findings have been added to the puzzle.

But one thing that baffles me about science is that there is a never ending "BELIEF" that the theory of evolution is accepted as "FACT", by a great many scientists of today. Even though it is still supported by tenets (a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession), such as the scientific community. And in order to believe on something that is unfounded in fact and not proven yet in the scientific field, you must have a certain degree of faith in what are beleiving in. Faith is defined as a synonym of belief (almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof). Another synonym of belief listed along with faith is credence (suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent). The word credence means "mental acceptance as true or real". (synonym see BELIEF)

Many cry out for immediate proof when the two theories are presented side by side; proof on the side of Creationism that is. And even when presented with proof, they still are not satisfied. And am I surprised? No. Because these people will never be satisfied, they do not want proof, they want acceptance of thier theory as fact. And no questions asked about the gaps that aren’t filled in.

Evolution can still be classified as theory, and to my knowledge science still sees it that way and calls it that because no one can produce hard evidence to support or raise the theory to the level of scientific law. Science hasn’t even established enough evidence to raise the theory of evolution to the level of PROBABILITY.