Potentially relevant video:

<a href='http://www.plime.com/redir.p?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs' class='plime' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'><b>flash video</b></a>

Let me just say that as a Christian, I am all for science. I worked at a bible camp for four years and there were some experiences that made me frustrated. For one, there were often guest speakers that would put forth their propaganda against evolution. I just found entirely inappropriate and disturbing. I just wanted to b***h-slap those people for confusing people by making a belief in evolution equated with the "secular world" the unsaved world. It was a sin, apparently to believe otherwise. I also had a guest speaker come in to my cabin who told my kids that killing wrong even if it was just simulated. She said that they were definitely sinning. My mouth dropped. I was like, these kids now think that they have murdered because they have played a little Grand Theft Auto, thank you very much. There are a lot things that have to be changed in the church, and ignorance about science should be one of them.

I'm all for science, I really am.

But I think to consider Evolution or Creationism as science is preposterous, because science needs to be a.) observed and b.) retested. Neither Evolution or Creationism can be observed or retested. Sure, you see adaptations that people claim is Evolution...but true Evolution deals with the "morphing" (per se) of one species to another over millions of years. You just can't observe that.

As a side note, I don't see how the fossil record proves or disproves either theory. All it proves is that these creatures existed, nothing else. You can make inferences from those fossils, but it can't be proven either way.

And that's what bothers me about both sides. They're both too dogmatic about their beliefs. Until one is proved, the other still has the possibility of being proven.

Which is why it is called the THEORY of Evolution. Many people failed to recognize that.

Taken DIRECTLY from this list:
Scientifically speaking, a theory is a well substantiated idea that explains aspects of the natural world.

An idea that explains how a concept might have come about. Not proven, not disproven - and guess what? The prevailing "State of the Art" in science and knowledge is far from perfect, and has been proven to be wrong and will continue to do so for many many years. It is the very NATURE of science - ask ANY real scientist. Only 500 years ago, we thought the world was flat. 110 years ago, powered flight was science fiction. 80 years ago, people died from what we consider today as trivial infections. 50 years ago the concept of the internet was far out gobbledygook. But we do not give up, and time marches on.

This article would lead you to believe it is absolute cold hard 100% fact. Which is why it is JUST as bad as those that call Evolution a sin. What is NOT EVER NEEDED EVER are extremist points of view that are inflexible and reject their counterparts out of hand. This article is a classic example of such a thing - you calling me a mind controlled zombie if I believe in Creationism is just as bad as me calling you sinful because you believe in Evolution.

Personally, I believe in both Evolution AND Creationism at the same time. Seems to me that a being that is powerful enough to literally form the fabric of the universe and time itself would not really have much of an issue with how to reconcile the two concepts. WHY do people insist that it is one or the other ONLY?!?!

And definitely, we will never ever be able to PROVE either one as fact until such a time as it no longer is relevant. I mean when God peeks His head out of a cloud and says "Hey guys, here I am and guess what? It's Judgment Day", I seriously doubt that many people will be trying to figure out this whole Evolution/Creationism thing anymore.

This of course is given that you believe in God in the first place I suppose. But please - what is the point of stating "I am DEFINITELY right and you are DEFINITELY wrong" No one will ever change their mind facing statements like that. All that does is piss people off.

Evolution is as true to any decent scientist as gravity is. The Theory of Evolution tries to explain the fact of evolution. Yes, I said fact. If you want to call gravity a fact, you're gonna have to call evolution a fact as well. Both have insane amounts of evidence and both have been observed countless times.

I really don't understand why people think evolution hasn't been observed and can't be tested. Ever heard of domesticated cats? Those all came from one species of feline that was bred for different purposes after being taken to different areas by humans. The same thing with dogs. All of them came from, most likely, one species of wolf. Darwin observed evolution on the Galapagos Islands and scientists continue to observe it there every day.

And, as for the fossil evidence, we don't even need it. There's enough molecular evidence for the theory of evolution to support it completely.

Absolutely right and very well said.

Evolution is not a personal thing, it doesn't proclaim "I am definitely right" if you accept all the huge amount of evidence that supports it.

I don't know where the notion that one species morphs into another came from. Unless one is talking about the rapid evolution that virus's effect to become antibiotic resistant in very little time and very easily observed.

I like my dinosaurs and my Jesus thank you!

At the same time .... thus .... jesusarous!! Raaurrghh!!

That link isn't working for me....

Actually, that is not a very good example. See, you can take a cat and breed it so it becomes bigger, smaller, browner, etc. But that is just variation within a species. You eventually hit a wall and can't go any further (cats can only be bred so small before they become sterile, unhealthy, etc). That's the same with breeding anything to it's extremes because you actually lose information. There is no information gained from making some crazy type of cat species (unless you breed a cat with horns, well then, I guess that would do it :) ).

Evolution requires a gain of information, not a loss, and not a simple duplication (like the polyploidy in those poor irradiated flies). Find an example that shows a gain of new genetic information and you'll be in the money.

Also, I'd say that the fossil record is where evolution is the strongest, and that molecular biology is it's weakest point actually.

Think about it: How do you evolve a system of information coding, and within that coding a method to read itself? It's kind of paradoxical.

This is something of a straw man argument. In my experience, most creationists don't deny observable small-scale evolution. They accept the notion of variation within species, but not as a theory for the origin of them. Not all creationists, but I would say a strong majority.

Saying "evolution is a proven fact" is the equivalent of saying "creation is a proven fact" but referring to the creation of Toyotas. Small 'e' evolution does not prove big 'E' Evolution. Big 'E' Evolution is not a fact and by its very nature cannot be proven.

Ambiguity of the terms "evolution" and "theory" always make debates on this issue a hassle.

Oh, wow! I haven't seen this many concurrent posts of intelligent, critically thought out responses.... anywhere!

I'm finally not the only one who says Creationism isn't a science and the extrapolations of the Theory of Evolution aren't firmly based.
Wow! People who aren't fundamentalist about this issue!
Plime is truly an oasis in the Internet.