Now, I normally hate arguing. Normally, it's because I have no idea what I'm talking about, and I know how much it bothers me when people form opinions based on nonsense. As a general rule, I avoid controversial topics altogether and content myself with reading mildly provocative blog entries on the internet.
But with 5+ books on evolutionary biology under my belt, I couldn't help but give my 2 cents.
I won't go into the details of the debate here, mainly because I don't want this becoming some sort of free-for-all debate fist fight (granted, I probably don't even have enough readers for a proper debate, but that is beside the point).
All I'll say is that I'm not a creationist. My run with my biology course at school as well as my Dawkins and Wilson kick has convinced me macroevolution is the way to go.
As I said, I normally like to steer clear of all things controversial. But this is one of the few topics that I consider important, and one of the very few topics of which I can actually make a cogent argument. So if anyone wants to discuss, feel free to do so.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would say that creationism is not always incompatible with evolution. Creationism, at its very core, is a belief that there is creator behind the world. How this creator created the world is up to question. Young earth creationism (the creator created everything as it is now) is incompatible with macroevolution. The aptly named Evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution) is fully compatible with macroevolution.
ReplyDeleteBecause evolution does not concern itself with origins, creationism must also be contrasted with abiogenesis. Theistic evolution accepts evolution, but does not accept abiogenesis. Young earth creationism accepts neither.
Intelligent design, like evolution, also lacks an explanation or origins.